Progress 08/05/09 to 06/01/10
Outputs
OUTPUTS: For this pilot project we analyzed the impacts of social trails and unofficial campsites in two management units within Mt. Rainier National Park; Paradise Meadows, and Spray Park South. In addition to these two management zones, we examined the impacts within Paradise Meadows by individual subunit. We also tested the effects of including an influence zone in the analysis. We used a 5-meter buffer to calculate an ecologically based influence zone for social trails in this analysis. We approached campsites in a slightly different manner. We felt that campers often walk around the core camp area and are requested to store food at least 30.5m (100') from their tents. Therefore, we buffered campsites with a 30.5m radius around the center point. The exact width of the influence zone that should be employed for Mt. Rainier has not yet been determined and warrants further research. One objective of this pilot project was to determine if it was necessary to collect detailed descriptive information (i.e., width and depth) for spatial analysis of social trails. To test this we used Paradise Meadows, which had detailed social trail information, to determine if there was a significant difference in the results of the analysis when we used a default trail width of 1/2 meter (1/4 meter buffer on each side of the polyline) as opposed to the actual recorded trail width. We used ArcGIS to analyze the specific trail widths for Paradise Meadows. In addition, we analyzed the impacts of official park trails as a baseline for comparison to disturbance caused by social trails and informal campsites. This was only done for Paradise Meadows as Spray Park South did not have any official park trails located within its boundary. We analyzed impacts of social trails within each management unit to assist with development of protection strategies. To do this we used the study areas within Paradise Meadows as outlined by park staff. We ran the analysis twice with and without an influence zone. A GIS map was produced and delivered to the National Park Service along with a final report. PARTICIPANTS: 1. L.Monika Moskal, Assistant Professor, University of Washington School of Forest Resources. 2. Meghan Halabisky, Master of Science student, University of Washington School of Forest Resources. Meghan was trained on this project, and graduated in 2010. TARGET AUDIENCES: Target audiences include National Park Service, educators, researchers, students, and the general public. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
Analyzing the impacts of social trails and unofficial campsites provides information for prioritizing management decisions at the Park-wide level as well as within the individual management units. Between the two study areas, Paradise Meadows showed the greatest fragmentation and greatest human impacts as demonstrated by the landscape metrics. Fragmentation increased when social trails were added to official park trails. Number of patches, median patch size, length of trails, and total impact area, although descriptive, are not useful for comparisons between landscapes as the metrics are all influenced by the size of the landscape. The density of trails, weighted mean patch index, largest patch indices, percent impact area, and percent core area metrics are more useful when comparing impacts between landscapes. Use of an influence zone also increased the total area impacted within the landscape area. However, the fragmentation of the landscape area reduced when using an influence zone. Fragmentation also increased when campsites were added to the analysis. Analysis by management unit is useful to determine overall impacts within the park. Smaller subunits are most affected when using an influence zone because they have more edges influenced by park trails. Again, the median patch size metric is very sensitive to inclusion of an influence zone. The values from the analysis can be used to rank subunits by heavily impacted to least impacted. Although the addition of an influence zone affected the metric values it did not affect the ranking of the most heavily impacted areas. Each metric chosen for this analysis has its strengths and weaknesses. All of these metrics would benefit from further testing in other management areas within Mt. Rainier National Park. Recommendations: 1. Monitor impacts by habitat type. 2. Use an approximated width of 1/2 meter to account for trail width. 3. Compare impacts of social trails to baseline impacts created by official park trails. 4. Include the use of an influence zone in the analysis. 5. Determine the most relevant influence zone. 6. Run analysis at two scales: Park-wide and within management areas. 7. Buffer Campsites at 30.5 meters (100'). 8. Calculate percent of core area to describe quality of patches within a landscape. 9. Use the top three largest patches to calculate largest patch index.
Publications
- Moskal, L.M. and M. Halabisky, 2010, Analysis of Social Trails in Mt. Rainier National Park Pilot Study, Final Report to Mt. Rainier National Park. Available online at: http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.cesu/reports/J8W07090020_final _report.pdf, link verified 03/04/2011.
|