2016

TRAIL COUNTER

DATA REPORT

REPORT SUMMARY

In order to better understand trail use levels and trends, the Association has utilized passive infrared and magnetic trail counters on various places within the Tahoe Rim Trail system. In 2016, 25 counters were deployed, and the data collected have been analyzed. In general, the counters have confirmed anecdotal evidence and suggest that High Use areas of the system receive over 116 average daily trips in the peak use season. Trends indicate that use on the Tahoe Rim Trail is increasing rapidly and is up about 45% over the past eight or nine years. The total number of trail users in 2016 is estimated at over 400,000.

Although the data does have limitations, the conclusions reached in this report represent a good faith effort to evaluate trail use on the Tahoe Rim Trail system. Using the results reported here, and by collecting additional data in the future, the Tahoe Rim Trail Association and its partners can have defensible data upon which to make management decisions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROGRAM OVERVIEW 1

 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 01  PROGRAM GOALS  2016 COUNTER S

 LIMITATIONS

INFRARED COUNTERS 5

02  ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES  IR COUNTER RESULTS

BICYCLE COUNTERS 15 03  ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES  MB COUNTER RESULTS

NEXT STEPS 19 04  LESSONS LEARNED  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2017 & BEYOND

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Both anecdotal and scientific observations have concluded that recreation use in the Tahoe Basin is on the rise and is currently 01 at historically high levels. Visitation to the Basin is at around 5.7 million annually, and among those visitors recreation in the form of hiking and mountain biking is more popular than ever before. As one of the premier outdoor recreation resources in the Basin, the 197-mile Tahoe Rim Trail (TRT) system is seeing more users than ever before. Understanding use levels and trends on the trail is essential for adjusting management strategies to meet evolving challenges.

Beginning in 2007, the Tahoe Rim Trail Association (TRTA) has used trail counters to monitor use levels. The first few years of monitoring were spotty, without enough counters to cover much of the trail. However, with the recent acquisition of additional hardware, the organization now owns approximately 20 infrared (IR) trail counters and 6 magnetic bicycle (MB) counters. The IR counters collect information on all trail users while the MB counters collect information only on wheeled traffic. Both counter types collect data in the form of individual trips or hits: each time someone passes the counter a single trip or hit is recorded. Counters allow for close monitoring of multiple sites around the trail at any given time and can potentially provide data for informing critical management decisions.

The data gathered through this program is of particular use for identifying and managing high-use areas where additional resources may be warranted to reduce environmental risks, repair or prevent tread deficiencies, or mitigate natural resource damage. In addition, the data is essential for establishing baseline use numbers before connector trails are built and for assessing the increased traffic from those trails. Further, the counters are a powerful tool in monitoring illegal trail use, such as mountain bike incursions into Designated Wilderness Areas. The data resulting from this program can also be used to more accurately assess the overall number of trail users on the TRT and to create stronger arguments regarding relevancy when competing for funding, marketing the trail, or any time the significance of the trail may be called into question.

PROGRAM GOALS The goals of this program are to:

1) Develop a digital database that stores information collected from the counters, and 2) Analyze and share the data with partners so that it can be used to inform management decisions, fundraising, and other programs.

Specifically, this report seeks to analyze collected data to answer the following key questions:

1) Which areas of the trail receive High, Moderate, and Low use? 2) What are the trends in trail use in general and on different segments?

1

3) How many trail users recreated on the Tahoe Rim Trail system in 2016? 4) What is the compliance rate for the Even/Odd restricted access advisory trail section? 5) How many mountain bikes trespass into the Wilderness from the TRT? and 6) What is the rate of mountain bike incursion on the restricted-access section from Hobart Road south to Spooner Summit?

The digital databases that store and analyze the data recorded by the trail counters are maintained both through a Geographical Information System (GIS) and online via the TRAFx Datanet website.

This report was developed to share the knowledge gained through the trail counter program throughout the TRTA and amongst partners.

2016 COUNTERS In 2016, 19 IR and 6 MB counters were installed in the field (see Map 1 and Map 2 for exact locations). Though it varied by counter, on average the devices collected data for between three and four months from mid-June to mid- October. While all of the MB counters functioned properly for the duration of the season, three of the IR counters partially failed and three failed completely.

The three IR counters that partially failed were Spooner North, Brockway East, and Brockway West 2. The counter at Spooner North took incorrect readings from the time of its installation until the month of September for unknown reasons. The malfunction may have been due to interference from natural elements such as a leaf blocking the counter. The Brockway East counter collected good data from late June until the end of July when it was tampered with by trail users. The Brockway West 2 counter collected data from July through early August when it stopped collecting. It was found suffering from water damage.

The three IR counters that failed completely were the Van Sickle Connector, Ward Creek, and Stagecoach North. The Van Sickle Connector counter was vandalized by trail users and has not been recovered. The Ward Creek counter failed because a chunk of bark either fell or was placed in front of it. The Stagecoach North counter failed due to an internal technical error.

LIMITATIONS The data and conclusions presented in this report are a result of a good faith effort to accurately portray trail use on the TRT system based on limited information. Both passive infrared and magnetic counters have known issues in collected accurate numbers of users when they travel in groups and therefore tend to undercount. Due to weather and logistical constraints, counters traditionally spend only a small portion of the year on the trail, and unfortunately the dates have varied widely from year to year and counter to counter. This makes it impossible to account for known issues that affect use levels, such as the shift northbound PCT hikers make to travel later in the season when summer snow levels remain high. While attempts have been to normalize data the only way to overcome these limitations is to amass a robust data set that spans long periods of the year over multiple years.

2 2016 INFRARED TRAIL MOUNT ROSE COUNTER LOCATIONS WILDERNESS MAP 1

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

GRANITE CHIEF WILDERNESS CALIFORNIA

ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST

DESOLATION WILDERNESS

LEGEND Tahoe Rim Trail System National Forest BASIN HUMBOLDT- MANAGEMENT TOIYABE UNIT NATIONAL Designated FOREST Wilderness Lake Tahoe NV State Park Successful Counters Partially Failed Counters Failed Counters 0 3 6 Miles ¸ 3 2016 MOUNTAIN BIKE MOUNT ROSE COUNTER LOCATIONS WILDERNESS MAP 2

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

GRANITE CHIEF WILDERNESS NEVADA CALIFORNIA

ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST

DESOLATION WILDERNESS

LEGEND LAKE TAHOE BASIN HUMBOLDT- Tahoe Rim Trail MANAGEMENT TOIYABE System UNIT NATIONAL FOREST National Forest Designated Wilderness Lake Tahoe NV State Park Mountain Bike Counters

0 3 6 Miles ¸ 4

INFRARED COUNTERS

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES 02 Trail Use Levels In order to answer the question, “Which areas of the trail receive High, Moderate, and Low use?” data on average daily trips (ADT) from the IR counters were utilized. Not all counters collected data during the same time periods, so data from July 1 through September 30 (92 days) was used as a common timeframe. This period was used because it encompasses the snow-free season with the most comfortable temperatures during which most trail use occurs and because most IR counters in 2016 were active during that time. The IR counters that were not active for that entire period are the three that partially failed and the counter at Tahoe City North which only collected data for a short time frame (less than 6 weeks).

In order to normalize data that was collected from those four counters, a correction equation was applied to all partial data sets to estimate ADT over the standard of 92 days. To do this, the average percent change in ADT for all units was calculated for the timeframe in which data was collected for any given unit with only partial data. The ADT for the timeframe in which a unit functioned was then multiplied by the average percent difference of all other units. For example, the Tahoe City North unit only collected data from July 27 to September 5. The ADT for that unit in that timeframe was 24.9. The average ADT for the functioning units in that same time period was 104.5. That figure is 97.4% of the ADT for the functioning units over the entire 92 day period (which is 101.8). 97.4% of 24.9 is 24.3, which is the corrected ADT for Tahoe City North. Note: Barker North was excluded from the calculations for correcting Brockway South #2 and Brockway North because it had a such a small sample size of overlapping days (nine and one, respectively).

The resulting ADT for each counter fell between a low of 22.9 and a high of 371, with an average of 97.4 (see Table 1). Using a geometric interval optimization method, three classes of use were determined. An ADT from 0 to 44 (seven locations) became Low Use, an ADT from 44 to 116 (eight locations) became Moderate Use, and an ADT above 116 (seven locations) became High Use.

Historical counter data was also analyzed from an additional six locations where data was collected from between 2010 and 2015 but did not see data collection in 2016. Because data trends were variable throughout the length of the trail (see page 12), no correction of the historical data was made to estimate 2016 levels of use. The ADT for each section of historical data is for the year in which it was collected. Of these six locations, four are Low Use and two are High Use.

To extrapolate use levels for sections of the trail from the counter data, it was assumed that users were either going out-and-back on the TRT from an access point to a major attraction (such as from the Mt. Rose Summit parking area to Galena Waterfall) or were creating a loop using the TRT and another

5

intersecting trail. This method discounts long-distance trail users and assumes that most use is day use by people who are returning to their starting location.

Trail Use Trends To answer the question, “What are the trends in trail use in general and on different segments?” historical counter data from 2007-2015 were analyzed and, where available, compared to 2016 data. The percent change in ADT over time was calculated by comparing counter data from the same location and the same calendar dates (though different years). 15 locations were analyzed: three locations had data spanning 2007-2016, six locations had data spanning 2014-2016, five locations had data spanning 2008-2016, and one location had data spanning 2014-2015 (see Table 2). Of the 15 locations, ten showed Increased Use, four showed Decreased Use, and one showed Stagnant Use (any difference of less than 2% was treated as Stagnant Use). The average change in use over all sites was strongly positive, at about a 65% increase, though this number does not reflect the differences inherent in measuring over diverse time periods at different locations. It should be noted that the ADT used for trend data may be different than the ADT used to determine overall use levels because the time frames analyzed are not identical.

Overall User Numbers To answer the question, “How many trail users recreated on the Tahoe Rim Trail system in 2016?”, three issues must be addressed. First, the trip calculations made by the counters must be converted into unique users. Second, the data from the counters must be extrapolated to estimate use over the entire trail system. Third, data from a short time period must be extrapolated to estimate use over an entire year. There is no foolproof method to accomplish any of these three tasks so the final result will be somewhat speculative. Nevertheless, it will be an improvement on the existing estimate of about 100,000 users a year which is widely believed to be outdated and does not reflect increased use trends of recent years.

The IR counters tallied a total of 183,528 trips in 2016. To convert this number from trips to users, it must be multiplied by a factor somewhere between 0.5 and 1. Multiplying by a factor of one would indicate that each trip represents one user, i.e. there were no out-and-back trips past the same counter and no one was counted by two counters on the same trip. Multiplying by a factor of 0.5 would indicate that each user passed the counter twice, i.e. every trip was out and back. We have no data on how many trips were out-and-back or covered enough distance to register on two counters, but based on observational and anecdotal evidence it is reasonable to assume that most use on most trail sections was out-and-back day use and that a majority of users were counted only by one counter on the same trip. To represent these assumptions a factor of 0.7 was used.

To extrapolate data from limited locations to estimate use covering the entire trail system, the number of users must be multiplied by another factor. Based on the results presented in the Data Use section of this report (see page 10), use data for 2016 is only available for approximately 78.2 miles or about 39.7% of the TRT system. Therefore, multiplying the IR counter data by a factor of

6

100/39.7 (approximately 2.52) will yield an estimate of the trip data extrapolated to cover 100% of the trail system.

The 2016 counters collected an average of 99.9 days of data each in a period that generally covered the season of highest use (mid-summer into early fall). July was the month with the highest number of trips at every counter site, with trip numbers declining to the lowest, but unknown, levels sometime in the winter. Without knowing the levels of use over winter, any estimates can only be reasonable approximations based on experience. Based on best-fit curves placed on graphs of the data, most sites are likely to see more than three- quarters of their use in the time period that counters were deployed. Estimating that 80% of trail use occurs during the high use season, the trip number can be multiplied by a factor of 1/0.8 (1.25).

View from the Mott Canyon reroute (under construction).

TABLE 1: Average Daily Trips, and Use Levels for 2016 and historical counters

Average Daily Counter Name Data Year Use Level Trips

Tahoe City North 2016 24.3 Low

Brockway West 1 2016 34.3 Low

Brockway West 2 2016 23.1 Low

Brockway East 2016 232.7 High Mt Rose Summit North 2016 370.8 High Tahoe Meadows South 2016 179.3 High Spooner North 2016 58.6 Moderate

Spooner South 2016 89.3 Moderate

Kingsbury North 2016 124.5 High Van Sickle Connector North 2016 30.9 Low Stagecoach South 2016 56.3 Moderate

Mott Canyon South 2016 22.9 Low Grass Lake Spur North 2016 39.3 Low Big Meadow South 2016 184.5 High

Echo Summit South 2016 44.4 Moderate

Barker Pass North 2016 44.7 Moderate Upper Van Sickle Connector 2015 57.0 Moderate Lower Van Sickle Connector 2015 281.8 High Monument Pass 2015 31.7 Low

Page Meadows 2014 45.9 Moderate

Echo Lake North 2014 319.5 High

Tahoe City South 2010 46.4 Moderate

8

TABLE 2: Percent change in Average Daily Trips over time

Counter Data Years & Time Period Percent Change Name Average Daily Trips Analyzed Over Time

Tahoe City 2007 2014 2016 7.29 – 9.5 -39.6% North 41.3 78.2 24.9

Brockway 2014 2016 7.17 – 9.30 +16.1% West 29.6 34.3

Brockway 2008 2014 2016 6.24 - 7.29 +230.4% East 78.5 161.0 256.1 2007 2016 Mt Rose 6.24 – 10.12 +86.5% Summit North 186.8 348.5 Tahoe 2008 2014 2016 Meadows 6.30-10.9 +18.3% South 146.1 159.4 172.9 2008 2014 2016 Spooner 9.1 – 9.30 +59.9 North 26.0 38.3 48.1 2008 2014 2016 Spooner 7.16 – 10.21 +86.7% South 43.7 69.4 81.5 2014 2016 Kingsbury 7.19 – 10.21 +222.6% North 31.7 102.2 Lower Van 2014 2015 Sickle 7.21 – 8.1 +49.3% Connector 222.6 332.3 2014 2016 Stagecoach 7.19 – 10.20 -31.8% South 71.8 48.9

Mott Canyon 2014 2015 2016 8.30 – 10.11 -12.7% South 21.5 26.1 18.7 2014 2016 Grass Lake 7.21 – 9.25 +3.62% Spur North 36.3 37.6 2007 2014 2016 Big Meadow 7.19 – 10.1 +52.4% South 131.2 129.0 173.6

Echo Summit 2014 2016 7.19 – 10.29 -17.6% South 34.3 28.3 2008 2010 2014 2016 Barker Pass 7.29 – 10.9 -0.1% North 42.0 53.2 49.6 41.6 Note: the ADT for each counter reflects only the period of time when data was collected for all years analyzed; the numbers may vary from ADTs in Table 1.

9

IR COUNTER RESULTS

Trail Use Levels High, Moderate, Low and Unknown trail use on the Tahoe Rim Trail is shown in Map 3. Areas of the trail identified as High Use based on the IR counter data comprise 20.5 miles or 10.4% of the trail and are:

1) Brockway east up to the Picnic Rock Vista, 2) The Waterfall Trail from Mt. Rose Summit to the Galena Waterfall, 3) Ophir Creek to Tunnel Creek Road, 4) The Kingsbury North Connector, 5) Big Meadow south to the Lake/Christmas Valley Trail, 6) The Van Sickle Connector Trail up to the waterfall, and 7) Echo Lake parking area to the boat landing at Upper Echo Lake.

Identified Moderate Use sections comprise 26.5 miles or 13.5% of the trail and are:

1) Spooner Summit north to the North Canyon Trail, 2) Spooner Summit south to the first intersection with Genoa Peak Road, 3) The Van Sickle Connector Trail from the waterfall up, 4) Stagecoach junction south to Mott Canyon, 5) Echo Summit south to Showers Lake, 6) Barker Pass north to the PCT/TRT junction, and 7) Ward Creek Boulevard through Page Meadows to Tahoe City.

Identified Low Use sections comprise 31.2 miles or 15.8% of the trail and are:

1) Tahoe City to Brockway, 2) The TRT/Van Sickle Connector intersection north to Kingsbury Grade, 3) Mott Canyon south to Monument Pass, and 4) Big Meadow north to Tucker Flat including the Grass Lake Spur.

The remaining areas of the trail are designated as Unknown Use since there is no reliable IR counter data there.

In addition to the Average Daily Trip levels, Maximum Daily Trip information was calculated for select counters by isolating the day that each saw the most recorded trips (excluding days with special events such as races). In 2016, North saw 929 trips and Brockway East saw 721 trips on July 3, Tahoe Meadows South saw 436 trips on July 30, and Big Meadow South saw 379 trips on August 13. In 2015 Lower Van Sickle Connector saw 548 trips on June 22 and in 2014 Echo Lake North saw 800 trips on August 31.

Current data on use levels can only be extrapolated for 78.2 miles, or approximately 39.7% of the TRT system. While more data collection clearly needs to be done to gain a complete picture, the available data is useful. For example, some trailheads, such as Brockway and Big Meadow, show High Use in one direction and Low Use in the other. To ease overuse of the High Use section, additional information or marketing on the Low Use section could be presented at the trailhead. This might help ease overcrowding and resource damage by spreading visitation more evenly. In contrast, the Tahoe

10 MOUNT ROSE TRAIL USE LEVELS WILDERNESS

MAP 3

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

GRANITE CHIEF WILDERNESS NEVADA CALIFORNIA

ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST

DESOLATION WILDERNESS

LEGEND National Forest LAKE TAHOE Designated BASIN HUMBOLDT- Wilderness MANAGEMENT TOIYABE UNIT NATIONAL Lake Tahoe FOREST NV State Park High Use

Moderate Use

Low Use

Unknown Use

0 3 6 Miles ¸ 11

Meadows/Mount Rose Summit/Ophir Creek area clearly sees High Use in both directions. This may indicate a location where additional trail connections might help disperse use, where parking is likely a concern, and where user education will reach more people. The data can also help identify sections where use levels may warrant a closer inspection of trail deficiencies and where additional facilities may need to be located. When data from the trail sections that currently have unknown use levels is analyzed, trail-wide analyses may be performed to direct resources and inform management decisions.

Trail Use Trends Areas of Increased, Decreased, Stagnant and Unknown Use trends are show in Map 4. Identified areas of Increased Use based on IR counter data comprise 35.0 miles or 17.8% of the trail and are:

1) Brockway west to Watson Lake, 2) Brockway east up to the Picnic Rock Vista, 3) The Waterfall Trail from Mt. Rose Summit to the Galena Waterfall, 4) Ophir Creek to Tunnel Creek Road, 5) Spooner Summit north to the North Canyon Trail, 6) Spooner Summit south to the first intersection with Genoa Peak Road, 7) The Kingsbury North Connector, 8) The Van Sickle Connector Trail up to the waterfall, 9) Big Meadow north and Grass Lake Spur North to Tucker Flat, and 10) Big Meadow south to the Lake/Christmas Valley Trail.

Identified areas of Decreased Use comprise 18.5 miles or 9.4% of the trail and are:

1) Tahoe City north to the trail connector, 2) Stagecoach south to Monument Pass, and 3) Echo Summit south to Showers Lake.

The only identified area of Stagnant Use comprises 4.9 miles or 2.5% of the trail and is:

1) Barker Pass north to the PCT/TRT junction.

The remaining areas of the trail are designated as Unknown Use since there is no reliable IR counter data on trends there.

Current data on use trends can only be extrapolated for 58.4 miles, or approximately 29.6% of the TRT system. In general, the data suggest that use is up on most trail sections monitored, and very sharply up in some. Where use is trending down it is only at modest levels. There are no discernable geographic trends but there is a correlation between trends and overall use levels: no High Use sections showed Decreased or Stagnant trends.

Overall User Numbers The IR counters produced a total of 183,528 trips in 2016. This number multiplied by 0.7 (to convert trips to users) equals 128,470, Multiplying this by 2.52 (to extrapolate over the entire system) equals 323,743. Multiplying this by

12 MOUNT ROSE TRAIL USE TRENDS WILDERNESS

MAP 4

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

GRANITE CHIEF WILDERNESS NEVADA CALIFORNIA

ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST

DESOLATION WILDERNESS

LEGEND National Forest LAKE TAHOE Designated BASIN HUMBOLDT- Wilderness MANAGEMENT TOIYABE UNIT NATIONAL Lake Tahoe FOREST NV State Park Increased Use

Stagnant Use

Decreased Use

Unknown Use

0 3 6 Miles ¸ 13

1.25 (to extrapolate for the entire year) produces a total of 404,679 users in 2016. This number should be viewed in the context of visitation to the region as a whole. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit reports over 5.7 million annual visits and many of those visitors choose to walk, hike, or bike on the unit’s 300 miles of non-motorized trails. Since the TRT system makes up about half of the non-motorized trail miles on the Unit, it is not unreasonable to expect nearly half a million visitors to that system annually.

Such high visitation suggests that the TRT system is an essential part of the trail network both in the Basin and in the larger, regional context. The data suggest that the TRT system should be viewed as critical recreation infrastructure.

Fontanillis Lake in Desolation Wilderness from the TRT/PCT.

14

BICYCLE COUNTERS

ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES 03 Even/Odd Restricted Access Advisory Area In order to answer the question “What is the compliance rate for the Even/Odd restricted-access advisory trail section?”, data from two MB counters placed south of Ophir Creek and north of Tunnel Creek Road were utilized. The counters recorded data for 87 days from mid-July to mid- October. The collected data were sorted by day of the month to determine how many users complied with the advisory that mountain bikes should only ride on even days.

Restricted Access Area Incursions In order to answer the questions “How many mountain bikes trespass into the from the TRT?” and “What is the rate of mountain bike incursion on the restricted-access section from Hobart Road south to Spooner Summit?” data from MB counters placed on the TRT within each of these sections were utilized. The counters recorded data for 87 days from mid-July to mid-October. The collected data were analyzed to determine average daily trips and trends such as time of day and day of the week that the counts were recorded.

MB COUNTER RESULTS

Even/Odd Restricted Access Advisory Area Compliance with the even/odd restricted access advisory is summarized in Table 3. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this section of trail is most commonly ridden downhill, from Tahoe Meadows to Tunnel Creek Road, and at least one shuttle company provides transportation for riding in this direction and does so exclusively on even days. However, Ophir Creek saw about a third more mountain bike traffic than Tunnel Creek Road did, which suggests that a significant number of bikers are making out-and-back trips, or trips that utilize unofficial trails to reach an alternate destination, instead of riding the section through from end to end. The Ophir Creek counter also recorded a lower compliance rate than Tunnel Creek, which may indicate that riders who make out-and-back trips or utilize unofficial trails are less concerned with abiding by the restricted access advisory.

Because both the Tahoe Meadows IR counter and the Ophir Creek MB counter were placed in the same location, their average ADT counts can show what percentage of the total user population rode bikes. The data indicate that over the same dates the total ADT was 156.7 while the biker ADT was 88.4. This means that approximately 56.4% of trail users on this section of trail rode bikes.

15

TABLE 3: Mountain bike use in restricted use advisory areas

Odd Use on Even Use on Percent Location Day Even Days Day ADT Odd Days Compliance ADT

Ophir Creek 6220 144.7 1468 33.4 80.9% South

Tunnel Creek 4467 103.9 611 13.9 88.0% Road North

Restricted Access Area Incursions Data on mountain bike incursions into restricted access areas is summarized in Table 4. All areas monitored saw lower mountain bike use than on the Ophir Creek/Tunnel Creek section, even on days when such use is not advised. However, the eastern border of the Mount Rose Wilderness saw nearly twice the number of incursions as the western border, suggesting that many riders are either going out-and-back from the Relay Peak area or are leaving the wilderness through a non-TRT system trail. There were exactly double the riders at Spooner Summit compared with Hobart Road, suggesting that low numbers of riders travel that entire section. Instead, they likely go out-and- back, or there are significant numbers of riders who use the TRT as part of a loop that may include the North Canyon Trail, and/or the forest road from to Marlette Campground.

TABLE 4: Mountain bike incursions in restricted access areas

Location Number of Incursions ADT

Mount Rose Wilderness West 555 6.4

Mount Rose Wilderness East 905 10.4

Hobart Road South 512 5.9

Spooner Summit North 1024 11.8

Table 5 summarizes the temporal trends of mountain bike incursions into restricted access areas. Data was sorted by day of the week and by whether the counts occurred in daylight hours (7AM to 7PM) or darkness (7PM to 7AM). Sorting data by day of the week can give some estimate of whether the riders are locals (who tend to avoid the crowds on the weekends and ride during the week) or visitors (who tend to visit on weekends). Sorting data by time of day can give some estimate as to whether the incursions are meant to be clandestine. Anecdotal reports indicate that some users who knowingly trespass, particularly into designated Wilderness areas, do so at night to avoid detection.

16

The data suggest that visitors may be responsible for a larger percentage of the incursions at Spooner Summit and Hobart Road. 57.1% of incursions south of Hobart Road are on the weekends while 41.7% from Spooner Summit are. Both of these numbers are higher than the 40.0% of incursions into Mount Rose Wilderness from the west and 34.8% from the east that occur on weekends.

Initial data also indicate that more incursions happen during hours of darkness on the Hobart to Spooner section than in the Wilderness. However, when the data is analyzed by how much traffic occurs during hours of darkness on the weekends compared to the weekdays (Table 6) three of the four sites show significant differences. Both of the Wilderness locations show at least twice as many incursions occur on the weekdays while the Hobart Road location shows twice as many occur on the weekends. This data seem to support the conclusion that local traffic plays a larger role in trespassing into the Wilderness area than it does in accessing the Hobart/Spooner trail.

TABLE 5: Temporal trends of mountain bike incursions in restricted access areas

Percent of Traffic on Each Day of Percent of Traffic Each Location the Week Time of Day Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Daylight Darkness

Mount Rose 16.9 11.4 9.5 13.3 13.8 12.0 23.1 96.3 3.7 Wilderness West

Mount Rose 12.1 10.1 13.7 15.3 13.2 13.0 22.7 96.6 3.4 Wilderness East

Hobart Road 26.4 8.0 6.8 11.9 9.0 8.2 29.7 92.9 7.1 South

Spooner Summit 20.3 10.5 15.5 10.1 11.1 11.0 21.4 93.8 6.2 North

17

TABLE 6: Percent of bike traffic during hours of darkness on weekends and weekdays

Percent of Traffic During Hours of Darkness Location Weekends Weekdays

Mount Rose Wilderness West 2.1 4.2

Mount Rose Wilderness East 1.7 5.0

Hobart Road South 9.4 4.1

Spooner Summit North 6.1 6.2

The Ward Creek Bridge.

18

NEXT STEPS 04 LESSONS LEARNED The major lessons learned for the Trail Counter Program in 2016 can help to inform the evolution of the program as it moves forward. The lessons learned this year are as follows:

1) Counters should be installed extremely carefully and only after thorough training, 2) IR Counters must be monitored regularly for external malfunction or vandalism, 3) Downloading data from counters in the field should be minimized as it creates data holes and increases post-processing time, or those who download the data should be tasked with submitting a final counter file, 4) Counter location plans should include goals for collecting data both for sections of trail with unknown use levels and for sections where data has been collected in the past as this provides both benchmark and trend data, 5) All counters should be installed at approximately the same date early in the season and removed at approximately the same date late in the season or left to overwinter, 6) Partner agencies and organizations should be included in the planning process and notified of counter installations and removals, and 7) A consistent source of funding should be secured to replace counters that are stolen, broken, or malfunction and to increase the fleet if deemed necessary.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2017 & BEYOND

In order to continue the development of a robust Trail Counter Program both specific recommendations for 2017 and general goals for the years beyond should be outlined. Based on the results of this report, the specific recommendations for 2017 are as follows. Note that some counters will collect data that can be useful for multiple ends but are only listed once in following recommendations.

IR counters should be installed in the following locations to determine pre- and/or post-construction use levels:

1) In the Martis Peak area between the two road walks. 2) On the Waterfall Trail at Mount Rose Summit North in the location used in 2016, 3) Near the future Panorama Trail junction, 4) In the previously used location near the Mott Canyon reroute, 5) North of the Echo Summit reroute between Highway 50 and Echo Lakes, and 6) South of the Ward Creek Bridge.

IR counters should be installed in the following locations to develop trend data:

1) At Spooner South in the same location used in 2016,

19

2) Lower Van Sickle Connector near the waterfall in the same location used in 2015, 3) Echo Lake North in the same location used in 2014, and 4) Page Meadow in the same location used in 2014.

IR counters should be installed in the following locations to collect additional data on trends that defied expectations:

1) Tahoe City North in the same location used in 2016, 2) Stagecoach South in the same location used in 2016, and 3) Echo Summit South in the same location used in 2016.

IR counters should be installed in the following locations to expand knowledge on use levels in where no benchmark data has been collected thus far:

1) In the Mount Rose Wilderness west of the Gray Lake Trail, 2) In the Spooner backcountry between Tunnel Creek and Christopher’s Loop, 3) South of Spooner Summit near the bench, 4) On the eastern portion of the Daggett Loop, 5) South of Armstrong Pass, 6) Between Showers Lake and the southern PCT/TRT junction, 7) In Desolation Wilderness north of Echo Lakes, and 8) South of Barker Pass.

This plan would require a modest investment in additional IR counters.

MB counters should be installed in areas where bicycle use is restricted in the southwest portion of the trail including:

1) Between Showers Lake and the southern PCT/TRT junction, 2) At Echo Summit South, 3) South of Richardson Lake, 4) South of Barker Pass, 5) North of Barker Pass, and 6) Just south of the northern PCT/TRT junction.

The general goals for 2017 and beyond are:

1) Consider reducing the number of volunteers involved with installing, monitoring, and retrieving counters to improve consistency and reduce staff time devoted to volunteer coordination, 2) Finalize counter locations for the 2017 season prior to the close of the April Trail Operations Committee meeting, and 3) Leave several IR counters in place throughout the winter to evaluate off-season trail use. 4) Evaluate the possibility of installing permanent counters in locations where data collection will be consistently valuable, 5) Though currently prohibitively expensive, monitor the cost of counters that allow for remote access to data, and

20

6) Utilize the trail use data to leverage additional funding, resources and improvements to the TRT system.

View from the TRT/PCT south of Echo Summit.

21