Definition of Terms

NVUM has standardized definitions of visitor use measurement to ensure that all national forest visitor measurements are comparable. These definitions are 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. In addition, information about the visitor’s trip is also collected. Along with these use measurements basic statistics, which indicate the precision of the estimate, are given. These statistics include the confidence level, and error rate. 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 interval defines the range of values around the estimated visits with a specified level of certainty. The error rate (which is never a bad thing like making an error on a test) is 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 interval is very acceptable at a broad national or forest scale. The two terms are used to statistically describe the estimate. For example: At the 80 percent confidence level there are 209 million national forest visits plus or minus 17 percent. In other words we are 80 percent confident that the true number of national forest visits lies between 173.5 million and 244.5 million.

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

The NVUM Process and Definition of Terms

To participate in the NVUM process, forests first categorized all recreation sites and areas into six basic categories called “site types”: Day Use Developed Sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), Wilderness, General Forest Areas (GFA), On-Forest Viewing Corridors (OFVC), and Off-Forest Recreation Activities. Only the first four categories are considered “true” national forest visits and were included in the estimate provided. Within these broad categories every open day of the year for each site/area was rated as either high, medium or low exiting recreation use. Sites and areas that were closed or had “0” use was 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 On-Forest Viewing Corridors was prepared. Both the categorization and the map are 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 2001, English et al. The six categories are Day Use Developed sites (DUDS), Overnight Use Developed Sites (OUDS), General Forest Areas (GFA), Wilderness (WILD), On-Forest View Corridors (OFVC), and Off-Forest Recreation Activities (Off Forest).

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 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 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 exiting use on open weekends (70 days) and medium 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.

Constraints On Uses of the Results

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 and coefficient of variation will reflect all these factors. The smaller the error rate, the better the estimate. Interviewer error in asking the questions is not reflected in this error rate.

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 Forest Stratification Results

The results of the recreation site/area categorization and accomplished sample days done by this forest are displayed in Table 1. This table describes the population of available site days open for sampling. This information was obtained from work done by the forest prior to the actual surveys. Every site and area on the forest was categorized as high, medium, low, or closed exiting recreation use. This categorization 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.

Table 1. The population of available site days open for sampling and the percentage of days sampled within each stratum on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

	Nonproxy		Proxy
Strata	Total days in nonproxy population	Days sampled # percent	Total days in proxy population	Days sampled # percent
OUDS H	156	9 5.8
OUDS M	352	9 2.5
OUDS L	7847	10 0.1
DUDS H	0	0 0
DUDS M	1054	14 1.3	1379	9 0.6
DUDS L	14674	14 0.9
Wild H	126	9 7.1
Wild M	297	9 3.0
Wild L	15674	16 0.1
GFA H	121	9 7.4
GFA M	5415	35 0.6
GFA L	61282	39 0.06
TOTALS	106998	173	1379	9

CHAPTER 2: VISITATION ESTIMATES

Visitor Use Estimates

Nationally there were 209 million national forest visits plus or minus 17 percent error rate at the 80 percent confidence level. These visitors participated in 257 million site visits that included 14.3 million Wilderness visits. Additionally, another 258 million people enjoyed viewing national forest scenery from non-Forest Service managed travel ways. A national report with additional information is available (http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/recuse/recuse.shtml).

Region 2, the “Rocky Mountain Region” includes national forest system lands in Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, and parts of Wyoming. It received 37.7 million national forest visits +/-43.1 at the 80 percent confidence level. As shown in Table 2, three national forests in region 2 were sampled in the first year of the project. The results from these forests were then expanded to estimate total regional recreation use.

Table 2. Annual recreation use estimates by forest for region 2. 1/

	National Forest Visits		Site Visits		Wilderness Visits
Forest	Visits (millions)	Error Rate	Visits (millions)	Error Rate	Visits (millions)	Error Rate
Rio Grande	1.3	32.3	1.8	28.2	0.06	27.1
Arapaho Roosevelt	6.2	14.9	7.8	14.0	0.4	50.2
San Juan	1.9	9.6	2.2	9.4	0.1	20.7
R2 expanded use estimate for CY 2000 2/	37.7	43.1	47.5	42.7	2.3	49.7

1/ Region 2, the “Rocky Mountain Region” includes national forest units in Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota and parts of Wyoming.

2/ Calendar year

The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from January 1 through December 31, 2000. The main contact person was Rick Dustin. The forest was assigned 199 interview days and accomplished 189 of them (missed 5 percent).

Recreation use on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests for calendar year 2000 at the 80 percent confidence level was 6.2 million national forest visits +/- 14.9 percent. There were 7.8 million site visits, an average of 1.3 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 399,143 Wilderness visits.

A total of 2390 visitors were contacted on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests during the sample year. Of these, 10.2 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 2146 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 28 percent were not recreating, including 2.8 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 6.1 percent were working, 12.5 percent were just passing through, and 8.2 percent had some other reason to be there. About 72 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 80.6 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 58 percent were last exiting recreation visitors (the target interview population).

Description of Visitors

Basic descriptors of the forest visitors were developed based upon those visitors interviewed then expanded to the national forest visitor population. Almost sixty-six percent of the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests visitors were male and 34 percent were female (Table 3). About seventeen percent of the visitors were under age 16 and not interviewed. About 3 percent of the visitors were over 70 years old and the 31-40 year old age group comprised 23 percent of the visitors. See Table 4 for a complete age group breakout.

Table 3. Gender distribution of Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests visitors.

Gender

65.8 percent males

34.2 percent females

Table 4. Age distribution of Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests visitors.

Age Group	Percent in group
Under 16	16.8
16-20	4.4
21-30	13.1
31-40	22.8
41-50	21.5
51-60	12.8
61-70	5.4
Over 70	3.2

Visitors categorized themselves into one of 7 race/ethnicity categories. Almost 94 percent of the visitors were ethnically white. Table 5 gives a detailed breakout by category.

Table 5. Race/ethnicity of Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests visitors.

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0.1
Asian	0.2
White	93.7
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.1
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.7
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	1.7
Other	3.6

About one 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 6. 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 410 different zip codes reported. This information can be used with programs such as “fipzip” for more extensive analysis.

Table 6. Zip codes of Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests recreation visitors.

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
80303	30	2.6
80302	28	2.4
80501	26	2.3
80304	23	2.0
80439	23	2.0
80301	21	1.8
80525	19	1.7
80524	18	1.6
80526	18	1.6
80027	17	1.5
80127	16	1.4
80233	15	1.3
80452	15	1.3
80466	15	1.3
80521	14	1.2
80537	14	1.2
80446	13	1.1
80003	11	1.0
80503	11	1.0
80634	11	1.0
80110	10	0.9
80126	10	0.9
80228	10	0.9
80231	10	0.9
385 other zip codes	1 to 9 each

Average number of people per vehicle and average axle count per vehicle in survey

There was an average of 2.9 people per vehicle on the forest with an average of 2.1 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.

CHAPTER 3: WILDERNESS VISITORS

Several questions on the NVUM survey form dealt directly with use of designated Wilderness. Wilderness was sampled 28 days on the forest. There were 63 percent male and 37 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. See Table 7 for the age distribution.

Table 7. Age distribution of Wilderness visitors on Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Age group	Percent in group
Under 16	6.2
16-20	7.4
21-30	9.1
31-40	24.9
41-50	37.1
51-60	11.9
61-70	3.3
Over 70	0

The majority of the Wilderness visitors were ethnically white (95 percent). See Table 8 for race/ethnicity distribution.

Table 8. Race/ethnicity of Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests Wilderness visitors.

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0.2
Asian	0.2
White	94.6
American Indian/Alaska Native	0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	0.2
Other	4.8

The Wilderness visitors were from a wide variety of zip codes. The distribution of Wilderness visitor zip codes is shown in Table 9. There were 174 different zip codes reported.

Table 9. Zip codes of Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests Wilderness visitors.

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
80302	8	3.2
80304	7	2.8
80301	5	2.0
80524	5	2.0
80027	4	1.6
80127	4	1.6
80303	4	1.6
80439	4	1.6
80631	4	1.6
80003	3	1.2
80010	3	1.2
80112	3	1.2
80128	3	1.2
80210	3	1.2
80128	3	1.2
80226	3	1.2
80231	3	1.2
80503	3	1.2
80525	3	1.2
80540	3	1.2
155 other zip codes	1 or 2 each

The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 3.3 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 1.5 different days.

Forty-four percent of those interviewed in Wilderness said they used the services of a commercial guide.

Table 10 gives detailed information about how the Wilderness visitors rated various aspects of the area. An example of how to interpret the information: Visitors rated the importance of the adequacy of signage a 4.2 (important) and they rated their satisfaction with the adequacy of signage a 3.0 (somewhat satisfied). This means the forest could increase visitor satisfaction on the adequacy of signage in Wilderness. Twenty-nine percent of visitors said the adequacy of signage was poor.

Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 5.2 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they felt there were few people there. Twenty-nine percent said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and 7 percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).

Table 10. Satisfaction of visitors at designated Wilderness on Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Item Name	Item by percent response category by* P F A G VG	Mean Satisfaction Of visitors**	Mean Importance To visitors**
Scenery	0 0 0 2 98	5.0	4.9
Available parking	3 7 1 59 30	4.0	4.4
Parking lot condition	1 6 1 28 64	4.5	3.7
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 0 0 2 98	5.0	5.0
Condition of the natural environment	0 0 0 11 89	4.9	5.0
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 1 0 7 92	4.9	4.8
Condition of forest roads	6 1 1 31 61	4.4	4.1
Condition of forest trails	0 6 0 6 88	4.7	4.8
Availability of information on recreation	0 18 3 38 41	4.0	4.5
Feeling of safety	0 0 0 9 91	4.9	4.3
Adequacy of signage	29 1 33 9 28	3.0	4.2
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 0 1 99	5.0	4.0
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 0 2 98	5.0	5.0
Value for fee paid	0 0 1 44 55	4.5	4.5

* Scale is: P = poor F = fair A = average G = good VG = very good

** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied /important 2 = somewhat satisfied/ important 3 = moderately satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important

The Wilderness visitors on the forest spent an average of $511.80 within 50 miles of the Wilderness. They also spend an average of $1,009.36 annually on all outdoor recreation related expenditures (see Table 11).

Table 11. Average per person national forest trip expenditures within 50 miles of recreation site for Wilderness visitors to Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Expenditure category	Average expenditure $00.00
Government owned lodging	0
Privately owned lodging	194.27
Food/drink at restaurants and bars	107.47
Other food and beverages	48.36
Gasoline and oil	65.04
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.)	9.70
Activities (including guide fees and equipment rental)	0
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees	12.95
Souvenirs/ clothing	101.34
Any other expenses	0

CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT

Through the interview process a description of what visitors did during their national forest visit was also 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 Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests for a national forest visit was 23.5 hours. Fifteen percent of visitors stayed overnight on the 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.

Table 12. Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type.

Site Visit Average	DUDS	OUDS	Wilderness	GFA
8.8	4.3	49.5	3.3	9.0

The average Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests visitor went to 1.3 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. Eighty-one percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were interviewed.

During their visit to Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests, the top five recreation activities of the visitors were general relaxation, viewing scenery/nature, hiking/walking, driving for pleasure and picnicking (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 viewing scenery, general relaxing, hiking/ walking, and downhill skiing (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.

Table 13. Activity participation and primary activity for the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Activity	Percent participation	Percent who said it was their primary activity
Camping in developed sites (family or group)	8	2
Primitive camping	5	2
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas	1	0
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on Forest Service managed lands (private or Forest Service run)	0	0
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed sites (family or group)	25	3
**Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national forest system lands	78	11
**Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc on national forest system lands	48	6
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area	11	2
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor information services	9	0
Nature Study	10	1
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc,	74	11
Fishing- all types	14	8
Hunting- all types	1	1
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc)	9	3
Driving for pleasure on roads	39	3
Snowmobile travel	3	2
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc)	3	2
Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other)	0	0
Hiking or walking	55	17
Horseback riding	3	1
Bicycling, including mountain bikes	11	5
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.)	5	2
Downhill skiing or snowboarding	11	10
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing	14	8
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and sports)	19	4
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products	5	0

* less than 1 percent participation

** first version of survey form used October through March had these two viewing categories combined as viewing scenery

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

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 were: forest roads, trails, downhill ski areas, and picnic sites. The most used specially designated areas were scenic byways and Wilderness. Table 14 provides a summary of facility and special area use.

Table 14. Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Facility/ Area Type	Percent who said they used (national forest visits)
Developed campground	8
Swimming area	2
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails	41
Scenic byway	38
Designated Wilderness	15
Visitor center, museum	6
Forest Service office or other info site	4
Picnic area	15
Boat launch	4
Designated Off Road Vehicle area	3
Other forest roads	28
Interpretive site	6
Organization camp	0
Developed fishing site/ dock	9
Designated snowmobile area	0
Downhill ski area	10
Nordic ski area	0
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land	0
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned	1
Designated snow play area	0
Motorized developed trails	1
Recreation residences	1

Economic Information

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 18 percent of visitor that went to other sites, 50 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. Sixty-five percent of the visitors would have gone somewhere other than this forest to pursue the same activity, while 17 percent would have come back to this forest another time.

The average recreation visitor on the forest was away from home on their trip for 61.2 hours. Eighty-two percent of the visitors went only to this national forest on their trip and .18 percent said they had gone to other places such as other national forests, parks or recreation areas.

In the 12 months prior to the interview the visitors had come to this forest 2.5 times to participate in their identified main activity.

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of visitors on Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Substitute Choice	Percent who would have…
Gone somewhere else for the same activity	65
Gone somewhere else for a different activity	12
Come back another time	17
Stayed home	6
Gone to work at their regular job	0
None of these	0

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

In a typical year, visitors to this forest spent an average of $1,510.47 on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses.

Visitors average spending on a trip to Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests

Visitors estimated the amount of money spent they spent 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). Table 16 shows average estimated expenditures by ten categories. These expenditures are higher than the true average spending per person per national forest visit. To obtain a correct average spending per national forest visit, these figures would have to be reduced to account for spending that is attributable to visits to other areas, and for visitors who make several separate national forest visits during their stay in the area. It is recommended that forests work with economists in their forest and region to obtain the correct spending profiles and estimate the economic impacts of this spending.

Table 16. Average per person national forest trip expenditures on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests within 50 miles of recreation site.

Expenditure Category	Average expenditure $00.00
Government owned lodging	0.19
Privately owned lodging	86.52
Food/drink at restaurants and bars	74.35
Other food and beverages	20.23
Gasoline and oil	24.81
Other transportation (plane, bus, etc.)	69.29
Activities (including guide fees and equipment rental)	23.47
Entry, parking, or recreation use fees	19.11
Souvenirs/ clothing	23.59
Any other expenses	8.68

Visitor Satisfaction Information

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 allow 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 firefighter 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 17 through 19 summarize visitor satisfaction with the forest facilities and services by site type. In Table 18 note that visitors said the availability of information on recreation is important (4.2) to the quality of their recreation experience and they rated their satisfaction with the availability of recreation information as moderately satisfactory (3.7) in overnight developed sites. The item by response category column in the second column of the table gives more information about how visitors answered the satisfaction question. For example, for availability of information on recreation, 10 percent rated their satisfaction with the availability of recreation information as poor, 21 percent as average and 24 percent as very good. This may indicate that improving the availability of recreation information in Overnight Developed sites can enhance visitor satisfaction.

Table 18 summarizes information about visitor satisfaction with Overnight Developed sites such as campgrounds and resorts on the forest and Table 19 summarizes the visitor’s satisfaction with the general forest areas. Wilderness satisfaction is reported in Table 10.

Table 17. Satisfaction of visitors at Day Use Developed Sites on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Item Name	Item by percent response category by* P F A G VG	Mean Satisfaction Of visitors**	Mean Importance To visitors**
Scenery	0 1 0 15 84	4.8	4.6
Available parking	1 1 6 41 51	4.4	4.1
Parking lot condition	0 6 18 36 40	4.1	3.4
Cleanliness of restrooms	0 2 1 60 37	4.3	4.5
Condition of the natural environment	0 5 5 20 70	4.5	4.8
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 6 1 56 37	4.3	4.0
Condition of forest roads	0 1 17 48 34	4.1	3.8
Condition of forest trails	0 0 0 71 29	4.3	4.4
Availability of information on recreation	6 0 9 38 47	4.2	4.4
Feeling of safety	0 1 2 29 68	4.6	4.5
Adequacy of signage	0 6 12 25 57	4.3	4.3
Helpfulness of employees	1 4 5 16 74	4.6	4.7
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 9 21 70	4.6	4.6
Value for fee paid	0 0 24 26 46	4.1	4.6

* Scale is: P= poor F = fair A = average G = good VG = very good

** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied /important 2 = somewhat satisfied/ important 3 = moderately satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important

Table 18. Satisfaction of visitors at Overnight Developed Sites Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Item Name	Item by percent response category by* P F A G VG	Mean Satisfaction Of visitors**	Mean Importance To visitors**
Scenery	0 0 0 39 61	4.6	4.7
Available parking	0 0 1 32 67	4.6	4.1
Parking lot condition	0 1 1 52 46	4.4	3.5
Cleanliness of restrooms	1 9 0 25 64	4.4	4.1
Condition of the natural environment	0 1 0 59 39	4.4	4.8
Condition of developed recreation facilities	1 9 1 50 48	4.4	3.6
Condition of forest roads	0 0 0 55 45	4.4	3.9
Condition of forest trails	1 0 0 49 50	4.6	4.0
Availability of information on recreation	10 3 21 42 24	3.7	4.2
Feeling of safety	0 0 0 42 58	4.6	4.2
Adequacy of signage	2 1 1 80 16	4.1	3.7
Helpfulness of employees	0 1 0 36 63	4.6	4.4
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 9 0 22 69	4.5	4.4
Value for fee paid	1 1 21 13 64	4.4	4.5

* Scale is: P = poor F = fair A = average G = good VG = very good

** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied /important 2 = somewhat satisfied/ important 3 = moderately satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important

Table 19. Satisfaction of visitors in General Forest Areas on Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Item Name	Item by percent response category by* P F A G VG	Mean Satisfaction of visitors**	Mean Importance to visitors**
Scenery	0 0 8 30 62	4.8	4.8
Available parking	2 0 2 7 89	4.2	3.5
Parking lot condition	5 0 24 41 30	3.9	3.3
Cleanliness of restrooms	3 17 12 18 50	4.0	4.2
Condition of the natural environment	2 3 6 40 49	4.3	4.8
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0 0 17 39 44	4.3	3.5
Condition of forest roads	4 8 6 50 32	4.0	3.6
Condition of forest trails	4 5 4 48 39	4.1	4.1
Availability of information on recreation	14 13 10 19 44	3.7	4.1
Feeling of safety	0 2 14 25 59	4.4	4.2
Adequacy of signage	7 13 20 28 32	3.6	3.9
Helpfulness of employees	0 0 0 44 56	4.6	4.3
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0 0 1 10 89	4.9	4.8
Value for fee paid	0 3 0 51 46	4.4	4.4

* Scale is: P = poor F = fair A = average G = good VG = very good

** Scale is: 1= not very satisfied /important 2 = somewhat satisfied/ important 3 = moderately satisfied/ important 4 = satisfied/ important 5 = very satisfied/ important

Crowding

Visitors rated their perception of how crowded the site or area they were recreating in 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 20 summaries 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.

Table 20. Perception of crowding by visitor on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests by site type (percent site visits).

Perception of crowding	Overnight Developed Sites	Day Use Developed Sites	Wilderness	General Forest Areas
10 Over crowded	0	0	29	1
9	20	5	2	2
8	11	11	1	3
7	1	14	3	7
6	1	15	0	5
5	21	18	2	13
4	10	27	30	8
3	12	1	1	15
2	11	5	25	16
1 hardly anyone there	13	4	7	30

Other comments from visitors

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. If the forest received any responses, they are summarized below.

Table 21. List of comments received from visitors on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests.

Site Name	Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments
Berthoud Pass Ski Area-Day Use	Port-a-let shuttle stop
Brainhard Complex Day Use	Envelope pay should be good for 5 days like booth pay Prescribed burns/ overnight parking separation from day use
Clear Creek Visitor Center- Day Use	More info on peak season times for those not from here
Day Use- Mt. Park-	Better fishing accessibility Keep raft operations out of picnic and camp areas Great not to have a fee Trail maps and more information
Juniper Pass Picnic- Day Use	More funding to have more people on the ground Discourage people from visiting
Moffat Tunnel Overlook- Day Use	Post signs saying campground full especially Stoney Creek More historic information
Mount Evans Fee Demo Area- Day Use	Maps
Chambers Lake Picnic- Day Use	Post recent bear sighting for visitors
Chicago Creek Picnic- Day Use	Clear trailhead maps/ mileages, trail patrols yearly
Winter Park Ski Area- Day Use	More courteous lift operators Instruction for ski lessons- stopping Provide photos/video in areas advertised Need signage for which lets are open Overdeveloped Just fine More employee assistance
Churck Pk/Keyser Ck:FDR139.1- general forest area	Have a bathroom at parking
Have a bathro Guanella Pass Rd (N)/G town St- general forest area	Trailhead maps, more signs Maps, mileages @ trailheads
I-70 Fall River Rd- general forest area	No guns on NFS lands, no indiscriminate shooting
I70 access: Stevens Gulch/Baker-\general forest area	Update CO topographical maps Better roads Cleaner bathrooms Outhouse up trail Help call box up @ trailhead Campgrounds at Grays trailhead Better signage, developed recreation facilities for trail Utilize volunteer help for trail maintenance Divide charity activities to decrease group size Improve roads
Kawuneeche Bench N of FDR 123 General forest area	There are no trashcans, need one. Need more restrooms, should mark top of cliff at Porphyry PK
Lake Granby- general forest area	More parking, need no wake buoy Catthtoal Bay. Stop destruction within creek Some campsites with no reservations allowed Piers and more bathrooms Better signs and info regarding restricted use Ban jet skis
Loveland Pass TH on US 6- general Forest area	Need a restroom Have a bathroom Have a bathroom and pop machine
Road- CR130/ CR119 (Eldora RD) General forest area	Restrooms at Hessie TH More parking spots- wider roads Limit camping times and control litter Bus shuttles from school to Hessie Trail Restroom at trailhead More parking for weekends
Road- Deadman @ Pot Belly/RF General forest area	Brochures on area at Deadman Tower or at road entry Restrict use of off highway vehicles
Road- Hwy7/CR119 (Peak to Peak) General forest area	Trail signs need mileages notes Left Hand reservoir needs more signs and information Sign on trail respect and right of way Expand parking
Road- Laramie @ Hwy 14 General forest area	Keep trail clean More signs on fishing regulations
Kelly Dahl Campground	More local trail information
Dowdy Lake Campground	Enforce no ATVs; sporadic shooting disturbing Restroom rather than outhouses
Echo Lake Campground	No clearcuts; no cattle; dogs on leash law enforcement
Stillwater Campground	Flushing toilets in all campgrounds
Emmaline Lake/ Mummy Pass Th Wilderness	Get rid of gates so can drive in
Hessie TH Wilderness	Better parking
Mount Evans Trail (NRT) CO 5 Wilderness	Rails on road as needed Visitor center open more Better information on trail More vegetation descriptions

Rev 12 Sept 2001

Rev 8 Feb 2002 (wilderness demographics)

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

Table 2. Annual recreation use estimates by forest for region 2. 1/