gis support and analyses along the pacific crest...
TRANSCRIPT
GIS Support and Analyses along the Pacific Crest Trail and
Appalachian Trail
Ryan Branciforte of OuterSpatial and Jeremy Wimpey of Applied Trails Research
2
Jeremy Wimpey
3
Applications of GIS & GPS Technology• Estimate use levels
• Numbers, $, types, health• Inform management of permits &
quotas
• Locate and monitor trail system development
• LEO support
• Resource protection
• Experience enhancement
• Stewardship engagement
4
Leveraging Apps for Trail Sustainability
• Enhance communications
• Dynamic and engaging
• Volunteered GIS
• Public Participation GIS
5
• Modern communication platform
• Push & Pull data
• Dynamic and timely
• Volunteered GIS
• Public Participation GIS
Apps: Foundation of Data Sharing
https://atlasguides.com/getting-the-most-from-your-phones-battery/
6
• Capture information• Location• Speed • Behavior
• Share information• Guide visitors
• Regulatory• Emergency
Leveraging Apps for Trail Sustainability
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vidometer/
7
Tracking Use
• Understand travel patterns• Time, speed
• Estimate use levels• Types & amounts
• Locate infrastructure
Michaux State Forest (PA)Appalachian Trail
• Dynamic and rapidly growing trail system
• “Rogue” trail network
• Official trail network
2014 2015
PCT Research – Permit System Interactions
Permit Use & AttritionSurvey
Response N % Use Permit% Abandon
Trail% Abandoned
for Snow or Fire
2016
N
oBo
March 31 100% 42% 17%April 212 99% 62% 13%May 125 100% 65% 16%
June 35 100% 57% 0%July 44 100% 52% 10%
August 16 94% 56% 0%September 2 100% 0% 0%
2017
N
oBo
March 52 98% 27% 61%April 255 99% 42% 60%May 142 99% 39% 59%
June 32 100% 22% 68%July 50 98% 48% 54%
August 28 97% 32% 63%September 7 100% 43% 75%
2016
So
Bo June 14 100% 64% 40%
July 31 100% 58% 23%August 10 100% 40% 33%
September 4 100% 50% 0%
2017
So
Bo June 10 100% 50% 40%
July 45 98% 60% 39%August 26 100% 42% 53%
September 8 100% 25% 67%
Northbound Attrition
05
10152025303540
0 77 179
266
369
465
566
745
789
860
903
915
1,01
71,
091
1,14
21,
159
1,21
01,
329
1,41
61,
597
1,71
61,
771
1,90
51,
998
2,09
52,
174
2,21
22,
292
2,39
12,
570
2,65
0
# H
iker
s
MileCompleted as planned Attrophied (i.e., dropped out)
Managing Visitor Use
• Crowding• Capacity• Safety• Wilderness management• Resource protection
P
Trail Impacts
Widening
Soil Loss
Muddiness
Upslope Landform Watershed
INDICATORS(n=2957)
TRAIL SLOPE ALIGNMENT ANGLE
0-22° 23-45° 46-68° 69-90° Totals
TRAIL GRADE
0-2% 4.8% 2.5% 3.9% 8.1% 19.3%
3-10% 10.5% 5.7% 10.0% 13.0% 39.2%
11-20% 9.5% 4.8% 9.1% 6.9% 30.1%
>20% 5.0% 2.5% 2.9% 1.0% 11.4%
Totals 29.8% 15.5% 25.8% 28.9% 100.0%
TRAIL SUSTAINABILITY RATINGS
Good Neutral Poor Very Poor
Trail sustainability ratings for the AT based on trail grade and slope alignment angle.
Trail Sustainability Ratings
Within each of the 63 5k segments field staff located and assessed all day-use and overnight recreation sites.
Used a Trimble GPS unit to map and walk the boundaries of all recreation sites, from which site sizes were calculated.
Research Methods – Recreation Sites
Limit Campsite Size to Limit Camping Impacts
259, 35*
151, 56%
86, 68%
50, 75%
35, 79%
23, 83%
19, 85%
13, 87%
95, 100%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
<250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
>2000
Recreation Sites (%)*(# of sites, cumulative %)
Sit
e S
ize
(ft
2)
Mean = 926
Median = 400
Min = 8
Max = 16,190
Sum = 676,644
N = 731
Why are these campsites so
large?25% > 1000 ft2
Appalachian Trail, Overnight Sites, 9% sample
5,605 ft^2
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝐴𝐴 = �𝑖𝑖=1
𝑁𝑁
𝐼𝐼𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖
**An increase in site size AND/OR the number of sites increase aggregate impact
Slope Map
Terrain Ruggedness Map
Hillshade Map(from LiDAR data)
Hawk Mountain
• Questions and Discussion