Mapping Erosion Points Caused by Foot Traffic on Side Trails of the Lakeshore Nature Preserve

Mark Gohmann Bigelow Simon Ignatowski Ben Wendt

The Lakeshore Nature Preserve

• Permanently protects undeveloped lands • Used as an educational and recreational tool by members of the campus community and Madison community • Fosters beneficial relationships between humans and nature

Issue of Footpaths

• Footpath contributing to erosion, degrading water quality and trampling native vegetation • Impact to the visitor’s use of the path and the preserve • Impact to the safety and experience of the user

Direct Threats

• Footpaths (Off trail use) – Erosion Effects • •

Sediment into the lake Vegetation impacts (exposing roots)

•

Appearance of shoreline (aesthetics)

– Vegetation Trampling •

Loss of native plants

•

Increase direct runoff, reduces infiltration

Obstacles to Success

•

Users

– – –

Lack incentive to stay on trail Lack of awareness to the impacts of off trail use Lack alternative shoreline access

•

Managers

–

Lack resources to communicate rules

• Funding and labor –

Lack ability to intervene

• Funding

Measures for Interventions

• General Measures –

Aesthetic appeal

• Importance/Value of path – –

Navigable for all Ecosystem

• Specific Measures – –

Slope, erosion, vegetation Success rate in use the of the official trails and non-use of unofficial trails

Interventions

• • •

Barriers:

-

physically help eliminate/discourage direct user threats - visibility - manageable in only a few volunteer work days

Signs:

-

raises awareness - easy to implement

Platforms:

-

desired by users - safety - aesthetics and user friendliness - reduce temptation to go off trails into unwanted areas

•

Official footpaths:

- desired by users - concentration of footpaths - reduce temptation to go off trails into unwanted areas

Flash Map

• How do we communicate our findings?

–

Create an Interactive FLASH Map

Ground Truth

• Estimation of location on the Ground

Evaluating Uncertainty and Accuracy • Required between 1 to 10 meter accuracy • Satellite availability –

Change in satellites of 11 in the morning to 6-8 in the afternoon

• Tree Cover • Fluctuations in Tracking points –

Satellite availability

Statistical Interpretation

• 30 tracking points collected with each receiver at each erosion point • Fairly small standard deviation –

6.6 to 0.24 meters for latitude

–

4.8 to 0.32 meters for longitude

–

Conclude our data is fairly precise

Concluding Thoughts

• Handheld GPS units make sense within the budget and time constraints –

Newer models tend to give greater precision

• Programs out there other than GPS Babel • A successful tool for promoting awareness of the Preserve with GPS requires it to be accessible and understandable to the general public

Questions?