SBW “LAC TASK FORCE” 1988-1993

LAC Task Force members on 7/98 field trip

Steve DidierBack Country Horsemen of North Central Idaho

Don McPhersonBack Country Horsemen of North Central Idaho

Dennis DaileyUSFS Core Team

Sarah WalkerUSFS Backcountry Worker

Mort ArkavaUnaffiliated hiker

Gordon ReeseUnaffiliated stock user

Roger & Janice InghramUnaffiliated stock user

Bill WorfSpecialized

OPPORTUNITY CLASS

A hypothetical set of conditions that will be maintained or restored

Four Opportunity Classes in the SBW – reflect different levels of

  • human-caused change
  • solitude
  • challenge
  • management presence

... as experienced by wilderness visitors

The desired future condition for Seven Lakes is Opportunity Class 3

Opportunity Class 3 general description

  • ... an unmodified natural environment
  • ... some sites moderately impacted
  • ... impacts apparent to a moderate number of people
  • ... high opportunity for isolation, solitude
  • ... few encounters with other people on the trail or while camped
  • ... moderate degree of challenge ...

Opportunity Class 3 standard

  • 3 sites per roving square mile – 2 light, 1 moderate, 0 heavy/extreme
  • 80% chance of meeting no more than 2 other parties per day
  • 80% chance of seeing or hearing no more than 1 other party from your camp

CAMPSITESDATA

  • a “site” is any area of human impact and includes administrative sites, outfitter camps
  • baseline data is collected and then monitored every 5 years
  • annual training for consistency across all SBW
  • standardized, repeatable process developed by FS research (David Cole and others)
  • not ‘scientific’
  • 8 impacts measured at each site
  • vegetation loss (5 coverage classes)
  • mineral soil increase
  • tree damage (nails, scars, broken branches, stumps)
  • root exposure (pawed away by stock)
  • development (fire rings, toilets, tent pads, poles, hitchrails)
  • cleanliness (fire scar/ring, manure, human waste, litter)
  • social trails
  • barren area (>90% vegetation is gone)
  • each campsite is rated light, moderate, heavy or extreme
  • impacts hardest to restore are weighted more heavily

Impact / LIGHT / MODERATE / HEAVY/EXTREME
** vegetation loss / no difference / 1 coverage class / >1 coverage class
*** mineral soil increase / no difference / 1 coverage class / >1 coverage class
*** tree damage / none / 1-25 trees / >25 trees
*** root exposure / none / 1-15 / >15
* development / none / primitive seat / other development
* cleanliness / no fire scar, litter, manure or h.waste / 1 fire scar, some trash or manure / > 1 scar, or human waste, or much trash
** social trails / 1 / 2-3 / >3
*** bare area / <50’ / 50-1500’ / >1500’

SOCIAL ENCOUNTERS

  • recorder tallies each day as though they were a wilderness visitor
  • record whether have an encounter or not
  • standard is based on “80% of the time” to take into account unusual heavy use during hunting season, holidays, etc.
  • data collection is problematic and validity is in question

NON-SYSTEM TRAILS

  • defined as any trail not in the FS “system”
  • travel on non-system trails is an accepted practice
  • includes outfitter trails, visitor trails, abandoned system trails
  • standard:
  • must appear as game trails
  • no constructed tread, blazes, cairns, flagging
  • minimal clearing only

MINIMUM TOOL

The fundamental guiding principle for administrative activities should be whether, given the conditions specific to that site, the action is necessary to protect physical and biological resources or enhance wilderness attributes of naturalness and solitude.

If the action is deemed necessary, then it should make use of methods and equipment which will accomplish the task with the least impact on the physical, biological and social characteristics of wilderness. This is referred to as the minimum tool principle.

PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION

To prevent further human-caused damage tot he Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, a Prevention of Significant Deterioration approach will be applied. This approach acknowledges that while human-caused changes are constantly occurring, the overall result should not be a deterioration of wilderness conditions.

SEVEN LAKES 1991

  • over 20 campsites from an earlier period of heavy use
  • 10-12 campsites /square mile
  • 7 heavy/extreme campsites/square mile
  • social encounters within standard
  • persistent barren areas where brittle, slow-growing heather is trampled
  • two outfitter campsites–Rock Lake and “Lake Eleven”
  • extensive network of user trails from lake to lake -- impacts from day-fishing
  • FS Trail 220 close to lake shores
  • Earlier efforts to reduce impacts
  • 1970’s grazing prohibition -- no compliance (citations)
  • 1980’s hitchrails -- didn’t stand up, ended up as firewood
  • 1980’s native grass seeding -- successful (see at site C-2 and N. side Maude Lake)

THE SEVEN LAKES RESTORATION PLAN 1992

Four objectives

1.reduce site density to a reasonable number of sites distributed among lakes with choices for backpackers and stock

2.restore existing damage to vegetation

3.concentrate use at established sites

4.prevent creation of new sites and further damage to fragile vegetation and lakeshores

Actions

  • close and restore 15 little-used sites
  • cut stumps, plant bare areas, fill in tree wells, prohibit grazing until after 9/15
  • designate 6 overnight stock sites and 3 day stock sites (Mel & Steve)
  • special regulations (see brochure)
  • post area and trailhead
  • publish brochure explaining program and regulations
  • increase educational presence

Monitoring

  • monitor all sites in 1998
  • analyze data and compare to OC 3 standard

Future management

  • depends on data from 1998 campsite monitoring

ACTIONS DISCUSSED BUT DROPPED

  • permanent hitchrails–permanent structures not appropriate in Opportunity Class 3
  • permit systems–to costly to administrate
  • reduce site density to 3 campsites/square mile (meet OC 3 right away) – not practical, unfair to users
  • prohibit stock containment–unfair to user group
  • allow grazing until reach 25% utilization

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

LAC task force

  • okay’d ‘interim goals’ even if not meet OC, as the first step toward restoring wilderness conditions
  • concerned that outfitters would suffer from reduced party size
  • fish stocking the cause of problems; state should help restore
  • Seven Lakes as a ‘test case’ for costs of stock impacts in a fragile environment
  • try the ‘set back’ approach
  • ban campfires

Local stock users and outfitters

  • special meeting 2/92: outfitters, Twin Rivers BCH, NCI BCH, Roger/Janice Inghram
  • supported program but some concerns
  • okay’d reduced party size, but hardship for outfitter
  • FS needs to develop other areas for stock use outside wilderness
  • very opposed to discontinuing fish stocking
  • okay’d proposed site closures

Future reviews

  • internal reviews were intended but not formally scheduled (Mel)
  • decisions to be based on data

ANALYSIS

(See issues list)

ID Team

Kris HazelbakerID Team Leader

Steve DidierStock

Mel FowlkesRec/Wilderness

Bryan StottsWildife

Sarah WalkerWilderness Ranger

(Lisa Therrell)LAC Coordinator

(No restorationist on ID team)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

See maps

  • Restoration–campsites (planting)
  • Restoration–trails (planting, check dams, more)
  • Trail relocation (2 new segments Tr 220; 18’ bridge; 15’ puncheon; more)

Volunteers

  • SCA -- Student Conservation Association, crews for 3 yrs, individuals for 4 years
  • IDAWA -- large crew 2 years, individual one year
  • AMC -- planting/trail crews 2 years

Compliance

  • 100% most years
  • incidents
  • 1996 site C-1, severe tree tie damage, graze
  • 1995 tree-tying at C-2
  • 1994 graze, closed site

Presence

1993Susan Corneliusen (SCA)

1994April Killen (SCA)

1995Erin Hilley (SCA)

1996Nick Fowler (SCA)

1998Doug Smith (IDAWA teacher)

RESEARCH

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

  • to determine if concentrating impactive uses results in over-all area improvement
  • study began 1993
  • final monitoring August 1998
  • preliminary results to District 1998
  • final publication planned for ‘future’

FEEDBACK ON SEVEN LAKES

“Looks better” (old timer)

Day stock containment sites too small, or poorly located

New impacts in Lottie Creek (grazing)

Good program - too bad it doesn’t extend to Shasta Lake too

People don’t stop to read the signs

Backpackers like having separate sites for stock

“Closed” signs torn down

Very impressed with the work done to close and restore social trails and abandoned trails

FS shouldn’t use nails to put up signs (we switched to string)

Bulletin boards hard to maintain

SCA crews know much more than we do about

  • restoration
  • Leave No Trace Camping (hardly any impact at site C-4 from 5 weeks use)

“Didn’t see the signs”

Put up a sign for where to go for grazing

Wilderness Gateway host should contact visitors about Leave No Trace, and Seven Lakes

Well-worded signs

Mel: choosing the stock sites was left to last; turned out to be most important; tried to locate them on hard sites but there aren’t enough big trees

OTHER WILDERNESSES WHERE LAKES ARE IMPACTED

Bob Marshall

  • 300’ set back (stock can pass through, get a drink, but not stay)
  • compliance relies on presence
  • considering putting up season-long highlines

California

  • require fire pans
  • prohibit new fire rings
  • prohibit campfires above 5,000 feet

Great Bear

  • 200’ set back at certain lakes (listed on special order)

Mallard Larkins

  • considering a set back
  • Heart Lake: remote stock ‘parking area’ with permanent hitchrails

Seven Lakes Case History

November 2002 -- Sarah Walker

*************************************************************

* This is the text-only portion of a talk given as a slide show. *

*************************************************************

Before slides

The Seven Lakes area is in the northeast part of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho. The Selway-Bitterroot is jointly managed by 3 national forests in Idaho and Montana: the Clearwater, Bitterroot and Nezperce. It’s over a million acres in size, and was a primitive area before officially becoming a wilderness area in 1964.

I worked on the Lochsa District of the Clearwater Forest as a wilderness ranger from 1986 to 2000, and was involved with the Seven Lakes project from its beginnings. We tried to reduce site density and impact levels across a 3-square mile lakes cluster, and our project involved site restoration, site closures, special regulations, on-site presence, public awareness, volunteers, and an attempt to address stock impacts through a containment strategy. We worked intensively at Seven Lakes for 4 years; now, a ‘maintenance level’ is in effect.

I’m happy to be able to join this group and wish we could have had a training like this years ago.

I’d like to say thanks to Tom Carlson for inviting me here, and Lisa Therrell for her hard work and great encouragement while she worked with all the wilderness rangers of the Selway Bitterroot.

Slide 1 - map

This is the group of subalpine lakes where we carried out our Seven Lakes Project. There aren’t actually “seven” lakes but we used this map name for our project and included all these lakes.

This is one the few lakes clusters like this in the Selway-Bitterroot, and it’s been a popular destination for many years. The lakes are easily accessed from several directions. It’s 13 miles from the nearest trailhead -- with a climb of 4,000 feet.

Many, but not all, of the impacts we dealt with in our project originated from an earlier period of large, long-term stock-supported hunting and fishing camps. During the 60s and 70s elk hunting seasons were longer and most lakes were regularly stocked. Today, elk populations are down, rifle season is much shorter, and only 1-2 of the lakes still get stocked. Hunting and fishing at Seven Lakes isn’t what it used to be, according to the old-timers.

There are two outfitter camps in the area -- one at Rock Lake, and one at this small un-named lake which is known simply as “Lake Eleven.”

Nearly 20 private camps spread along the trails -- this main one through the lakes, as well as along an extensive network of user-trails between all the lakes.

We believed use at Seven Lakes had declined with the changes in hunting & fishing. Our early visitor use monitoring data showed low use levels at Seven Lakes -- it was unusual for there to be more than 3 parties at one time. But we could see clearly how past impacts persisted in the heather-dominated sub-alpine fir zone.

Slide 2 - view of lakes

These pretty lakes attract their share of backpack use too. They are at 6,000 feet elevation, which for north-central Idaho, is sub-alpine. The use season is short -- from about early July through October, depending on snowpack, which can be over 10 feet.

Our project included a lot of planting, so the short growing season, the thin soils, and the groundcovers of climax species like heather were definitely limiting factors.

The types of impacts associated with camping at these lakes are probably very familiar to you. I’ll give you an idea of the setting and the way things looked when I first saw Seven Lakes in the mid-eighties.

Slide 3 - backpack impacts

This is a backpack site in a dry, heathery area, with very compacted soil in the barren areas.

Slide 4 - stock holding impacts

This is a large stock-holding area. The party size in the Selway-Bitterroot is 20 people and 20 head of stock.

Slide 5 - stumps

And this ‘symphony of stumps’ along a lakeshore marks a very popular lakeside fishing camp. Lakeside grazing was a regular practice as well and at one time a grazing permit was issued to an outfitter at this lake.

Slide 6 - hitchrail

The first efforts to do something at Seven Lakes came during the early 80s. The wilderness program manager and his wife, and a biologist, backpacked to the lakes to build hitchrails at 3 sites, hoping to pull stock use away from the lakes. They also seeded barren areas. The District imposed a restriction prohibiting grazing within 500’ of lakeshores. This effort was not well enforced -- at that time the District employed one wilderness ranger who was also packer and trail crew foreman.

But this effort drew attention to the lakes. The District Ranger was very familiar with how they looked.

Slide 9 - fallen hitchrail

When I first saw Seven Lakes in 1986, things were falling apart. The hitchrails didn’t stand up in the shallow soils, and grazing violations continued. Charred chunks of hitchrail were showing up in big fire rings, and the metal hardware as litter.

As the new wilderness ranger assigned to campsite inventories, I measured the impacts in these sites and compiled our campsite data. I knew how Seven Lakes stood out compared to other areas on our district. And, I was new and full of righteous zeal: we should do something about those campsites at Seven Lakes, I told my Ranger.

During this time a new management plan was underway for the Selway-Bitterroot. We were switching from the 1982 plan’s ‘carrying capacity’ philosophy to the “limits of acceptable change” approach with a public task force as partners to the Forest Service. For the first time, we would have a wilderness coordinator, and Lisa Therrell came to us then.

Slide 10 - LAC WQ

Our task force was big and included all the varied users of our wilderness. We met regularly for nearly 5 years.

I was one of the Wilderness Rangers on the task force and it was a very satisfying experience that gave meaning to my field work -- allowed me to contribute what I knew from my experience on the ground.

Slide 11 - LAC marty

David Cole served on the task force as well, and there’s Lisa Therrell, our first wilderness coordinator.

The Selway-Bitterroot’s new management plan came out in 1992 and was amended to the forest plans on all three forests. The plan specifies standards and indicators for four opportunity classes. We expressed our desired future condition as a map of opportunity classes. The new plan emphasized education over all other actions for preventing and correcting resource damage.

Seven Lakes came out as one of many areas across the wilderness -- mostly lakes -- that did not meet the standards. These were called “problem areas” and were listed in the plan.

The existing condition at Seven Lakes was really far from the Opportunity Class standard. There were 12 to 15 sites per square mile instead of the desired 3, and there were way too many sites with ‘heavy’ ratings. The only thing we thought was in standard was visitor use.

Our district was very involved and committed to the LAC planning effort. We were enthusiastic and committed but I would have to say that we were short on restoration skills. We didn’t have a good grasp on what we could expect to accomplish in the sub-alpine environment at Seven Lakes. Lisa recognized this early on, and had organized a restoration training for wilderness crews and interested groups like local stock users. We used Russ Hanbey’s book on restoration in the northern Rocky Mountains.

[put this somewhere else?]

Restoration methods have changed since the Seven Lakes Project. We followed the common practice of the time for prepping compacted soil for re-planting -- breaking up the soil gently where we wanted to plant, without rearranging the soil layers. Later, the accepted method was more of a mixing, or tilling, of the soil. Our plants survived fairly well, but didn’t really spread; this may have been the reason.

Slide 12 - Seven Lakes boundary map

Our District Ranger wanted to go to work on the problems at Seven Lakes. We organized a district field review to Seven Lakes and met Lisa there. We had arrived on horseback -- or tried to, as I was a backpacker -- and I should say that we hardly knew how or where to put up a highline. The highline effort had just begun for our corner of the wilderness-world, largely due to efforts of stock users like the Backcountry Horsemen, and although we were pushing it strongly we too were in limbo, trying to break the tree-tying habit.

We could see ways to reduce impacts at the lakes but with so many sites -- because there were so many lakes -- we couldn’t see how we could meet the 3-site per square mile standard of the new Plan. But use levels were low and there seemed to be a lot of “extra” sites. We could see ways to lower impact levels, while still allowing use to occur, and we thought we could make restrictions that would be fair to all users. We realized it would be a long-term project. The LAC task force approved our idea as a sort of test case, even though we wouldn’t be meeting the Forest Plan standards.