Carrying Capacity and Commercial Services in the Southern Sierra ...

Carrying Capacity and Commercial Services in the Southern Sierra Nevada

Kenneth Wallen Gerard Kyle* Human Dimensions of Natural Resources (HDNR) Laboratory Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences Texas A&M University 2261 TAMU College Station TX 77843-2261 Phone: (979) 862-3794 Email: [email protected] James Absher Pacific Southwest Research Station Urban Ecosystems and Social Dynamics Program USDA Forest Service 2081 E. Sierra Ave. Fresno, CA 93710-4639 Phone: (559) 323-3213 Email: [email protected] Carena J. van Riper Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1206 South Fourth Street Champaign, IL 61820 Phone: (217) 244-9317 Email: [email protected]

* Corresponding authors

Research report from a joint effort between Texas A&M University and the Pacific Southwest Research Station entitled “Social Carrying Capacity Estimation” as part of USDA Forest Service Agreement 12-JV-11272131-072. December 22, 2014

Carrying capacity and commercial services

This page is intentionally blank

2


3

Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Commercial Service Conflicts in the Sierra Nevada ................................................................ 6 Commercial river guide operators........................................................................................................... 11 Understanding Impacts of Recreational Use in Wilderness ........................................................................ 13 Commercial Packstock Use .................................................................................................................... 14 Non-commercial, non-packstock use ...................................................................................................... 18 Economic Impact of Recreational Uses of Wilderness ........................................................................... 19 Economic Impact of Recreational Uses of Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................................................... 21 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Resource Use and Value Conflicts with Packstock Commercial Operators ............................................... 23 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 29 The Necessity of Commercial Services ...................................................................................................... 30 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 36 References ................................................................................................................................................... 38


4

Background Commercial recreation providers are diverse; they include those who provide wilderness access and support through the use of horses or mules, as climbing guides, on boats or rafts, and other modes of recreation use. They provide a variety of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical experiences to visitors of the USDI’s National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) areas, and the USDA’s National Forest System (NFS). Trips involving for-profit businesses or nonprofit enterprises, within NFS designated areas which involve payment for services are regulated under a Special Use Permit from the forest in which the commercial services take place. NFS Special Use Permits authorize NFS land to be used to provide a benefit to the public while protecting public and natural resource values. Specifically, a Special Use Permit is required for commercial activity defined as, “any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit” (USDA Forest Service, 2013). Basic requirements for holding a permit include technical and financial capability, payment of a fee, and insurance listing the US Government as additionally insured. Each year, the NFS receives thousands of individual and business applications for authorization for use of NFS land for such activities as water transmission, agriculture, outfitting and guiding, recreation, telecommunication, research, photography and video productions, and granting road and utility rights-of-way. In general, if the overall needs of the individual or business can be met on nonfederal lands, NFS land is not made available. However, regulating commercial operations on public lands is a highly contentious issue and particularly acute in federally designated Wilderness. As alluded to above, commercial operations include guiding for hunting, fishing, climbing, river rafting, snowmobiling, wildlife


5

viewing, and other forms of nature tourism and represents a multi-billion-dollar industry in the U.S. The regulation of commercial activities within federally designated Wilderness areas has been a contentious issue among broadly similar Wilderness resource users. These conflicts generally involve issues of Wilderness preservation, endangered species protection, watershed protection, and economic decline in rural areas. At a policy level, these conflicts revolve around the increasing use and commodification of Wilderness. More specific to this report are disputes involving commercial packstock operations with some possible carryover to river trip operators and other permitted commercial services. There have been protracted and high-profile lawsuits against the NPS and the NFS in California, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and throughout the mountain west. Recent litigation has created uncertainty among managers and operators regarding what policies and procedures to follow and, for the NFS, how best to design scientific studies that lead to the non-arbitrary management of commercial stock in Wilderness areas. Recent federal court rulings, namely those brought forth by plaintiffs representing the High Sierra Hikers Association, have questioned the NFS’s procedures and issuance of Special Use Permits to commercial packstock operators to guide within designated Wilderness areas. With specific focus on the Sierra Nevada, litigation has proceeded and decisions have been rendered by the courts requiring the USDA Forest Service to show the extent necessary, not need, in their allocation of Special Use Permits to commercial operators within the eleven national forests spanning California’s Sierra Nevada. It is these recent decisions that serve as the impetus for this report. Given these recent court rulings, it is now necessary to more broadly understand the activities commercial packstock operators facilitate which are proper for realizing the recreational or other Wilderness purposes of Wilderness areas. Additionally, there is also a need to provide guidance to managers, and to the extent possible, identify what needs to be


6

monitored, regulated or administered to maximize the experience outcomes and minimize the negative effects on both the experience and the resource base. To achieve a broad understanding of the activities and experiences provided by commercial operators of the Sierra Nevada the format of this report will be primarily based upon a review of literature from scientific and nontechnical sources focusing on the issues of commercial packstock, non-packstock recreation, and rafting/boating on Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Sierra Nevada. The report is organized to outline (1) the history of commercial packstock operators in the Sierra Nevada, (2) the impacts of recreational use, (3) resource use and value conflicts, (4) the necessity of commercial packstock operators, (5) implications and ties to commercial river recreation, and (6) reconciling policy, management, and commercial needs.

Summary of Commercial Service Conflicts in the Sierra Nevada Commercial Packstock Operations Recreational livestock use (here after referred to as packstock) in Wilderness areas is authorized under Section 4(d)6 of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S. C. § 1131-1136) as it conforms to the recreational mission of the Act and is subject to full discretionary interpretation by agencies to manage that use within levels consistent with a goal of maintaining the Wilderness character of an area. Additional use of livestock for production is one of five uses (mining, aircraft and motorboats, control of fire, disease and insects, water resources facilities, and livestock grazing) that were granted special status to continue in Wilderness if they existed prior to designation. Aside from their authorization to provide recreational Wilderness experiences, commercial packstock operators can and do serve as sources of Wilderness information and education, model behavior and techniques for low impact Wilderness use, and are often sources of unique information for clients and other visitors. Most recent statistics of


7

packstock use (those utilizing horses, mules, llamas, and goats) estimate commercial enterprises account for approximately 30% of recreation livestock use while about 60% of recreation livestock use was by private parties and about 10% by agencies for administrative purposes such as trail maintenance and ranger patrols (McClaran, 2000). In terms of visits, at the turn of the century, approximately 11% of Wilderness visits were recreational packstock parties and contrasts with recreational packstock use from 1960-80 when it represented the dominate, now secondary, form of Wilderness recreation in comparison to hiking/backpacking (McClaran, 2000). Recently, Burns et al. (2011) reported that for 2010 commercial packstock use in the Emigrant Wilderness was 8.5% and more than half of that was either day rides or dunnage drops. Proportionally, commercial packstock use accounts for a minority of both livestock use and total Wilderness recreation. Yet potential for conflict between user groups appears to have persisted. Capozza (2004) has detailed the history of packstock use and conflict in the Sierra Nevada and summarized these issues into four relatively distinct periods that lend a necessary perspective to understand present conflicts. First, from 1900-1964 the Wilderness recreation industry began to emerge in the Sierra Nevada. This era centered on travel with pack and saddle stock and represents the basis for much of the historic and tradition based arguments for the inclusion of packstock in Wilderness. Additionally, the historic and traditional merits of packstock in Wilderness during this era served as precedent for the packstock being seen as a central component of the Wilderness experience during the creation of the Wilderness Act. The second period began after the Wilderness Act was passed (1964-1979) wherein recreation in these designated areas increased and coincided with the emergence of the recreational industry. This era also witnessed the emerging conflicts between hikers and recreational packstock users


8

and operators. Recreational users were beginning to change and backpacking was growing in popularity and packstock was no longer the primary means by which groups experienced Wilderness. The third period began in the 1980s with increasing management efforts to address impacts associated with recreational packstock use and growing conflicts with other Wilderness users. Last, the fourth phase began in the mid-1990s and continues today as these conflicts have escalated and entered the political and judicial realms. Both supporters and critics of packstock use have become more sophisticated in presenting and defending their positions as access to information and the organization of their constituents has increased. For management, in the 1970s, the Forest Service instituted trailhead quotas in high-use zones of the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness areas to address the increasing number of users and was based on estimated capacities of various zones within the areas. Unfortunately, by the 1990s and early 2000s the quota system became a catalyst for conflict between packstock and non-packstock recreationists but with the addition of more organized special interest groups and associations. At this point in time the political and judicial realms came to the forefront with claims that the Forest Service deviated from its management directives and failed to limit visitation numbers to these popular areas. In particular, the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), a non-profit advocacy group, alleged that the USDA Forest Service illegally exempted commercial outfitters and guides from the quotas and allowed commercial operators to issue their own Wilderness permits to their clients while continuing to limit access for private citizens (FSEEE, 2000). In 2000, the FFSEEE, Wilderness Watch, and High Sierra Hikers Association (HSHA) filed suit in the U.S. Ninth District Court arguing that the USDA Forest Service violated federal law by issuing permits to outfitters for commercial packstock in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness Areas without studying the


9

environmental impact of horses (see, High Sierra Hikers Association v. Blackwell, 2004; High Sierra Hikers Association v. Weingardt, 2007). More recently, the Ninth Circuit Court found that the Forest Service’s grant of Special Use Permits and the corresponding Commercial Authorizations by the NPS, to commercial packstock operators for purposes of allowing pack trips and day rides into Wilderness areas of the Sierra and Inyo National Forest and Sequoia and Kings National Parks was inadequately administered with respect to the authorities in the Wilderness Act, which generally prohibits commercial enterprise within Wilderness areas. But, as outlined earlier, the Act includes a provision that “commercial services may be performed within the Wilderness areas … to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other Wilderness purposes of the areas”. The Ninth Circuit Court concluded this requires the management agency to not only determine that a particular commercial service is necessary but also to determine the extent of the need. The ruling, based not only on the Wilderness Act but also the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act, held that agency officials failed to conduct the requisite need and impact studies for issuance of Special Use Permits for commercial packstock. The broader implications of this decision for all Wilderness management agencies is now they must examine how commercial packstock use in Wilderness areas impacts the landscape and "balance... their potential consequences with the effects of preexisting levels of commercial activity" (Repanshek, 2012; High Sierra Hikers Association v. United States Department of Interior, 2012a and High Sierra Hikers Association v. United States Department of Interior, 2012b). In accordance with the Wilderness Act, determining whether packstock operators and guide services are necessary, the number of Special Use Permits to issue, and adequately


10

administering Special Use Permits for compliance is a challenging task for Wilderness managers given their mandate and responsibilities for multiple use. Initially, Wilderness management agencies address the need for and role of outfitters and guides and identify the amount of Wilderness recreation capacity to be allocated in the forest plan. This is typically accomplished through preparation of a Commercial Services Needs Assessment. Additionally, a Needs Assessment is developed to articulate why the extent of commercial services authorized is necessary for achieving the goals of the Wilderness Act. These protocols are in place so that agencies can consider the potential, cumulative impacts that result from a group of individual service providers acting collectively and the potential for conflict among recreational users. These recent decisions regarding commercial packstock operations in USDA Forest Service Wilderness areas may have ramifications across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Given the dual or multiple roles of many protected areas agencies, particularly the USDA Forest Service, that stem from their mandate to wisely manage resources for a variety of sustainable uses it is now understood that a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis may be deemed necessary to support the Commercial Services Needs Assessment. If the forest plan (or Wilderness plan tiered to the forest plan) provides adequate direction, standards, and guidelines, a forest plan amendment may not be necessary. If a forest plan amendment is necessary a NEPA analysis may be necessary depending on the significance of the action to be taken (Wilderness.net, 2008). The consequences of these court decisions over the past decade are yet to be fully understood, articulated, or implemented from the policy and management perspective within the USDA Forest Service. The relevant implications for the purposes of this report is the need to further understand the need and extent necessary for and the impacts of commercial


11

packstock operations. This requires ongoing assessment of both the biophysical condition of the Wilderness and the needs and preferences of Wilderness recreationists. Commercial river guide operators The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 USC § 1271-1287; Public Law 90-54; 82 Stat. 906) establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) and prescribes the methods and standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system as wild, scenic, or recreational. The Act serves to protect “certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.” Recreation based on water dependent amenities has become economically important to many communities throughout the Sierra Nevada. In the southern Sierra Nevada, the Kern River represents one of the countries’ most popular Wild and Scenic-designated rivers for whitewater sports, and includes sections in the Golden Trout Wilderness. The Kern River, from the North Fork from the Tulare-Kern County line to its headwaters in Sequoia National Park and from the South Fork from its headwaters in the Inyo National Forest to the southern boundary of the Domelands Wilderness in the Sequoia National Forest, was established as a designated Wild and Scenic River in 1987. Its classifications include 198.1 km (123.1 miles) of Wild, 11.2 km (7.0 miles) of Scenic, and 33.6 km (20.9 miles) of recreational river. The Wild and Scenic portions of the Kern River are managed by the NPS-Sequoia/Kings Canyon and the USDA Forest ServiceSequoia National Forest. The USDA Forest Service is mandated to “provide river and similar water recreation opportunities to meet the public needs in ways that are appropriate to the National Forest


12

recreation role and are within the capabilities of the resource base [and] protect the free-flowing condition of designated wild and scenic rivers and preserve and enhance the values for which they were created” (USDA Forest Service, 1994, pg 3). In addition to this mandate, the Forest Service established eight policies to manage National Wild and Scenic River areas located on the Kern River. These include: 1) Plan and manage river recreation in a context that considers the resource attributes, use patterns, and management practices of nearby rivers, 2) Emphasize activities that harmonize with the natural settings of the National Forest, 3) Manage the use of rivers by establishing as few regulations as possible, 4) Emphasize user education and information, 5) Coordinate river management with other Federal, State, or local agencies having primary or concurrent jurisdiction, 6) Ensure that proposed and ongoing projects and activities conform to the purpose of the Act, 7) Establish use limits and other management procedures that best aid in achieving the prescribed objectives for a river and in providing sustained benefits to the public, and 8) Acquire water rights needed to ensure sufficient water to achieve management objectives (USDA Forest Service, 1994). Similar to Wilderness recreation, commercial river guides and whitewater operators of the southern Sierra Nevada facilitate recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical experiences to visitors. Although commercial river operators are not currently subject to the same level of scrutiny as commercial packstock operators they do not operate within designated Wild and Scenic Rivers without impunity from public opinion and Federal


13

regulation. The recent judicial proceedings and rulings focused on commercial packstock operators will have consequences for commercial river operators as they are reliant upon the same Special Use Permit issuance from the USDA Forest Service.

Understanding Impacts of Recreational Use in Wilderness Much of the conflict and controversy associated with recreational packstock within designated Wilderness stems from the perceived impacts of packstock use. Within the context of Wilderness recreation, the term “impact(s)”, in general, implies a negative connotation and tends to prompt objections from many recreational users who view some “others” as negatively impacting “their” preferred Wilderness experience. However, for the purposes of this report the term “impact(s)” is not limited to negative impacts on Wilderness environments and encompasses both negative and positive environmental and economic impacts associated with commercial and non-commercial recreation in Wilderness. Another caveat concerning the impacts of recreational use in Wilderness is that although the differentiation between commercial/non-commercial and packstock/non-packstock is necessary for the purposes of this report, the negative impacts of recreational use in Wilderness areas – those being defoliation, trampling, concentration of animal waste, reduction of wildlife, conflicts with other users, and as vectors for the spread of noxious species – are actively (and passively) caused by all Wilderness recreation users. As this review outlines, the differences among commercial/non-commercial and packstock/non-packstock are essentially issues of context and suggests a move from generalizations to more specific frames of reference in order to understand the issue more accurately and usefully.


14

Commercial Packstock Use Commercial packstock use has the potential to produce negative environmental impacts ranging from defoliation, trampling, concentration of animal waste, reduction of wildlife, conflicts with other users, and as vectors for the spread of noxious species. The severity of impacts varies in relation to the intensity, timing, and type of packstock use. Past studies (for reviews see, Stankey & Manning, 1986; McClaran, 2000; Buckley, 2004; Capozza, 2004; Newsome et al., 2008; Pickering et al., 2010; Marzano & Dandy, 2012) have quantified the impact of non-commercial and commercial packstock, mostly horses, on Wilderness environments pertaining to vegetation trampling (Weaver & Dale, 1978; Strand, 1979a; Cole & Spildie, 1998) over-grazing (Olson-Rutz et al., 1996; Moore et al., 2000), soil erosion (DeLuca et al., 1998), and animal waste (Johnson et al., 1997; Atwill et al., 2000). McClaran and Cole (1993) estimated that in 1990 about half of all Wildernesses had some packstock use with packstock use being prohibited in 14% of Wildernesses. They also estimated that approximately 11% of Wilderness visitation was by packstock users (commercial and private). Burns et al. (2011) evidence corroborates with an estimate of 11% stock use on the Stanislaus NF. Thus, it seems packstock use is low in peprcentage terms. It was further suggested by McClaran and Cole that packstock may harm vegetation, soils, water quality, wildlife, and visitor experiences in Wilderness, and that monitoring and management of packstock should focus on soil erosion and defoliation near stream banks and popular camping areas. Similarly, although specific to stock grazing areas, Belsky et al. (1999) reviewed the results of a number of peer-reviewed, experimental, and comparative studies of grazed versus naturally or historically protected areas. Livestock grazing was found to negatively affect water quality, stream channel morphology, hydrology, riparian zone soils, instream and streambank vegetation, and aquatic and riparian wildlife. However, most of these impacts are likely due to cattle, not packstock


15

operations. The context of their review was geographically broad and encompassed arid ecosystems of the western U.S. and was not specifically focused on Wilderness areas, although Wilderness areas were included in the studies reviewed. Within the Sierra Nevada, grazing by packstock can alter subalpine meadow ecosystems in significant and various ways, depending on timing, intensity, and frequency of use (Strand, 1979b, Belsky et al., 1999). Impacts to plant productivity appear to be more sensitive to changes in grazing intensity (animals/area/time or percent utilization of available plant biomass) than the timing of grazing (Shryrock, 2010). Montane and subalpine meadows comprise only about 10% of the land area in the Sierra Nevada, yet provide a disproportionate number of important ecosystem services (Ratliff, 1985). Shryock (2010) investigated the interrelated effects of hydrology and packstock grazing in subalpine meadows of the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness of the Sierra Nevada and found subalpine meadows with grazing tended to be drier and grazing influences species composition and interactions with abiotic elements such as sediment filtration, dissipation of high-energy stream currents, and capture and retention of snowmelt to a higher degree compared to other ecosystems. Along with unwanted or unexpected encounters and campsite degradation, these direct physical impacts tend to be the most obvious and referenced transgressions levied against packstock by other recreational users. But in addition to these impacts there were also indirect impacts on water quality and contamination stemming from packstock in high-use Wilderness areas. Derlet et al. (2008) conducted a 5-year study to understand the risk factors and effects of coliform bacteria in backcountry lakes and streams in Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks and Carson-Iceberg, Emigrant, Hoover, and John Muir Wilderness areas. Samples from 364 sites revealed a significant difference between backpacker, packstock, and


16

livestock areas. Specifically, coliforms were found in 9% of non-recreation Wilderness samples, 12% within day-use sites, and 18% overnight sites. In contrast, 63% of packstock trails yielded coliforms, and 96% of cattle and sheep tracts yielded coliforms. Clow et al. (2013) evaluated the influence of packstock and backpackers on lake and stream water quality in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI). Their study had three components, (1) a general survey of water quality in Wilderness areas of the parks, (2) paired water quality sampling above and below several areas with differing types and amounts of visitor use, and (3) intensive monitoring at six sites to document temporal variations in water quality. Data from the general water quality survey indicated that Wilderness lakes and streams are dilute and have low nutrient and E. coli concentrations. These paired sampling sites were categorized as minimal-use, backpacker-use, or mixed-use (stock and backpackers), depending on the most prevalent type of use upstream from the sampling locations. Results indicated that sites with mixed-use tended to have higher concentrations of E. coli, total coliform, and particulate phosphorus concentrations upstream as compared to downstream than minimal-use and backpacker-use sites. These results were not unexpected given the increased volume of waste generated by an individual packstock animal as compared to a backpacker. The authors concluded, however, that water quality in SEKI Wilderness was good with the exception of during and shortly after storms and when visitor use is high. Thus, packstock use may have localized impact on water quality but the more general trend is for all use to be problematic. In another investigation conducted in Finland, the authors (Törn et al.,2009) studied the impacts of hiking and horse riding on trail characteristics and vegetation in northern Finland. Their results corroborate previous evidence (Weaver & Dale, 1978; Liddle, 1997) of horses having a greater, per capita impact compared to backpackers. They reported that erosion along


17

horse trails was as significant as that along backpacking trails even though the annual number of backpackers was 150-times higher than horses. However, they also measured vegetation cover with survey plots and found backpacking trails had little or no vegetation cover while horse riding trail plots had higher vegetation cover. Alternatively, horse riding trails had more forbs and grasses, many of which were non-natives to this particular forest (further surveys from this study found these species were limited to riding trails and closely adjacent areas). In response to these results, Törn et al. (2010) experimentally investigated the risk of spreading non-native plants through recreational horseback riding. They found the addition of horse manure, specifically from those fed hay containing germinable seeds, coupled with soil disturbance, enhanced the germination of seeds, and introduced grass and forb species which were otherwise absent from adjacent forest and prohibited trails. Additional studies have shown that horses trample, defoliate vegetation and cause changes in soil nutrient status and water resources by urination and defecation (Archer & Smains, 1991; McClaran & Cole, 1993) and can increase erosion and degradation along trail networks (Dale & Weaver, 1974; Cole & Spildie (1998). Most reviews tend to conclude that, on a per capita, basis horse riding impacts are quantitatively greater than those caused by hikers (Liddle 1997; Weaver & Dale 1978; DeLuca et al. 1998). Newsome et al. (2004) noted that the most common and widely recognized impact from packstock was ground level damage. It should be noted that Cole (1989) and Newsome et al. (2004) also suggested that many of the impacts from stock animals were, and continue to be, similar to those caused by hikers, except they tend to be more pronounced and occur more rapidly. Additionally, factors such as long and steep slopes, high elevation, high rainfall events, non-vegetated or unsurfaced slopes, low soil organic matter, poor soil structure, fine texture, impeded infiltration of water and close proximity to


18

streams or groundwater discharge areas all contribute to trail degradation (Newsome et al., 2002). Thus, there is evidence of at least localized effects from large animals of various sorts. It is less clear what proportion of these impacts are attributable to commercial stock operations because much, if not most, of the impactful stock use comes from cattle grazing permits or private stock (horse primarily) use. Nor is it clear the impact commercial outfitters have on the ecosystem beyond localized settings because trails and campsite areas are generally a very small percentage (