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