- All right. Welcome, everybody.
I'd like to introduce Meredith Naughton
who has worked as a graduate student
with the University of Vermont's Field Naturalist Program,
presenting Wildlife and Trail Recreation:
Understanding, managing and monitoring recreation effects.
- Great. Thanks so much.
So thanks, everyone, for joining me today.
I will be presenting my graduate research
about wildlife and trail recreation, as Alex said.
I want to start out by asking
why is this research important?
And as many of you probably know,
our conserved or protected lands
often have a dual mandate,
to provide both a recreation resource for people
and also to protect the landscape and wildlife.
Recreation was once thought of as somewhat neutral
as an interaction on the landscape.
But more recently, it's been recognized
that recreation might not be so neutral
and that this makes this dual mandate
a lot more challenging.
And to be clear, here and throughout this research,
I'm talking about outdoor recreation, like hiking,
mountain biking, skiing, snowmobiling,
those activities that happen on trails built
specifically for one or more activity.
This type of recreation
is becoming more and more popular every year.
And with that comes more pressure to build trails
on those protected lands.
There's a couple of goals of this research.
First, to determine what is,
and isn't known about the effect of recreation trails
on wildlife, specifically related
to the Northeastern United States,
and to develop recommendations to apply
the relevant ecological information to trail planning
and land management to balance that minimizing impact
to wildlife and providing valuable recreation opportunities.
So how do we do this?
It's an issue that's often discussed,
but it's complicated and has a lot of different variables.
So I started by examining the whole body
of scientific literature related
to recreation effect on wildlife.
And I began with over 2,000 studies related to this topic.
I created selection criteria to find highly relevant studies
and included all studies that took place
in the Northeast or Southeastern Canada,
or focused on Vermont wildlife.
And this led to 50 highly relevant scientific articles.
I systematically collected data
on those most relevant studies,
including tracking the most prominent variables
to guide management recommendations.
So there's two main parts of this presentation.
First, understanding what we know about the effects
of recreation on wildlife followed
by management recommendations.
So to start understanding effects,
all of this data comes from those highly relevant studies.
And I'll start with a profile of that literature.
So like the steadily increasing popularity
of trail recreation, studies published on the topic
are also becoming much more frequent over time.
The studies here covered many major taxonomic groups,
but we see most of our information coming from research
on mammals and birds.
And these are both trends we see globally
related to recreation effect research as well.
The articles examine a variety of types
of recreation, but most of these looked at the effect
of foot travel.
Authors are measuring different things
in these studies as well.
And this is a breakdown of the different wildlife
response types measured in these studies.
So I grouped the responses into individual animal responses
like behavioral or physiological changes,
and different population level responses
like changes in abundance or changes to reproduction.
And then community-level responses like diversity.
So you can see here that behavioral responses
of individual animals is the most commonly researched type
of response to recreation.
As part of this research,
I made categorical interpretations
of the effects measured and described by authors.
So first, we have neutral or inconclusive effects.
These are where a change is either not observed,
it's insignificant or it's unknown.
And that's 16% of these studies.
It's possible that there is no change in the study subjects,
but I also want to note
it's possible the study didn't examine the subject
at the appropriate geographic scale
or appropriate timeframe or measure
for the correct response type in order
to assess the effect.
The bulk of results reviewed in these articles
were discussed by authors as having negative effects.
So I broke those down into categories.
First, immediate negative effect.
These are primarily short-term or behavioral,
and they use energy or alter necessary behavior.
Here, the long-term results are often not studied,
and that's 49% of our negative effects
we see from recreation.
Sustained negative impacts also occur,
and these are effects that lasts beyond a direct encounter.
These are like a change in abundance,
reproduction, or diversity.
And that's 31% of the studies that we saw.
And lastly, a dramatic, negative impact.
I reserved this for dramatic shifts in the health
of the population,
such as a severe decline or extirpation.
And these do exist.
And it's often what people are afraid of might happen.
Unfortunately, it's harder to see
these without long-term studies.
One example is, wood turtle extirpation in Connecticut.
It was a 20-year monitoring study of wood turtles.
And after 10 years,
recreation was allowed in an area
where there was a stable turtle population.
And then 10 years later, the population had declined
to the point of extirpation.
Categorized effect were seen across
the type of wildlife responses measured.
So here, we see those community population
and individual responses.
And you'll see that there are immediate negative effects
and sustained impacts across all population
and individual responses.
Negative effects were also seen across taxonomic groups.
The mammals and birds here are subdivided
by functional group,
but you can see that each taxonomic group
does have both neutral and negative effects seen.
So to continue to understand these effects,
I tracked the most common variables
that authors examined and discussed
as key factors influencing the effect
of trail recreation on wildlife.
And I called these primary variables.
So I'll go over the most prominent ones here.
The most prominent variables discussed
as factors influencing the effect on wildlife
were the scale and placement of trails.
The most common concepts across the literature
were the discussion of trail-free areas
as vital for wildlife,
and the distance of trails to wildlife habitat features
such as food or shelter.
One study examined the impacts of recreation trails
on forest birds in Ontario
by assessing the density of several bird species
in trailed areas and trail-free areas.
They found that birds, especially ground-dwelling birds
had significantly higher species density levels
in trail-free habitat.
They concluded that limiting the density of trails,
so for example, a lot of trails close together in an area,
is not as important as minimizing the effect
of trail fragmentation across the landscape
for wildlife protection.
Another primary variable is breeding season.
Authors consistently found that wildlife
was most vulnerable to disturbance during this time.
Volume of recreation was another factor discussed,
but there's limited information about the effects
of the volume changes on the changes to wildlife.
The concept of a volume threshold
is discussed across the literature,
and in land management applications.
This is a point above which a more significant response
from wildlife occurs,
but it's difficult to determine
and is highly variable,
based on a lot of different factors
like species, landscape, season.
So there isn't concrete evidence to support
any generally applicable thresholds
for numbers of recreators at a given time.
The idea that different types of recreation
might have different effects on wildlife
is another primary variable in the literature.
But again, there's limited evidence
to support significant differences between the effect
of different activities.
However, one trend does consistently show up
as having a different effect,
which is between motorized and non-motorized recreation.
So research consistently shows
that motorized recreation causes a less significant effect
to wildlife than non-motorized recreation.
Likely, this is because motorized recreation,
which is like ATVing, snowmobiling,
has a consistent movement pattern
with a shorter exposure time to an individual animal.
Where non-motorized recreation like hiking
is slower, more erratic and takes a longer time
to pass an animal.
So that concludes my overview of understanding the effects.
And now, I'll move on to management recommendations
that resulted from this research.
So study authors often made recommendations
of how to best address this complicated issue.
And I've categorized them here.
So in gray, you'll see the number of articles
that addressed one of these primary variables.
And in Navy is the number of articles
that recommended the associated management.
So for example, 33 articles discussed the location of trails
as an important factor.
And 28 made an explicit management recommendation
about trail location to minimize the effect to wildlife.
In contrast, over here, there's 17 articles
that discussed the idea that volume of recreation
may affect wildlife differently,
but only five articles concluded
with a management recommendation to limit
that volume of recreation.
So as part of this project,
I wrote management recommendations based on the research.
And there are three primary parts
to these recommendations.
First, the landscape scale planning
is vital to ensure a balance of recreation opportunities
and protection to wildlife.
To plan trails at this scale,
you need to conduct both ecological
and recreation assessments.
So considering things like interior forest blocks,
connectivity corridors, high-value wildlife crossing areas,
existing trails, and community needs for recreation.
Then based on these assessments,
you can designate permanent, trail-free areas.
This will prevent the eventual spread of trails
to all parts of our natural landscape,
and ensure some refuge for wildlife.
And as an example, over here,
I have Vermont's State District Four Management Area
with those ecological and recreation elements represented.
Next is site-specific location planning.
Trails should be consolidated on the landscape
in order to minimize the effects to wildlife.
So here's an example of dispersed trails, for example,
and consolidated trails,
or keeping trails to a certain extent of the land.
And these are screenshots from the "Vermont ANR Atlas",
just to illustrate the concept of dispersed
and consolidated trails.
Next, when planning the location of trails.
Ecological considerations are necessary.
Avoid sensitive and uncommon ecological features
such as these, and site trails away from them
to minimize wildlife disturbance.
So these are ecological elements like uncommon
and rare natural communities, wetlands,
riparian areas, endangered plants.
And lastly, part three is management of existing trails.
So these are scientifically supported management techniques
resulting from the research,
and they vary in ease of implementation and land management.
First, a couple of factors not recommended for management
at this time,
restricting the type of recreation
or the volume of recreators
does not have enough scientific evidence
to support us to do this effectively.
Research is still continuing though,
and this may change over time.
Next, some management techniques that are recommended.
Education, so promoting a recreation ethic
of shared landscape.
It's important that when we teach recreation,
we aren't just teaching skill-based things
like how to mount and dismount a bike,
but we're also teaching awareness of our impact,
not to feel guilty, but just to make informed decisions.
Breeding season and temporal closures.
So breeding seasons are the most vulnerable times of year,
and dawn and dusk are often the most active times
of day for wildlife.
Trail closures during these times of year or day
can promote wildlife protection.
Gathering points like benches or overlooks are points
of high disruption.
So sensitive and valuable areas,
such as those discussed on the previous slide
should be avoided for these locations.
And importantly, ongoing monitoring of wildlife
and trail systems gives us the most relevant information
about how our recreation affects wildlife.
So developing ongoing monitoring protocols
will allow us to make adaptive
and nimble management decisions that are effective
in that dual mandate of both protecting wildlife
and providing recreation opportunities.
So that's all I have for you today.
Thank you so much for listening,
and thank you to everyone who has assisted
with this project.
I'm happy to answer questions.
- Thank you so much, Meredith.
It looks like we already got a question in the chat
from Jerry Carlson.
"Is there any literature on the evolution
of human tolerance among wildlife?"
- Evolution of human what among wildlife?
- Tolerance.
- Is there any evolution of human tolerance among wildlife?
I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
Is this about habituation maybe?
- [Jerry] Well, I'm saying that a there's an awful lot
of urban landscape literature on how wildlife
is becoming far more tolerant of human activities
in built environments.
I was wondering if you came across any
of that in your pursuits.
- I did. Yeah.
So none of that literature
made it into the specific systematic review
because it wasn't about trail recreation,
but certainly, I read a lot about different types
of wildlife tolerance and the idea of habituation
to human activity.
And that is measured differently in different species.
And I think at best,
what I can say is certainly in urban areas,
we do see some representations of wildlife,
but it's often just certain species,
or certain individual of a species.
So I can't say specifically how that relates overall
because this is sort of landscape level,
natural areas planning for trails.
But I can say that that is possible, however,
not a primary element to rely upon
when thinking about long-term wildlife diverse protection.
- We have another question from Hanson Menzies.
"To what extent can trail-building organizations
consider themselves to work in the conservation field?"
- That's a great question.
I didn't research as part of this project
specific trail-building techniques.
I know there are a lot of trail-building techniques
that minimize damage to vegetation or minimize erosion.
I think that trail-building organizations
can collaborate specifically with ecologists
and take this information and embody it
when they are building and planning trails in new places.
I've worked with trail-building organizations before,
and have been a trail builder.
And I think that in my limited experience,
recreation experience is most highly considered
when planning and siting a trail.
And I think that trail building organizations
have this amazing opportunity to start to think
about the ecological impact as well,
and use this information, or consult experts
to sort of like bring those two worlds together
where trail builders can act
truly as informed conservationists as well.
- Jim, you have your hand raised.
You want to go next?
- [Jim] Sure, as a user of trails,
including a lot of back country trails,
it's very disturbing for me
to hear that I'd be better off riding a dirt bike,
a motorized dirt bike, than being on my cross country skis.
That research did that take in to any account,
the location and density of use
of the different types of transportation?
I'm just thinking of something
which is a very heavily traffic corridor,
like the VAST Trails,
as opposed to more remote areas
where either ATV, as you said, or dirt bikes
or snowmobiles go?
- Yeah, that's a great question.
I will say that that pattern is seen in my research,
and also seen in global reviews comparing,
motorized and non-motorized recreation.
But you're correct in identifying that the scale
of impact is not considered necessarily.
So a snowmobile may have less of an impact
on an individual animal than a cross country skier.
However, as we know, snowmobiles may traverse
much larger areas.
And so that is not quantified, so far,
that I have seen, in research alongside
those moment of impact results that I'm talking about here.
So, great question.
And I think in general, what I would love people
to take from this is that
we can't, at this point,
accurately manage different types of recreation
to control for the desired effect to wildlife.
So I think I've heard a lot of questions
in the land management world of well, is mountain biking
a bigger effect than running,
or maybe snowmobiling does have a much bigger effect
than than skiing.
And this momentary impact of a quick snowmobile
going by a deer, for example,
may have less of an impact than a cross country skier
going by is part of that equation,
doesn't take into account the landscape scale
of the recreation.
But yeah, again, just reiterating
that it's not necessarily type of recreation.
It isn't something that we have enough data
on to make restricting management decisions around.
- [Jim] Thank you.
- Technically, we're past time.
But I don't know if it's gonna close down on us,
so you can feel free to keep answering questions
from the chat.
I think there's a few there.
It also looks like you have your email up
if people want to contact you with more questions later.
And I just wanted to thank you for talking today.
- Great. Thank you.
Let me see.
I see a couple of questions here.
Brad Elliot says, "Will you be delivering this information
beyond the scope of the conference?"
Hi, Brad.
I know you've asked for the results
of my grad research before,
and I'm happy to continue to talk about this
in whatever group or setting makes the most sense.
So I'm happy to, but I don't have specific plans right now
for delivering this information to anyone else.
John Carte says, "Thanks, Meredith.
Any thoughts on what next steps
would be best help Vermont
manage trail impacts more effectively?"
Yeah, I think the trail planning
is like our most effective tool
in terms of managing trail impacts.
So as towns or the state
are planning on putting in a new trail
or a new trail network,
I think that the best thing that we can do
is have really thoughtful landscape scale
and then site-specific planning,
maybe that combines trail planners and ecologists
to collaborate together to make sure
that our sites on those are very thoughtful.
In addition, I think that developing a monitoring protocol
that can indicate when we are creating changes
to a wildlife population
would be really helpful in order for Vermont
to make specific and localized decisions around our effect.
Jolene asked if I came across any studies
looking at social capacity and consolidated trails,
and how it relates to visitor experience.
I didn't look at the social side of trail experience
very much for this research.
It's super interesting, but it just wasn't in the scope
of what I was able to do.
So unfortunately, no.
Tim Appleton says, "It seems like a couple
of important wildlife habitats sensitive
to human disturbance, such as deer wintering habitat
and hard mast feeding sites for black bears
were omitted in your list of habitats to be mindful of."
Absolutely. That was not an exhaustive list.
That was a slide saying,
let's be very aware when placing trails
on a site-specific location
of ecologically sensitive habitats.
And those would absolutely fall in that category.
And I just listed a few on that slide.
Tim Appleton also says, "In regard to motorized
versus non-motorized recreation,
flight response and flight distance
is different by species."
Absolutely.
It is different by species, by individual animal,
by time of day, by landscape.
So there are, like I said at the beginning,
so many variables here in this research
that I did my best here to provide
the most consistent generalizations
that I was able to find in order
to inform generally applicable
management strategies for Vermont.
Great, and that's all the questions that I see
in the chat right now.
But thanks, everyone for attending,
and I'm happy to answer any questions via email.