National Visitor Use
Monitoring Results
August 2002
USDA Forest Service
Region 5
TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST
Prepared by:
Susan M. Kocis
Stanley J.
Zarnoch
Ross Arnold
Larry Warren
Scope
and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring project
CHAPTER
1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The
NVUM Process and Definition of Terms
Constraints
On Uses of the Results
The
Forest Stratification Results
Table
1. Population of available site days for
sampling and percentage of days sampled by stratum
CHAPTER
2: VISITATION ESTIMATES
Table
2. Tahoe National Forest annual
recreation use estimate
Table
3. Number of last-exiting recreation
visitors by site type and form type 1/
Table
4. Gender distribution of Tahoe NF
recreation visitors
Table
5. Age distribution of Tahoe NF
recreation visitors
Table
6. Race/ethnicity of recreation visitors
Table
7. Zip codes of Tahoe NF recreation
visitors
Average
number of people per vehicle and average axle count per vehicle in survey
CHAPTER
3: WILDERNESS VISITORS
Table
8. Age distribution of Tahoe NF
Wilderness visitors
Table
9. Race/ethnicity of Tahoe NF Wilderness
visitors
Table
10. Zip codes of Tahoe NF Wilderness
visitors
Table
11. Satisfaction of Tahoe NF Wilderness
visitors
CHAPTER
4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT
Table
12. Site visit length of stay (in hours)
by site/type on Tahoe NF
Table
13. Tahoe National Forest activity
participation and primary activity
Use
of constructed facilities and designated areas
Table
14. Percentage use of Tahoe NF
facilities and specially designated areas
Table
15. Substitute behavior choices of Tahoe
NF recreation visitors
Average
yearly spending on outdoor recreation.
Visitors’
average spending on a trip to the forest
Visitor
Satisfaction Information
Table
16. Satisfaction of Tahoe NF recreation
visitors at Developed Day Use sites
Table
17. Satisfaction of Tahoe NF recreation
visitors at Developed Overnight sites.
Table
18. Satisfaction of Tahoe NF recreation
visitors in General Forest Areas
Table
19. Perception of crowding by recreation
visitors by site type (percent site visits)
Other
comments from Tahoe National Forest visitors
Table
20. List of comments received from Tahoe
NF recreation visitors
The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project was implemented as a response to the need to better understand the use and importance of and satisfaction with national forest system recreation opportunities. This level of understanding is required by national forest plans, Executive Order 12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation Agenda. To improve public service, the agency’s Strategic and Annual Performance Plans require measuring trends in user satisfaction and use levels. It will assist Congress, Forest Service leaders, and program managers in making sound decisions that best serve the public and protect valuable natural resources by providing science based, reliable information about the type, quantity, quality and location of recreation use on public lands. The information collected is also important to external customers including state agencies and private industry. NVUM methodology and analysis is explained in detail in the research paper entitled: Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation; English, Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold; Southern Research Station; May 2002 (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).
In conjunction with guidelines and recommendations from the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, the USDA-Forest Service has estimated recreation use and maintained records since the 1950s. Many publications on preferred techniques for estimating recreation use at developed and dispersed recreation sites were sponsored by Forest Service Research Stations and Universities. Implementation of these recommended methodologies takes specific skills, a dedicated work force, and strict adherence to an appropriate sampling plan. The earliest estimates were designed to estimate use at developed fee recreation facilities such as campgrounds. These estimates have always been fairly reliable because they are based upon readily observable, objective counts of items such as a fee envelope.
Prior to the mid-1990s,
the Forest Service used its Recreation Information Management (RIM) system to
store and analyze recreation use information.
Forest managers often found they lacked the resources to simultaneously
manage the recreation facilities and monitor visitor use following the
established protocols. In 1996, the RIM
monitoring protocols were no longer required to be used.
In 1998 a group of research and forest staff were appointed to investigate and pilot a recreation sampling system that would be cost effective and provide statistical recreation use information at the forest, regional, and national level. Since that time, a permanent sampling system (NVUM) has been developed. Several Forest Service staff areas including Recreation, Wilderness, Ecosystem Management, Research and Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment are involved in implementing the program. A four-year cycle of data collection was established. In any given year, 25 percent of the national forests conduct on-site interviews and sampling of recreation visitors. The first 25 percent of the forests included in the first four-year cycle completed sampling in December of 2000. The second group of forests began sampling October 2000 and completed sampling September 2001. The last 25 percent of the first, four-year cycle forests will complete their sampling in September 2003. The cycle begins again in October 2004. This ongoing cycle will provide quality recreation information needed for improving citizen centered recreation services.
This
data can be very useful for forest planning and decision making. The information provided can be used
in economic efficiency analysis that requires providing a value per National
Forest Visit. This can then be compared
to other resource values. The
description of visitor characteristics (age, race, zip code, activity
participation) can help the forest identify the type of recreation niche they
fill. The satisfaction information can
help management decide where best to place limited resources that would result
in improved visitor satisfaction. The
economic expenditure information can help forests show local communities the
employment and income effects of tourism from forest visitors. In addition, the credible use statistics can
be helpful in considering visitor capacity issues.
NVUM has standardized definitions of visitor use measurement to ensure that all national forest visitor measurements are comparable. These definitions are basically the same as established by the Forest Service since the 1970s, however the application of the definition is stricter. Visitors must pursue a recreation activity physically located “on” Forest Service managed land in order to be counted. They cannot be passing through, viewing from non-Forest Service managed roads, or just using restroom facilities. The NVUM basic use measurements are national forest visits and site visits. Along with these use measurements basic statistics, which indicate the precision of the estimate, are given. These statistics include the error rate and associated confidence intervals at the 80 percent confidence level. The definitions of these terms follow.
National forest visit - the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A national forest visit can be composed of multiple site visits.
Site visit - the entry of one person onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time.
Recreation trip – the duration of time beginning when the visitor left their home and ending when they got back to their home.
Confidence
level and error rate - used
together these two terms define the reliability of the estimated visits. The confidence level provides a specified
level of certainty for a confidence interval defining a range of values around
the estimate. The error rate (which is
never a bad thing like making an error on a test) is expressed as a percent of
the estimate and can be used to obtain the upper and lower bounds of the
confidence interval. The lower the error
rate and the higher the confidence level the better the estimate. An 80 percent confidence level is very
acceptable for social science applications at a broad national or forest
scale. The two terms are used to
describe the estimate. For example: At the 80 percent confidence level there are
240 million national forest visits plus or minus 15 percent. In other words we are 80 percent confident that
the true number of national forest visits lies between 204 million and 276
million.
To participate in the NVUM process, forests first categorized all recreation sites and areas into five basic categories called “site types”: Day Use Developed Sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), Wilderness, General Forest Areas (GFA), and View Corridors (VC). Only the first four categories are considered “true” national forest visits and were included in the estimate provided. Within these broad categories (called site types) every open day of the year for each site/area was rated as high, medium or low last exiting recreation use. Sites/areas that are scheduled to be closed or would have “0” use were also identified. Each day on which a site or area is open is called a site day and is the basic sampling unit for the survey. Results of this forest categorization are shown in Table 1.
A map showing all General Forest Exit locations and View
Corridors was prepared and archived with the NVUM data for use in future sample
years. NVUM also provided training
materials, equipment, survey forms, funding, and the protocol necessary for the
forest to gather visitor use information.
NVUM terms used in the site categorization framework are
defined below:
Site day - a day that a recreation
site or area is open to the public for recreation purposes.
Site types -- stratification of a
forest recreation site or area into one of six broad categories as defined in
the paper: Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research
Method Documentation, May 2002, English et al. The categories are Day Use Developed sites
(DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), General Forest Areas (GFA),
Wilderness (WILD), and View Corridors (VC).
Another category called Off-Forest Recreation Activities (OFRA) was
categorized but not sampled.
Proxy – information collected at a recreation site or area that is
related to the amount of recreation visitation received. The proxy information must pertain to all
users of the site, it must be an exact tally of use and it must be one of the
proxy types allowed in the NVUM pre-work directions (fee receipts, fee
envelopes, mandatory permits, permanent traffic counters, ticket sales, and
daily use records).
Nonproxy – a recreation site or area that does not have proxy
information. At these sites a 24-hour
traffic count is taken to measure total use for one site day at the sample site.
Use level strata - for either proxy or nonproxy sites, each day that a
recreation site or area was open for recreation, the site day was categorized
as either high, medium or low last exiting recreation traffic, or closed. Closed was defined as either administratively
closed or “0” use. For example Sabino
Picnic Area (a DUDS nonproxy site) is closed for 120 days, has high last
exiting recreation use on open weekends (70 days) and medium last exiting
recreation use on open midweek days (175 days).
This accounts for all 365 days of the year at Sabino Picnic area. This process was repeated for every developed
site and area on the forest.
The information
presented here is valid and applicable at the forest level. It is not designed to be accurate at the
district or site level. The quality of
the visitation estimate is dependent on the preliminary sample design
development, sampling unit selection, sample size and variability, and survey
implementation. First, preliminary work
conducted by forests to classify sites consistently according to the type and
amount of visitation influences the quality of the estimate. Second, visitors sampled must be
representative of the population of all visitors. Third, the number of visitors sampled must be
large enough to adequately control variability.
Finally, the success of the forest in accomplishing its assigned sample
days, correctly filling out the interview forms, and following the sample
protocol influence the error rate. The
error rate will reflect all these factors.
The smaller the error rate, the better the estimate. Interviewer error in asking the questions is
not necessarily reflected in this error rate.
Large error rates (i.e. high variability) in the national forest visit (NFV), site visit (SV) and Wilderness visit estimates is primarily caused by a small sample size in a given stratum (for example General Forest Area low use days) where the use observed was beyond that stratum’s normal range. For example, on the Clearwater National Forest in the General Forest Area low stratum, there were 14 sample days. Of these 14 sample days, 13 days had visitation estimates between 0-20. One observation had a visitation estimate of 440. Therefore, the stratum mean was about 37 with a standard error of 116. The 80% confidence interval width is then 400% of the mean, a very high error rate (variability). Whether these types of odd observations are due to unusual weather, malfunctioning traffic counters, or a misclassification of the day (a sampled low use day that should have been categorized as a high use day) is unknown. Eliminating the unusual observation from data analyis could reduce the error rate. However, the NVUM team had no reason to suspect the data was incorrect and did not eliminate these unusual cases.
The descriptive information about national forest
visitors is based upon only those visitors that were interviewed. If a forest has distinct seasonal use
patterns and activities that vary greatly by season, these patterns may or may
not be adequately captured in this study.
This study was designed to estimate total number of people during a
year. Sample days were distributed based
upon high, medium, and low exiting use days, not seasons. When applying these results in forest
analysis, items such as activity participation should be carefully
scrutinized. For example, although the
Routt National Forest had over 1 million skier visits, no sample days occurred during
the main ski season; they occurred at the ski area but during their high use
summer season. Therefore, activity
participation based upon interviews did not adequately capture downhill
skiers. This particular issue was
adjusted. However, the same issue-
seasonal use patterns- may still occur to a lesser degree on other
forests. Future sample design will
attempt to incorporate seasonal variation in use.
Some forest visitors
were counted and included in the total forest use estimate but were not
surveyed. This included visitors to recreation
special events and organization camps.
The results of the recreation site/area stratification and sample days accomplished by this forest are displayed in Table 1. This table describes the population of available site days open for sampling based on forest pre-work completed prior to the actual surveys. Every site and area on the forest was categorized as high, medium, low, or closed last exiting recreation use. This stratification was then used to randomly select sampling days for this forest. The project methods paper listed on page one describes the sampling process and sample allocation formulas in detail. Basically, at least eight sample days per stratum are randomly selected for sampling and more days are added if the stratum is very large. Also displayed on the table is the percentage of sample days per stratum accomplished by the forest.
|
Nonproxy |
Proxy |
||||
Strata |
Total days in nonproxy population |
Days sampled #
percent |
Total days in proxy population |
Days sampled #
percent |
||
OUDS H |
2 |
4.2 |
9,257 |
12 |
0.1 |
|
OUDS M |
392 |
13 |
3.3 |
|||
OUDS L |
1,448 |
10 |
0.7 |
|||
DUDS H |
149 |
12 |
8.1 |
1,470 |
10 |
0.7 |
DUDS M |
204 |
10 |
5.4 |
|||
DUDS L |
1,649 |
11 |
0.6 |
|||
Wild H |
86 |
10 |
11.6 |
|
|
|
Wild M |
118 |
9 |
7.6 |
|||
Wild L |
439 |
9 |
2.1 |
|||
GFA H |
934 |
34 |
3.6 |
135 |
4 |
3.0 |
GFA M |
5,061 |
70 |
1.4 |
|||
GFA L |
17,280 |
29 |
0.2 |
|||
TOTALS |
27,808 |
218 |
|
10,862 |
26 |
|
Visitor use estimates are available at the national, regional, and forest level. Only forest level data is provided here. For national and regional reports visit the following web site: (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum).
National
Forest Visits |
Site Visits |
Wilderness
Visits |
|||
Visits |
Error Rate |
Visits |
Error Rate |
Visits |
Error Rate |
22.0 % |
4,451,970 |
19.2 % |
16,990 |
17.2 % |
The forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2000 through September 2001. The forest coordinators were Jerry Cowan and Anne Green. The forest was assigned 244 interview days and accomplished 244 of them (accomplished 100 percent). The forest coordinators reported a fairly normal snowfall for winter recreation. However, the forest had several forest fires from August 12 through September 12 of the sample year that closed various parts of the forest. In addition visitors stayed away from the forest because of fire restrictions even when fires were not burning.
Recreation use on the forest for fiscal year 2001 at the 80 percent confidence level was 3.69 million national forest visits +/- 22 percent. There were 4.45 million site visits, an average of 1.2 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 16,990 Wilderness visits.
A total of 2,094 visitors were contacted on the forest during
the sample year. Of these, 4 percent
refused to be interviewed. Of the 2,010
people who agreed to be interviewed, about 8 percent were not recreating,
including 1 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 2 percent were
working, 4 percent were just passing through, and 1 percent had some other
reason to be there. About 92 percent of
those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and
95 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing
to be interviewed, about 85 percent were last exiting recreation visitors (the
target interview population). Table 3
displays the number of last-exiting recreation visitors interviewed at each
site type and the type of interview form they answered.
Form Type |
Day Use |
Overnight |
General
Forest |
Wilderness |
Basic |
24 |
524 |
104 |
|
Satisfaction |
119 |
15 |
251 |
52 |
Economics |
103 |
16 |
253 |
44 |
1/ Form type means the
type of interview form administered to the visitor. The basic form did not ask either economic or
satisfaction questions. The Satisfaction
form did not ask economic questions and the economic form did not ask
satisfaction questions.
Basic descriptors of the forest visitors
were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the
national forest visitor population.
Tables 4 and 5 display gender and age descriptors.
Gender |
Female
29.6 |
Age Group |
Percent in group |
Under 16 |
|
16-20 |
1.0 |
21-30 |
22.5 |
31-40 |
17.2 |
41-50 |
22.8 |
51-60 |
11.9 |
61-70 |
7.3 |
Over 70 |
3.7 |
Visitors categorized themselves into one of
seven race/ethnicity categories. Table 6
gives a detailed breakout by category.
Category |
Total percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
|
Asian |
2.8 |
White |
89.3 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
0.2 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
1.9 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
1.9 |
Other |
2.7 |
Less than one (0.6)
percent of forest visitors were from another country. The survey did not collect country
affiliation. Visitors most frequently
reported zip codes are shown in Table 7.
The forest can determine what percent of local visitor use they have by
comparing the local forest zip codes to those listed. The zip code data for the forest will also
soon be available on a database. There
were about 510 different zip codes reported.
This information can be used with programs such as “zipfip” or census
data for more extensive analysis.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
145 |
8.8 |
|
89509 |
48 |
2.9 |
96160 |
45 |
2.7 |
96162 |
39 |
2.4 |
95631 |
87 |
2.2 |
95959 |
33 |
2.0 |
96145 |
28 |
1.7 |
95945 |
26 |
1.6 |
95603 |
25 |
1.5 |
89503 |
20 |
1.2 |
95949 |
16 |
1.0 |
95661 |
15 |
0.9 |
89511 |
14 |
0.8 |
89502 |
13 |
0.8 |
95678 |
13 |
0.8 |
95922 |
13 |
0.8 |
89431 |
12 |
0.7 |
89436 |
12 |
0.7 |
89506 |
12 |
0.7 |
There was an average of 2.1 people per vehicle with an
average of 2.0 axles per vehicle. This
information in conjunction with traffic counts was used to expand observations
from individual interviews to the full forest population of recreation
visitors. This information may be useful
to forest engineers and others who use vehicle counters to conduct traffic
studies.
Several questions on the NVUM survey form
dealt directly with use of designated Wilderness. Wilderness was sampled 52 days on the
forest. There were 51.3 percent male and
48.7 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. Tables 8 and 9 display the age distribution
and race/ethnicity of Wilderness visitors.
Age Group |
Percent in group |
Under 16 |
|
16-20 |
1.7 |
21-30 |
14.0 |
31-40 |
29.7 |
41-50 |
18.1 |
51-60 |
19.3 |
61-70 |
9.4 |
Over 70 |
2.6 |
Category |
Total percent national forest visits |
Black/African American |
|
Asian |
3.9 |
White |
92.3 |
American Indian/Alaska Native |
0.0 |
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
0.8 |
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino |
2.7 |
Other |
0.0 |
The Wilderness visitors were from a wide variety of zip
codes. The distribution of Wilderness
visitor zip codes is shown in Table 10.
There were over 100 different zip codes reported.
Zip Code |
Frequency |
Percent |
17 |
7.5 |
|
96145 |
12 |
5.3 |
89509 |
8 |
3.5 |
96162 |
7 |
3.1 |
95816 |
6 |
2.6 |
96146 |
6 |
2.6 |
96160 |
5 |
2.2 |
94123 |
4 |
1.8 |
95404 |
4 |
1.8 |
96141 |
4 |
1.8 |
96143 |
4 |
1.8 |
94118 |
3 |
1.3 |
94618 |
3 |
1.3 |
95403 |
3 |
1.3 |
The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 6.0
hours. In addition, all visitors were
asked on how many different days they entered into designated Wilderness during
their national forest visit even if we interviewed them at a developed
recreation site or general forest area. Of those visitors who did enter
designated Wilderness, they entered 1.4 different days.
None of those interviewed in Wilderness said they used the
services of a commercial guide.
Table 11 gives detailed information about how the Wilderness
visitors rated various aspects of the area.
An general example of how to interpret this information: If the visitors
had rated the importance of the adequacy of signage a 5.0 (very important) and
they rated their satisfaction with the adequacy of signage a 3.0 (somewhat satisfied) then the forest might be
able to increase visitor satisfaction.
Perhaps twenty-nine percent of visitors said the adequacy of signage was
poor. The forest could target improving
this sector of visitors for increased satisfaction by improving the signage for
Wilderness. NOTE: For a few of these satisfaction elements,
fewer than 10 individuals responded.
These sample sizes were considered too small to yield reliable
results. Consequently, data for these
elements in Table 11 are suppressed.
Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 4.3 (on a
scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they felt there were an
average number of people there. No one
said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and 1.2 percent
said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of Visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To Visitors (n) |
||||
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.0 |
9.7 |
90.3 |
4.9
16 |
4.9 15 |
|
Available
parking |
1.9 |
4.4 |
14.7 |
34.4 |
44.6 |
4.2
16 |
3.2 15 |
Parking lot
condition |
0.0 |
13.7 |
26.8 |
27.7 |
31.7 |
3.8
13 |
2.9 12 |
Cleanliness
of restrooms |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- 7 |
- 7 |
Condition
of the natural environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
5.1 |
36.5 |
58.4 |
4.5
16 |
4.6 15 |
Condition
of developed recreation facilities |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- 5 |
- 6 |
Condition
of forest roads |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
34.3 |
65.7 |
4.7
11 |
3.9 10 |
Condition
of forest trails |
0.0 |
2.5 |
2.9 |
52.3 |
42.4 |
4.3
16 |
4.2 15 |
Availability
of information on recreation |
0.0 |
0.0 |
14.0 |
44.7 |
41.3 |
4.3
13 |
4.2 12 |
Feeling of
safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
8.4 |
91.6 |
4.9
16 |
4.2 15 |
Adequacy of
signage |
0.0 |
1.0 |
36.6 |
38.2 |
24.3 |
3.9
15 |
3.8 13 |
Helpfulness
of employees |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- 8 |
- 7 |
Attractiveness
of the forest landscape |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
11.7 |
88.3 |
4.9
16 |
4.9 15 |
Value for
fee paid |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
52.8 |
47.2 |
4.5
13 |
5.0 12 |
* Scale is: P
= poor F = fair A = average
G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
n = number of people who responded to this
item
A description of visitor activity during their national forest
visit was developed. This basic
information includes participation in various recreation activities, length of
stay on the national forest and at recreation sites, visitor satisfaction with
national forest facilities and services, and economic expenditures.
The average length of stay on this forest for a national
forest visit was 12.8 hours. Over
eleven percent (11.4%) of visitors spent the night on the national forest.
In addition, visitors reported how much time they spent on the
specific recreation site at which they were interviewed. Average time spent varied considerably by
site and is displayed in Table 12.
Site Visit
Average |
DUDS |
OUDS |
Wilderness |
GFA |
4.1 |
51.8 |
6.0 |
16.3 |
The average recreation visitor went to 1.2 sites during their
national forest visit. Forest visitors
sometimes go to just one national forest site or area during their visit. For example, downhill skiers may just go the
ski area and nowhere else. About 85
(85.1) percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were
interviewed.
During their visit to the forest, the top five recreation
activities of the visitors were viewing natural features, relaxing, downhill
skiing, hiking/walking, and driving for pleasure (see Table 13). Each visitor also picked one of these
activities as their primary activity for their current recreation visit to the
forest. The top primary activities were
downhill skiing, hiking/walking, relaxing, viewing natural features, and
fishing (see Table 13). Please note
that the results of the NVUM activity analysis DO NOT identify the types of
activities visitors would like to have offered on the national forests. It also does not tell us about displaced
forest visitors, those who no longer visit the forest because the activities they
desire are not offered.
Activity |
Percent participation |
Percent who said it was their primary
activity |
Camping in developed sites (family or
group) |
3.8 |
|
Primitive camping |
1.5 |
0.3 |
Backpacking, camping
in unroaded areas |
2.4 |
0.6 |
Resorts, cabins and
other accommodations on Forest Service managed lands (private or Forest
Service run) |
3.1 |
0.3 |
Picnicking and family
day gatherings in developed sites (family or group) |
9.0 |
1.1 |
Viewing wildlife,
birds, fish, etc on national forest system lands |
34.8 |
0.2 |
Viewing natural
features such as scenery, flowers, etc on national forest system lands |
59.3 |
5.7 |
Visiting historic and
prehistoric sites/area |
17.8 |
4.9 |
Visiting a nature
center, nature trail or visitor information services |
2.6 |
0.0 |
Nature Study |
9.3 |
0.0 |
General/other-
relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc, |
39.9 |
6.8 |
Fishing- all types |
12.4 |
6.1 |
Hunting- all types |
3.9 |
3.1 |
Off-highway vehicle
travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc) |
13.3 |
3.9 |
Driving for pleasure
on roads |
21.2 |
5.3 |
Snowmobile travel |
0.3 |
0.2 |
Motorized water travel
(boats, ski sleds, etc) |
6.3 |
1.7 |
Other motorized land/air activities (plane,
other) |
0.2 |
0.1 |
Hiking or walking |
37.6 |
10.6 |
Horseback riding |
0.3 |
0.2 |
Bicycling, including
mountain bikes |
4.2 |
1.2 |
Non-motorized water
travel (canoe, raft, etc.) |
5.3 |
1.2 |
Downhill skiing or
snowboarding |
37.8 |
36.4 |
Cross-country skiing,
snow shoeing |
3.4 |
2.7 |
Other non-motorized
activities (swimming, games and sports) |
16.4 |
3.8 |
Gathering mushrooms,
berries, firewood, or other natural products |
2.6 |
0.9 |
Twenty-five percent of
the last exiting recreation visitors interviewed were asked about the types of
constructed facilities and special designated areas they used during their
visit. The most used facilities and
areas were: downhill ski areas,
nonmotorized trails, forest service roads, scenic byways, and developed campgrounds. Table 14 provides a summary of facility and
special area use.
Facility / Area Type |
Percent who said they
used (national forest visits) |
Developed campground |
|
Swimming area |
5.6 |
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails |
22.5 |
Scenic byway |
9.8 |
Designated Wilderness |
0.4 |
Visitor center, museum |
1.7 |
Forest Service office or other info site |
0.6 |
Picnic area |
4.8 |
Boat launch |
5.3 |
Designated Off Road Vehicle area |
0.7 |
Other forest roads |
12.3 |
Interpretive site |
0.8 |
Organization camp |
0.0 |
Developed fishing site/ dock |
2.4 |
Designated snowmobile area |
0.2 |
Downhill ski area |
57.5 |
Nordic ski area |
3.0 |
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land |
3.3 |
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned |
0.1 |
Designated snow play area |
0.0 |
Motorized developed trails |
0.8 |
Recreation residences |
0.1 |
Twenty-five percent of visitors interviewed were asked about
the primary destination of their recreation trip. Since some people may incorporate a visit to
the national forests as only part of a larger trip away from home, not all
visitors chose the national forest as their primary destination. Of the 20
percent of visitors that went to other places tan just this forest on their
recreation trip, 40 percent said this forest was their primary trip destination.
Visitors were asked to select one of several substitute
choices, if for some reason they were unable to visit this national
forest. Their responses are shown in
Table 15.
The average total length of time that
recreation visitors on the forest were away from home on their trip was 149
hours. In the 12 months prior to the interview the visitors had
come to this forest 4.5 times to participate in their identified main
activity.
Substitute Choice |
Percent who would have… |
Gone somewhere else for
the same activity |
|
Gone somewhere else for
a different activity |
8.0 |
Come back another time |
10.6 |
Stayed home |
13.6 |
Gone to work at their
regular job |
0.2 |
None of these |
0.5 |
In a typical year, visitors to this forest spent an average of
$3120.80 on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation
trips, memberships, and licenses.
Visitors
estimated the amount of money spent per person within a 50-mile radius of the
recreation site at which they were interviewed during their recreation trip to
the area (which may include multiple national forest visits, as well as visits
to other forests or parks). This
information is available in a separate report and data file that can be used
for planning analysis.
Twenty-five percent of
visitors interviewed on the forest rated their satisfaction with the recreation
facilities and services provided.
Although their satisfaction ratings pertain to conditions at the
specific site or area they visited, this information is not valid at the site-specific
level. The survey design does not
usually have enough responses for every individual site or area on the forest
to draw these conclusions. Rather, the
information is generalized to overall satisfaction with facilities and services
on the forest as a whole.
Visitors’ site-specific answers
may be colored by a particular condition on a particular day at a particular
site. For example, a visitor camping in
a developed campground when all the forest personnel are off firefighting and
the site has not been cleaned. Perhaps
the garbage had not been emptied or the toilets cleaned during their stay,
although the site usually receives excellent maintenance. The visitor may have been very unsatisfied
with the cleanliness of restrooms.
In addition to how satisfied visitors were with facilities and services they were asked how important that particular facility or service was to the quality of their recreation experience. The importance of these elements to the visitors’ recreation experience is then analyzed in relation to their satisfaction. Those elements that were extremely important to a visitor’s overall recreation experience and the visitor rated as poor quality are those elements needing most attention by the forest. Those elements that were rated not important to the visitors’ recreation experience need the least attention.
Tables 16 through 18 summarize visitor satisfaction with the forest facilities and services at Day Use Developed sites, Overnight Developed sites and General Forest areas. Wilderness satisfaction is reported in Table 11. To interpret this information for possible management action, one must look at both the importance and satisfaction ratings. If visitors rated an element a 1 or 2 they are telling management that particular element is not very important to the overall quality of their recreation experience. Even if the visitors rated that element as poor or fair, improving this element may not necessarily increase visitor satisfaction because the element was not that important to them. On the other hand, if visitors rated an element as a 5 or 4 they are saying this element is very important to the quality of their recreation experience. If their overall satisfaction with that element is not very good, management action here can increase visitor satisfaction.
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of Visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To Visitors (n) |
||||
Scenery |
0.0 |
0.1 |
13.0 |
87.0 |
4.9
36 |
4.7 35 |
|
Available
parking |
0.0 |
4.2 |
12.7 |
30.4 |
52.7 |
4.3
38 |
4.0 34 |
Parking lot
condition |
0.0 |
8.3 |
17.3 |
51.8 |
22.5 |
3.9
36 |
3.3 33 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
0.5 |
11.7 |
11.6 |
52.0 |
24.3 |
3.9
31 |
4.4 32 |
Condition of
the natural environment |
0.0 |
4.4 |
0.2 |
22.8 |
72.7 |
4.6
32 |
4.6 31 |
Condition of
developed recreation facilities |
0.0 |
0.1 |
20.1 |
39.9 |
39.8 |
4.2
28 |
3.9 26 |
Condition of
forest roads |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
50.3 |
49.6 |
4.5
29 |
4.0 26 |
Condition of
forest trails |
0.0 |
0.7 |
32.0 |
1.8 |
65.5 |
4.3
19 |
4.0 18 |
Availability
of information on recreation |
6.8 |
0.2 |
13.7 |
39.6 |
39.7 |
4.1
24 |
4.1 22 |
Feeling of
safety |
0.0 |
0.1 |
9.3 |
50.8 |
39.9 |
4.3
36 |
4.3 34 |
Adequacy of
signage |
0.4 |
4.9 |
19.6 |
49.1 |
25.9 |
4.0
30 |
3.9 29 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0.1 |
4.8 |
19.3 |
38.5 |
37.3 |
4.1
25 |
4.1 23 |
Attractiveness
of the forest landscape |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
22.3 |
77.4 |
4.8
31 |
4.7 29 |
Value for fee
paid |
0.0 |
5.1 |
24.7 |
34.8 |
35.3 |
4.0
31 |
4.6 27 |
* Scale is: P =
poor F = fair A = average
G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not
important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
n= number of responses on which rating is based.
.
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of Visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To Visitors (n) |
||||
Scenery |
0.0 |
10.8 |
1.4 |
87.8 |
4.8
15 |
4.8 15 |
|
Available
parking |
0.0 |
0.0 |
3.3 |
40.4 |
56.4 |
4.5
15 |
4.6 15 |
Parking lot
condition |
0.0 |
1.8 |
3.1 |
69.2 |
26.0 |
4.2
14 |
3.4 14 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
0.0 |
0.0 |
13.0 |
44.7 |
42.3 |
4.3
14 |
4.7 14 |
Condition of
the natural environment |
0.0 |
0.0 |
11.0 |
42.2 |
46.8 |
4.4
15 |
4.9 15 |
Condition of
developed recreation facilities |
0.0 |
0.0 |
15.9 |
49.3 |
34.8 |
4.2
14 |
4.0 14 |
Condition of
forest roads |
0.0 |
5.3 |
1.4 |
54.2 |
39.1 |
4.3
15 |
4.3 15 |
Condition of
forest trails |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
68.6 |
31.4 |
4.3
11 |
4.6 11 |
Availability
of information on recreation |
17.4 |
10.8 |
22.3 |
25.4 |
24.1 |
3.3
12 |
4.0 12 |
Feeling of
safety |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
33.0 |
67.0 |
4.7
15 |
4.3 15 |
Adequacy of
signage |
0.0 |
5.7 |
33.8 |
22.9 |
37.5 |
3.9
15 |
4.7 15 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.4 |
40.0 |
55.6 |
4.5
14 |
4.3 14 |
Attractiveness
of the forest landscape |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
34.3 |
65.7 |
4.7
15 |
4.5 15 |
Value for fee
paid |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
38.8 |
61.2 |
4.6
12 |
4.6 12 |
* Scale is: P =
poor F = fair A = average
G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
(n)
= number of responses upon which this rating is based
Item Name |
Item by Percent response by * P
F A G VG |
Mean ** Satisfaction Of Visitors (n) |
Mean ** Importance To Visitors (n) |
||||
Scenery |
0.1 |
2.0 |
8.6 |
89.3 |
4.9
152 |
4.8 153 |
|
Available
parking |
4.9 |
3.4 |
6.5 |
55.1 |
30.1 |
4.0
138 |
4.0 138 |
Parking lot
condition |
2.1 |
1.8 |
14.6 |
54.8 |
26.6 |
4.0
89 |
3.6 91 |
Cleanliness of
restrooms |
3.2 |
36.2 |
12.8 |
20.3 |
27.5 |
3.3
40 |
4.6 42 |
Condition of
the natural environment |
0.1 |
1.3 |
4.3 |
27.0 |
67.3 |
4.6
152 |
4.8 150 |
Condition of
developed recreation facilities |
1.0 |
31.3 |
7.3 |
29.5 |
31.0 |
3.6
41 |
4.6 44 |
Condition of
forest roads |
1.2 |
3.6 |
11.3 |
26.6 |
57.3 |
4.4
77 |
3.6 78 |
Condition of
forest trails |
0.4 |
0.6 |
14.4 |
49.6 |
35.1 |
4.2
130 |
4.5 131 |
Availability
of information on recreation |
4.9 |
4.8 |
13.0 |
32.6 |
44.6 |
4.1
120 |
4.3 119 |
Feeling of safety |
0.3 |
0.2 |
3.2 |
14.2 |
82.1 |
4.8
152 |
4.6 150 |
Adequacy of
signage |
16.3 |
3.7 |
11.4 |
46.5 |
22.2 |
3.5
138 |
4.4 135 |
Helpfulness of
employees |
3.2 |
0.0 |
7.4 |
42.0 |
47.4 |
4.3
54 |
4.6 56 |
Attractiveness
of the forest landscape |
0.0 |
1.4 |
3.0 |
11.8 |
83.8 |
4.8
148 |
4.8 152 |
Value for fee
paid |
1.6 |
2.5 |
5.3 |
11.3 |
79.3 |
4.6
56 |
4.8 54 |
* Scale is: P =
poor F = fair A = average
G = good VG = very good
** Scale is: 1= not important 2= somewhat important 3=moderately important 4= important 5 = very important
(n) = number of responses upon which this rating is based
Visitors rated their perception of how crowded the recreation site or area
felt to them. This information is useful
when looking at the type of site the visitor was using since someone visiting a
designated Wilderness may think 5 people is too many while someone visiting a
developed campground may think 200 people is about right. Table 19 summarizes mean perception of
crowding by site type on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means hardly anyone was
there, and a 10 means the area was perceived as overcrowded.
Overnight Developed Sites |
Day Use Developed Sites |
Wilderness |
General Forest Areas |
|
10 Over
crowded |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.7 |
|
9 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
4.2 |
1.0 |
8 |
12.2 |
0.2 |
6.2 |
1.6 |
7 |
0.2 |
8.9 |
14.7 |
4.6 |
6 |
5.1 |
0.0 |
4.2 |
3.7 |
5 |
43.3 |
17.9 |
9.4 |
21.0 |
4 |
30.7 |
5.2 |
16.1 |
4.7 |
3 |
5.3 |
30.8 |
17.8 |
11.1 |
2 |
0.2 |
14.2 |
25.8 |
36.2 |
1 Hardly
anyone there |
3.1 |
22.7 |
1.7 |
15.4 |
Visitors were asked if there were any accommodations or assistance that the forest could offer that would be helpful to the visitor and anyone in their group to improve their recreation experience. Visitor responses are summarized below.
Site Name |
Is there any other
accommodation or assistance we could offer?
Comments |
Come to
National Forest because dogs are allowed. |
|
|
Better
trail markings at Horse Tail Falls Trail. |
MANZANITA
BEACH and PICNIC AREA |
Trash
containers and toilets closer to the beach & picnic area (rather than in
parking lot) would help. |
|
Need
refreshments or machine vending sodas & snacks. |
|
More
campgrounds and more spread out sites |
|
More
trash cans in picnic area |
(1) FS
03/ BARKER PASS GFA |
Too
dusty! |
|
Need H2O |
|
Excellent
facility with no usage fee- advocate more facilities with no fee |
|
Good job
- keep it up- (Bothered by some areas, gun fire -Blackwood Canyon area |
(5) FS
06/THELIN GFA |
Too much
straw - fire hazzard |
|
More
mountain bike single tracks |
|
Do not do
anymore development on this road. |
|
Trail
head brochures |
(6)
80/NEGRO GFA |
Keep
horses off PCT |
(7)
80/CASTLE GFA |
Need more
maintenance employees |
(13) CO.
787/PROSSER GFA |
Keep
facilities open |
(14)
DONEER CET TH GFA |
Some
trail work needed |
(15)
89/CET GFA |
Too many
trees cut down stop! Ruining the
Trail. |
|
Less
signage - keep area as original as possible, place trash can at T.H. |
(17)
89/886 GFA |
Need more
boat trailer parking at Stampede |
(18)
89/SAGEHEN GFA |
89 /
Sagehen sign on 89 needed |
|
Improved
condition of fire pits (need supervision) |
(20)
80/894 GFA |
Take less
water from dams |
|
Loose no
parking sign at ramp, Bbboat dock needed at Stampede; better parking for boat
unloading and loading, better signage for boat ramp |
|
More H2O,
bigger campground not on road. |
|
Road
construction nuisaince |
|
Boat dock
at Stampede; OHV trails - better markings (include map) |
|
Know that
the money I put into the forest service stays within the recreation forest
service fund. |
|
Make sure
trails kept open for equestrians use |
|
Showers
at campgrounds |
|
A fish
cleaning area and a dock at boat ramp at Stampede. |
|
Better
info when facilities open & closed |
|
Another
boat ramp at Stampede - more campgrounds |
|
Need
loading dock at Stampede ramp |
|
Fish
cleaning station at Stampede |
|
Poor
condition after earlier timber harvests make area prone for fires. |
|
Reservation
system web site should have phone number for contact. |
|
Showers
at the campgrounds |
|
Do not
over develop, 10 mph speed limit on lake |
(28)
89/LTS GFA |
Need more
PCT signs. Better pull outs for
trailors. |
|
Foresters
need to clean up logging slash after themselves |
|
Ability
to access fire permts online. |
|
Clean up
forest slash from logging |
|
Stop
littering |
|
Need FS
employees in White Rock area & Bowerman, too many unattended fires |
|
More MT
Bike trails |
|
Open road
earlier in spring |
|
Availability
of a payphone needed |
|
Better
game management |
(38) GOLD
LAKE GFA |
Stop
clear cutting |
|
Mark 4
wheel trails on both sides - warnings. Road to Tamarak Lake has boulders on
it. And other roads - or change sign
for high clearance only. |
|
Modify
the survey form! |
|
Box w/maps
and envelope for donation at trails, trail sign a trail Y's on trail (round
lake). |
|
Round
Lake Y in trail needs sign |
|
Idea of
limiting over populated or over used areas |
(44)
BASSETTS GFA |
Trail
signs giving distances should be improved |
|
Great
trails keep horses out! |
|
More
horse camps. Places near trails etc. |
|
Trail
maintenance - cut back brush |
|
Would
like to see lat. & long on maps for G.P.S. |
|
Prevent
any development on Sierra Buttes |
|
At Sand
Pond - lower rest room needs rehabilitation, dogs at Sand Pond - enforcement
needs. |
|
Better
signs for trails |
(51) CAL
IDA GFA |
Campgrounds
were better under FS management, Downed wood is hazardous - need logging
cleanup |
(58)
COTTAGE CRK ROAD GFA |
More
water in the lake |
|
More info
available |
|
Need
handicap access to lake at Bullards Bar especially for fishing (ex; Little
Grass Valley Lake |
(63)
Bloomfield GFA |
Put
distances on signs on Forest roads so one can tell if he/she is almost to
destination. |
(4)
BOWMAN GFA |
Replace
Grouse Ridge Trail signs - missing |
|
Bull Pen
to Rock Lake milage is incorrect on sign |
|
More
docents especially at higer alt. |
|
Reduce
traffic to Aroa over crowded |
|
People
pack it in/ pack it out - too much trash |
|
Trail
signs needed to be stood up & repaired |
|
More fire
conditions signs in forest, more FS presence in campground at dusk and night |
(82)
FRENCH MEADOWS BOAT RAMP GFA |
Need
longer & wider spurs in campgrounds, GET RID OF CONSESSIONAIR |
(84)
SUGAR PINE BOAT RAMP GFA |
Telephone
should be available for safety, parking pass should apply to all family
vehicles |
|
Should be
no parking fee for Forest Hill residents |
|
Don’t
feel there should be a fee for parking |
(85) BIG
TREE INTERP TH GFA |
To have
signs and trail guide brochures available at this site! |
(88)
FOESTHILL DIVIDE ROAD GFA |
Should
make OHV trails at China Wall one way (One way loops) |
|
Restrooms
cleaner / camping fees too high! Need
toilet paper! |
|
Limit
motorcycles and gunfire - designated areas only! |
(89)
MOSQUITO RIDGE ROAD GFA |
Would
like to see more FS presence |
(90) IOWA
HILL ROAD GFA |
Disappointed
to see trash left by forest users. |
|
Parking
fees should not exist - tax payers have constitutional rights for public
access to public lands. |
(96)
DRIVERS FLAT RAFTEWR EXIT GFA |
Increased
water flow (earlier) for rafter |
|
Toilets along
the river |
FIVE
LAKES / Wilderness |
No road
sign for 5 Lakes Trail |
|
Keep
area's available no condo's |
|
Vegetation
on trails needs to be cut back. |
|
Too
crowded |
|
Restrooms
needed |
|
Better
signage to find all 5 lakes |
|
Brochures
w/maps at 5 Lakes Trail head - display good |
|
Where
trails meet - sign both sides of trail |
|
Access to
drinking water |
|
Provide
doggie bags & garbage can at Trail head |
|
Garbage
cans- trail heads |
|
Poop bags
on trailhead & garbage can |
|
Why
discourage dogs and let horses on trail? |
|
Doggie
litter bags @ trail heads |
|
More land
for environmental recreation - less for off roaders and loggers |
Picayune/
Wilderness |
Less
logging in area adjacent to recreation area and wilderness. |
|
Prefer
Forest Service managing Campgrounds |
|
Horse excrement
on hiking trails - no good! |
GROUSE
overnight |
Info
regarding forest info etc, maps at entrance to rec areas |
|
Having
water available |
CONVICT
FLAT PICNIC |
Do
something about foul odors from camground restrooms |
SAND POND
DAY USE |
Rental of
row boats by hour on Sardine Lake. |
|
More
trash cans needed |
|
New
restrooms needed at Salmon Creek Campground. |
|
Vendor
(snacks) |
|
Sand Pond
sign on Gold Lake HWY needed. |
|
Info
distribution poor in townsite Downieville & 49 corridor |
|
Fire
permit infor signs unclear - need phone number to get better information |
|
Additional
picnic tables needed |
JACKSON
CRK. Overnight |
Road to
Canyon Creek needs improvement |
GROUSE
MEADOWS overnight |
Availability
of showers would be helpful. Better
restroom facilities, sink & flush toilets. |
DONNER
PICNIC Day Use |
Fordyce
Lake needs signs. |
|
Running
water at Donner Picnic Area |
|
Campsites
further apart for privacy |
|
Better
on-line information on Forest Reservation |
|
More
trails open to mountain bikes |
|
Drinking
water needed at this site |
|
Need
signs at trail crossings and along trails, Running water at picnic
facilities. |
BOWMAN
overnight |
Better
access to some forest areas |
|
Better
logging clean up in surrounding area |
|
Road
signs - not posted at intersecting roads, general information hard to find. |
Oregon
Creek Day Use |
Refurbish
table and BBQ pedastals, more trash pick ups - remove poison oak on trails,
pack it in, pack it out! |
|
Trim
underbrush by beach for safety |
|
Less
logging in some areas. Restrict dogs
from certain beach areas. |
|
More
river access to Yuba River |
|
Clean
dead trees off beach area Oregon Creek |
|
Need more
handicapped facilities, such a trails, etc.
Oregon Creek! Dog leash
Enforcement, please! |
|
Clean up
after logging operations |
|
Pack in
Pack out signs needed. |
|
To much
litter and to many people |
GIANT GAP
CG |
Have
campgrounds open during winter season. |