1

Zion National Park Social Trail Monitoring and Restoration 2015

Summary It is understood that established trails (formal, signed or maintained trails) cannot provide access to all locations in Zion National Park required by visitors seeking to experience reasonable recreational activities. Social trail management is an important, ongoing component of resource protection. In 2015 the focus of this project was to monitor social trails in the Zion Canyon and areas where the majority of visitors frequent. Following up on work that was done the previous season, 739 social trails consisting of approximately 25 miles were visited and evaluated to determine the level of restoration need. The majority of restoration work was performed around the Visitor Center and Campground areas including the Pa’rus and Watchman Trails. Some restoration was also completed on the Emerald Pools and West Rim Trails. Six large social trail restoration projects were completed using volunteer groups totaling 135 work hours, planting over 500 native plants and over 10 pounds of native grass and forb seed.

Introduction Social Trails, also called “informal trails” or “visitor created trails” exist anywhere hikers repeatedly leave the designated trails. Social Trails are created under a wide range of circumstances. Well-designed designated trail networks provide enjoyable recreation experiences for a wide variety of users, allow access to many points of interest within protected areas, and protect the majority of park land from trampling damage. When trail networks fail to provide visitors the access and experiences they require, visitors frequently venture “off-trail” to reach locations not accessible by formal trails (Thurston and Reader, 2001; Weaver and Dale, 1978). Even relatively low levels of off-trail traffic can wear down vegetation and organic litter to create visible informal (visitor-created) trail networks. These trails can also, displace wildlife, alter hydrology, alter habitat, spread invasive species, and fragment landscapes (Wimpey and Marion 2011).

Background Work on Social Trails has been ongoing in Zion for many years. Much of the work in past years has been in the back country or wilderness. Early on the focus was around the designated wilderness campsites. In 2008 researchers from Virginia Tech Field Unit and Patuxent Research Center performed a comprehensive evaluation of types of impacts occurring in Zion N.P. (Marion, 2008) This study came up with recommendations for selecting various management actions to help mitigate overuse at some sites. The current management strategy for Zion N.P. is to monitor social trails: to close and restore unacceptable trails and to sign and continue to monitor acceptable trails. Aviva O’Neil worked part-time on documenting and remediating social trails in 2011-2012. Some important information from her report is summarized here. Pa’rus Trail

Fencing along the Pa’rus trail in the campground was often ineffective; visitors go around and over the fences.

There are many social trails to the river. When trails are closed, new trails are created nearby.

Soil compaction prevents work in the dry season.

Upriver from the campground, closures were more successful. Watchman Trail

Where watchman trail is near the road, social trails are formed by people shortcutting between the road and trail.

2

Lower section is muddy and hikers access the road early to avoid mud

Many social trails are on the relatively flat area on the top of the hill. People may have been having difficulty finding the loop trail. Aviva placed signs to the loop trail, placed dead wood, and planted cacti and Indian rice grass to block social trails.

Cacti, signs, and deadwood, may have helped to deter use. The rice grass failed to germinate. Emerald Pools Trails

Before lower Emerald Pools, there are many short trails paralleling main trail. Several trails follow the base of the cliff.

The trail to upper Emerald Pools is badly eroded with many social trails. Social trails were blocked by a trails crew in winter 2011-2012.

Riverside Walk

Fencing was successful in eliminating social trails in two locations and allowed vegetation to regrow.

Covering areas with litter and signage was ineffective. Archaeology trail

Social trails are very dense here, with total social trails four times the length of the official trail.

Many social trails were disguised with mulch and litter.

Part of the trail to the next hill may be used by trail crews to obtain fill dirt to repair the Archaeology trail.

Visitors can’t tell which trail is the ‘real’ trail. Also much work has been done in the Kolob Canyons section of the park and through the Virgin River Narrows. In 2012 Pete Drake performed a comprehensive review of human impact in the narrows (Drake, 2012). His studies document issues such as social trails and human waste in the Lower Narrows. In 2014 the first comprehensive survey and GPS mapping of social trails in the main Zion Canyon was performed. This focused on the area from the park South Entrance to the beginning of the Virgin Narrows. Mapping was also performed on the east side of the park from the East Entrance to the Zion-Mt. Carmel Tunnel. The purpose of the 2014 project was to:

1. Establish a simple and replicable procedure for surveying and monitoring social trails in Zion National Park. This procedure minimizes the need for subjective judgment about trail conditions, and allows comparison of data collected across different years and employees; 2. Catalogue the current condition of areas impacted by social trailing using the established procedure for future comparison; 3. Design and implement strategies to contain visitors on designated trails and acceptable social trails and rehabilitate social trails where resource damage is unacceptable 4. Monitor the success of containment and rehabilitation strategies using the procedure established in (1).

The 2014 results included the following conclusions about social trail access control. The first and probably most important step in rehabilitating social trails is access control. In locations where visitors cannot be prevented from trampling, revegetation efforts will fail. There are many reasons for which visitors leave the trail, as described above, and understanding what purpose is served by a social trail can help to guide restoration efforts. For the purpose of this project, most social trail creation can be caused by one or more of these reasons:

1. Visitors trying to reach a facility 2. Visitors trying to reach a natural feature, such as a stream, boulder, hilltop, or cliff 3. Shortcuts 4. Opportunistic trails - Visitors walking in a disturbed area or wash just because it’s there

3

5. Poorly marked trail

For example, the braided social trails between the south campground and the river are probably mostly a result of (2) Visitors trying to reach the river. In this situation, signs and obfuscation of social trails are not likely to be very effective, but physical barriers like fences have been more effective.

On the other hand, many of the social trails around the South Entrance are probably a result of (1) Visitors trying to reach the Visitors Center, but (5) not knowing how to get there. In this case, obfuscating some of the social trails and placing signs indicating the official trail might be expected to be more successful. Yellow Rope: seems to be fairly effective in cordoning off small areas, like in the Grotto or campgrounds, when visitors can easily go around. Visitors readily cross longer ropes, or ropes used to block access to somewhere they want to go, like stream accesses. This works better when combined with mulch.

Split Rail Fence: Some of the areas worked on had fence already; we did not install any new fence. Most visitors do not cross the fences, though they will readily go around. Some of the Park’s fence installations are not very useful (ex. The pullout on the east side with split rail fence, the fence between the overflow parking lot and the watchman trail) because they are too easy to go around. The fence along the Pa’rus trail in the campground has been fairly effective at channeling visitors.

Mulch: Seems to have a minor deterrent effect. Some visitors will detour around mulched areas.

Scattered Litter: Alone, this does not seem to be an effective deterrent.

Logs and Large Branches: These can be an effective deterrent, especially when large enough to physically block access. Most effective when they can be anchored to bushes on either side – in an open field like below the south entrance, visitors just go around.

Signs: Where trails are unclear, signs may help visitors to remain on the official trail instead of accidentally wandering onto social trails. The majority of visitors seem to ignore the stay on the trail or no bootprint signs, but enough people respond to them that they are still worth using.

4

2015 Monitoring Activities Social Trail Monitoring for 2015 began in March. The focus of the monitoring was on revisiting those trails inventoried in 2014. Many of the techniques and protocols established in 2014 were used for the 2015 work. Some of the reasons visitors hike off designated trail systems are reasonable and allowable, even though there may be resource impacts. Examples of these trails include “River Access” or “Cliff Base Access” (e.g. trails to technical rock climbing areas). No actions are needed for informal trails found to be acceptable to park management. Continued monitoring of these trails will assure use does not become unacceptable. Other causes may be unacceptable and need to be managed (e.g. Latrines). It is recognized that recreation access and use is important in national parks. Some degree of degradation to natural resources is an inevitable consequence of recreation use, requiring managers to balance recreational use and activities with resource protection mandates. Roads and formal trails can never provide complete access to the locations visitors wish to see, hence, some degree of informal trail development is inevitable and must be tolerated (Marion, 2008). The 2014 and 2015 social trail study identified the following reasons visitors make social trails including:

Latrine This trail is used to defecate/urinate at a location without bathroom facilities, generally in a concealed location along the main trail

Cliff Top Access This trail is used to approach the top of a cliff

Cliff Base access This trail is used to approach the base of a cliff

Water access This trail is used to access a lake or stream

Facilities access This trail is used to travel between a park facility (bathroom, housing, etc.) and a designated trail, road, or parking lot

Shortcut This trail shortcuts a longer section of road or trail

Trail Uncertainty This is an alternate trail formed when a designated trail is difficult to see or poorly marked

Mud Avoidance This trail bypasses a section of the main trail which becomes muddy or wet

Animals Predominant trail use appears to be by animals rather than humans

Hilltop Access This trail is used to reach a hilltop

Cool Rock This trail accesses a rock feature, such as a large boulder, which is attractive to visitors

Drainage as Trail This is a drainage which is used as a trail because it provides a clear or obvious path. Often, this trail does not lead to anything; visitors follow the drainage because it is there

During 2014, 843 separate visitor created social trails were mapped with a GPS unit for a total of 33.6 miles. Initial condition or purpose was documented on 664 of these trails. (See Appendix A, Purpose)

Riverside Social Trail

5

The goal for the 2015 social trail monitoring program was to build on the success of the 2014 season. This entailed the following:

1. Visit as many of mapped trails as possible and evaluate the purpose or cause and rate the acceptability.

2. Use the methodology from the 2008 Trails and Campsites Monitoring Protocols to evaluate trail use to determine management categories using a combination of environmental factors, use related factors and visitor safety.

3. Classify the trails into management categories. Although the method used in selecting management action is a subjective categorical rating system, it is efficient and provides a product that is easily employed.

The social trails monitored were placed into one of the following management categories:

A: Disregard - no further action or monitoring necessary (trail not used, game trail only, within active floodplain, etc.)

B: Monitor, low use - no immediate action is necessary, activity tolerable, periodic assessment of condition and assure continued compliance.

C: Monitor, high use - no immediate action is necessary, activity acceptable and trail necessary, periodic assessment of condition to assure

D: Restoration necessary - activity is undesirable and/or resource impacts are unacceptable

E: Restoration in progress During 2015 the following monitoring and restoration was performed. 739 trails were evaluated and given a rating, including 12 trails that had not been previously mapped.

Management Category Number of Trails Miles of Trail

Restored 19 1.1

A: disregard 112 3.4

B: Monitor-low use 209 6.9

C: Monitor-high use 292 11.5

D: Restoration necessary 60 1.0

E: Restoration in progress 47 1.9

Not evaluation on 2015 116 8.8

(See Appendix B, Zion Main Canyon Social Trail Maps)

6

Restoration Projects The following is the description of the six social trail restoration projects during 2015 which took advantage of volunteer groups to accomplish a large amount of work in a short time frame. These groups included “Bold Earth Teen Adventures”, the “Sierra Club”, and our local “Volunteers in Parks” (VIPERS). A group of about a dozen VIPERS have been volunteering for the Zion nursery and various re-vegetation projects for more than a decade. They work every Wednesday for 3 hours.

Bold Earth Teen Adventures Volunteers 2015

Sierra Club Volunteers 2015

7

Emerald Pools Trail Restoration On July 9, 2015 a project with 15 volunteers from the group Bold Earth volunteered for a day working on Emerald Pools social trail restoration. There were 2 focus areas, one just across the bridge and included access underneath the bridge. The second was up the trail about 100 yards. The project began by placing branches and mulch over the bare ground. Theses area are eventually roped and signed to let visitor knows the areas is being restored. About 2 dozen cactus pads were planted in the area by the bridge. There were 5 other social trails along the Emerald Pools Trail which were closed by planting cactus and spreading branches and mulch. This project took approximately 100 work hours. Both sites need additional plants.

Before

After

8

West Rim Trail Restoration On September 25, 2015 a group of 11 volunteers from the Sierra Club worked on restoration of several social trails along the beginning of the West Rim Trail. The first area had several trails leading to the river which merged into a large social area. A single trail was designated and the rest of the area was restored. Grasses, forbs, live oak and cactus pads were planted. The area was mulched, branched and roped. Small signs were installed encouraging visitors to stay on designated trails and “give plants a chance”. Another large area was a half mile up the trail at a switchback that was being seriously trampled. Grass, forbs and cactus were planted in this area and it was roped and signed. These projects took approximately 30 work hours.

Switchback shortcut

River access shortcut

9

Visitor Center parking new construction on the side of the river walk The Visitor Center parking construction project installed an extensive rock barrier between the parking area and the river trail topped with a cement sidewalk. There was approximately 100 yards of the trail that was not included in the project. The site is the west facing river bank slope down to the river high water mark. The site was steep, on a 30 percent grade and the ground was bare. Established cottonwood trees provided some shade. The section not included is just south of the Pedestrian Entrance Station. The area was not protected from social trailing or other erosion causing elements. To that end straw waddles were installed half way down the slope for about 60 feet. Plants were also placed on the slope including, ford seed, 2 dozen grass starts, 2 dozen forb starts, 2 dozen cactus pads, and 2 dozen willow whips. Mulch was spread over the site. Signs saying Stick to Trail and branches were installed and yellow ropes on stakes were extended along the upper paved trail to a river access location. This restoration project took about 20 hours to complete and occurred in May and August 2015 using the VIPERS volunteers.

Visitor Center river access

10

Watchman Trail shortcut to road This shortcut has been closed in the past with signs, branches, mulch and planted cactus and shrubs. Unfortunately, a new social trail just moved to the side of the closure. With that in mind we mulched and planted a wider area in addition to installing more signs and ropes on stakes. The Watchman Trail in this section is about 50 feet east of and parallel to the Watchman Housing Road. The shortcut is 50 feet long and 20 feet wide on a west facing 10 percent slope. In the area is rabbit brush, salt brush, sand sage, broom snakeweed, cliff rose, black brush, cactus, pinyon and juniper. Planting consisted of grass, forb and shrub seed, 6 yucca starts, 1 dozen forb starts (golden aster, Penstemon, Datura), 1 dozen cactus pads, and 6 live oak starts. Ropes on stakes and signs were placed along the trail and mulch and branches were spread over the site. Approximate work time was 15 work hours.

Shortcut - before

Shortcut - after

11

Beginning of Watchman Trail This site starting from the road between the bridge and the staff parking has been worked on extensively. The trail goes along the river between the riverbank and the oversize vehicle parking. The first section of the trail along the river was planted during summer and fall 2014 with yucca, cactus, oak, forbs and grasses. Several social trails to the river were closed with branches, signs and a small amount of rope on stakes. The VIPERS helped with placing additional branches on social trails in August 2015. Several areas need to be re-vegetated, both new sites and redoing failed plantings from last year. The site consists of sandy soils just above the riverbank in mostly full sun with a few cottonwoods providing

shade. Planting consisted of 2 dozen grass starts, 2 dozen forb starts, 2 dozen cactus pads, 6 live oak starts and 3 junipers. Additionally ropes on stakes were placed along the trail and mulch and branches were spread over the site. This project used approximately 20 work hours.

Beginning Watchman Trail

Erosion on the Watchman Trail

River access closed and revegetated

12

Pa’rus Trail cutoff to the road to Watchman employee housing This is a section of the 2014 pipeline project that dug cross-country from the Watchman employee housing road to the Pa’rus trail. It is 100 feet long by 30 feet wide. It was raked and seeded in the Spring 2015. The swath of construction went through an area of large salt brush, rabbit brush and sand sage. The use as a social trail is low but increasing. Planting shrubs, grasses and forbs should be adequate with a small amount of signage to complete the rehabilitation. Planting consisted of grass and forb seed, shrub seed (saltbush and rabbit brush), 2 dozen grass starts, 2 dozen forb starts and 1 dozen cactus pads. Mulch and branches were spread over the site. This project used approximately 20 work hours.

Pa'rus restoration

13

Bibliography Drake, P. 2012. A History of Human Impacts and Management Actions in the Narrows of Zion National Park. In Park Document. Marion, J. L., and K. Hockett. 2008. Trail and campsite monitoring protocols: Zion National Park. Final Research Report. USDI, U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Tech Field Station, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Marion, J, 2008. Guidance for Managing Informal Trails. Presented at the American Trails 19th National Trails Symposium Thurston, E., Reader, R.J., 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environmental Management 27, 397-409. Weaver, T., Dale, D., 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. The Journal of Applied Ecology 15, 451-457. Wimpey, and JL Marion, J.L.., 2011. A spatial exploration of informal trail networks within Great Falls Park, VA. Journal of Environmental Management 92(3): 1012-1022.

14

Appendix A. Purpose The following table lists the number of trails that had a primary purpose identified.

Primary Purpose Number of Trails Cumulative Mileage

Animals 6 0.4

Cliff Base Access 32 2.0

Cliff Top Access 4 0.1

Cool Rock 1 0.0

Facility Access 20 0.9

Hilltop Access 11 0.6

Latrine 54 1.4

Mud Avoidance 4 0.1

Other (Specify) 20 0.8

Runoff 13 4.4

Short Cut 141 1.2

Trail Poorly Marked

13 0.6

Water Access 345 12.4

Totals 664 25.0

15

Appendix B. Zion Main Canyon Social Trail Maps Numbered from South to North

16

17

18

19