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.

Definition of Terms

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.

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 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 five 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.

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 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 Forest Stratification Results

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.

Table 1. Population of available site days for sampling and percentage of days sampled by stratum

	Nonproxy			Proxy
Strata	Total days in nonproxy population	Days sampled # percent		Total days in proxy population	Days sampled # percent
OUDS H	56	4	7.1	9360	19	.01
OUDS M	282	11	3.9
OUDS L	2,529	11	.4
DUDS H	248	10	4.0	2604	20	.01
DUDS M	629	13	2.1
DUDS L	2,270	10	.4
Wild H	1,200	22	1.8	2010	10	.01
Wild M	2,293	24	1.0
Wild L	11,823	17	.1
GFA H	962	21	2.2	0	0
GFA M	6,328	50	.8
GFA L	30,536	29	.1
TOTALS	59,156	222		13,974	49

CHAPTER 2: VISITATION ESTIMATES

Visitor Use Estimates

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).

Table 2. Annual White River National Forest recreation use estimate

National Forest Visits

Site Visits

Wilderness Visits

Visits

Error

Rate

Visits

Error Rate

Visits

Error

Rate

9,674,543

5.6

10,703,696

5.4

291,640

15.0

The White River National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2001 through September 2002. The forest coordinators were Cathy Kahlow and Rick Maddelena. Over 50 forest employees assisted in administering the surveys. Thirty-five of them did the bulk of the interviews.

The survey year began just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. The White River National Forest had wildfires from June through September. There were extensive fire restrictions in place. The campground concessionaire reported use was down 10 to 20 percent, ski areas reported use was down approximately 5 percent from previous years. Commercial river use was down 39 percent statewide. The Governor declared the state a disaster area due to wildfires and drought. State tourism officials report tourism statewide was considerably down from previous years although no exact figures were available.

The continued drought had a significant impact on water related recreation and potable water availability at developed recreation sites.

Recreation use on the forest for fiscal year 2002 at the 80 percent confidence level was 9.7 million national forest visits +/- 5.6 percent. There were 10.7 million site visits, an average of 1.1 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 291,640 Wilderness visits.

A total of 2,430 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year. Of these, twelve percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 2,148 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 8.7 percent were not recreating, including .6 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 3.4 percent were working, 2.8 percent were just passing through, and 1.8 percent had some other reason to be there. About 91 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 87 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.

Table 3. Number of last-exiting recreation visitors by site type and form type 1/

Form Type	Day Use	Overnight	General Forest	Wilderness
Basic	351	31	317	117
Satisfaction	188	27	205	90
Economics	190	20	229	97

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.

Description of Visitors

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.

Table 4. Gender distribution of White River NF recreation visitors

Gender

Male 62.7%

Female 37.3%

Table 5. Age distribution of White River NF recreation visitors

Age Group	Percent in group
Under 16	8.9
16-20	3.2
21-30	19.2
31-40	24.6
41-50	21.5
51-60	12.2
61-70	7.2
Over 70	3.2

Visitors categorized themselves into one of seven race/ethnicity categories. Table 6 gives a detailed breakout by category.

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of White River NF recreation visitors

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	1.0
Asian	0.8
White	94.6
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	2.5
Other	1.0

Almost three percent (2.6%) 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 691 different zip codes reported. This information can be used with programs such as “zipfip” or census data for more extensive analysis.

Table 7. Zip codes of White River NF recreation visitors

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
81611	124.0	7.3
81621	49.0	2.9
81623	49.0	2.9
81601	40.0	2.3
81657	38.0	2.2
81612	34.0	2.0
81632	27.0	1.6
80498	26.0	1.5
81631	26.0	1.5
80435	25.0	1.5
81615	25.0	1.5
81620	23.0	1.3
80424	20.0	1.2
80439	15.0	0.9
80123	14.0	0.8
80443	13.0	0.8
80127	12.0	0.7
80228	12.0	0.7
80401	12.0	0.7
Other zip codes	672.0

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

There was an average of 3.0 people per vehicle 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 sixty-three days on the forest, and 304 interviews were completed. There were 59.8 percent male and 40.2 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. Tables 8 and 9 display the age distribution and race/ethnicity of Wilderness visitors.

Table 8. Age distribution of White River NF Wilderness visitors

Age Group	Percent in group
Under 16	10.8
16-20	2.3
21-30	19.0
31-40	19.4
41-50	24.8
51-60	15.2
61-70	7.8
Over 70	0.7

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of White River NF Wilderness visitors

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0.0
Asian	0.3
White	96.4
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	2.1
Other	1.2

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 181 different zip codes reported.

Table 10. Zip codes of White River NF Wilderness visitors

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
81657	18.0	6.0
81611	15.0	5.0
80498	10.0	3.3
80435	7.0	2.3
81620	7.0	2.3
81632	7.0	2.3
80443	5.0	1.7
80525	5.0	1.7
80205	4.0	1.3
80209	4.0	1.3
80424	4.0	1.3
80439	4.0	1.3
80477	4.0	1.3
other zip codes	168.0

The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 7.9 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 1.1 different days.

Two percent 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. A 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.

Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 4.1 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they felt there were few people there. One percent said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and over ten percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).

Table 11. Satisfaction of White River NF Wilderness Visitors.

Item Name	Item by Percent response by * P F A G VG					Mean Satisfaction Of Visitors (n)**	Mean Importance To Visitors**
Scenery	0.0	0.0	0.0	12.7	87.3	4.9 (79)	4.8
Available parking	1.3	7.9	11.8	34.2	44.7	4.1 (76)	3.4
Parking lot condition	1.4	5.6	25.4	28.2	39.4	4.0 (71)	2.9
Cleanliness of restrooms	6.3	0.0	18.8	31.3	43.8	4.1 (16)	3.8
Condition of the natural environment	0.0	0.0	2.5	27.8	69.6	4.7 (26)	4.7
Condition of developed recreation facilities	3.8	0.0	3.8	65.4	26.9	4.1 (79)	3.6
Condition of forest roads	2.1	10.4	29.2	29.2	29.2	3.7 (48)	3.6
Condition of forest trails	1.3	1.3	7.7	33.3	56.4	4.4 (78)	4.3
Availability of information on recreation	0.0	6.5	22.6	38.7	32.3	4.0 (62)	3.8
Feeling of safety	0.0	1.3	5.2	27.3	66.2	4.6 (77)	4.0
Adequacy of signage	5.0	5.0	15.0	36.3	38.8	4.0 (80)	3.9
Helpfulness of employees	0.0	0.0	4.3	17.0	78.7	4.7 (47)	4.0
Interpretive displays, signs, and exhibits	4.0	8.0	40.0	48.0	0.0	3.3 (25)	3.4
Value for fee paid	3.1	3.1	6.3	15.6	71.9	4.5 (32)	3.8

*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.

Note: items that had less than 10 responses are not reported.

CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT

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 24.4 hours. Almost three percent (2.7%) 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. Site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type on White River NF

Site Visit Average	DUDS	OUDS	Wilderness	GFA
5.5	4.0	37.2	7.9	6.8

The average recreation visitor went to 1.1 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. Almost ninety 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 downhill ski/snowboarding, viewing natural features, relaxing, viewing wildlife, and hiking/walking (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 ski/ snowboarding, hike/walk, mountain bike, cross-country ski, and relaxing (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. White River NF activity participation and primary activity

Activity	Percent participation	Percent who said it was their primary activity*
Camping in developed sites (family or group)	1.8	0.5
Primitive camping	0.7	0.1
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas	1.5	0.5
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on Forest Service managed lands (private or Forest Service run)	1.6	0.5
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed sites (family or group)	2.7	0.4
**Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national forest system lands	20.4	0.9
**Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc on national forest system lands	30.3	1.9
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area	3.0	0.7
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor information services	2.5	0.0
Nature Study	1.5	0.0
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc,	22.0	2.6
Fishing- all types	2.3	1.3
Hunting- all types	0.7	0.4
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc)	2.2	0.5
Driving for pleasure on roads	4.8	0.7
Snowmobile travel	3.4	0.9
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc)	0.3	0.1
Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other)	0.1	0.1
Hiking or walking	16.8	9.8
Horseback riding	1.1	0.2
Bicycling, including mountain bikes	7.0	5.4
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.)	1.2	1.0
Downhill skiing or snowboarding	71.4	70.8
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing	6.3	2.7
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and sports)	3.3	1.8
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products	0.9	0.4

Note: this column may total over 100% because some visitors chose more than one primary activity.

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 five most used facilities/areas were: downhill ski areas, nonmotorized trails, other forest roads, scenic byways, and designated Wilderness. Table 14 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.

Table 14. Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas on White River NF.

Facility / Area Type	Percent who said they used (national forest visits)
Developed campground	2.3
Swimming area	0.2
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails	22.2
Scenic byway	5.6
Designated Wilderness	4.7
Visitor center, museum	1.5
Forest Service office or other info site	1.6
Picnic area	3.2
Boat launch	0.8
Designated Off Road Vehicle area	0.6
Other forest roads	8.3
Interpretive site	3.7
Organization camp	0.0
Developed fishing site/ dock	0.5
Designated snowmobile area	1.2
Downhill ski area	69.2
Nordic ski area	1.4
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land	3.1
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned	0.0
Designated snow play area	0.9
Motorized developed trails	2.1
Recreation residences	0.8

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 10 percent of visitors that went to other areas than just this national forest, 96 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 129.6 hours. In the 12 months prior to the interview the typical visitor had come to this forest 3.5 times for all activities, including 2.7 times to participate in their identified main activity.

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of recreation visitors

Substitute Choice	Percent who would have…
Gone somewhere else for the same activity	57.3
Gone somewhere else for a different activity	6.6
Come back another time	7.1
Stayed home	17.6
Gone to work at their regular job	3.1
None of these	8.3

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

In a typical year, visitors to this forest spent an average of $2813.60 on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses.

Visitors’ average spending on a trip to the forest

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.

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 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.

Table 16. Satisfaction of White River NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

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	3.2	11.4	85.4	4.8 (185)	4.6
Available parking	1.3	3.9	10.5	34.6	49.7	4.3 (153)	3.8
Parking lot condition	2.6	3.3	11.1	36.6	46.4	4.2 (153)	3.1
Cleanliness of restrooms	0.0	2.3	12.5	32.8	52.3	4.4 (128)	3.9
Condition of the natural environment	0.5	0.5	2.7	30.3	65.9	4.6 (159)	4.6
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0.6	1.3	5.0	32.7	60.4	4.5 (128)	4.0
Condition of forest roads	0.0	2.7	6.8	28.4	62.2	4.5 (74)	3.9
Condition of forest trails	1.4	1.4	7.0	37.1	53.1	4.4 (143)	4.3
Availability of information on recreation	3.6	1.4	15.1	36.0	43.9	4.2 (139)	3.7
Feeling of safety	0.0	1.1	4.9	22.0	72.0	4.6 (182)	4.3
Adequacy of signage	1.1	2.3	9.1	40.9	46.6	4.3 (176)	4.1
Helpfulness of employees	0.7	0.7	2.1	23.8	72.7	4.7 (143)	4.3
Interpretive displays, signs, and exhibits	8.7	6.5	21.7	63.0	0.0	3.4 (46)	3.7
Value for fee paid	1.2	1.9	11.8	25.5	59.6	4.4 (161)	4.4

*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.

Note: items that had less than 10 responses are not reported

Table 17. Satisfaction of White River NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

Item Name	Item by Percent response By * P F A G VG					Mean Satisfaction Of Visitors (n)**	Mean Importance To Visitors**
Scenery	0.0	0.0	4.0	12.0	84.0	4.8 (25)	4.5
Available parking	0.0	12.5	0.0	25.0	62.5	4.4 (24)	3.8
Parking lot condition	5.3	15.8	10.5	31.6	36.8	3.8 (19)	3.6
Cleanliness of restrooms	0.0	38.9	11.1	27.8	22.2	3.3 (18)	4.4
Condition of the natural environment	0.0	0.0	8.0	28.0	64.0	4.6 (25)	4.6
Condition of developed recreation facilities	4.0	12.0	8.0	28.0	48.0	4.0 (25)	4.1
Condition of forest roads	4.8	4.8	9.5	42.9	38.1	4.0 (21)	3.6
Condition of forest trails	0.0	0.0	0.0	26.7	73.3	4.7 (15)	4.3
Availability of information on recreation	0.0	6.3	12.5	37.5	43.8	4.2 (16)	3.8
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	4.2	25.0	70.8	4.7 (24)	4.3
Adequacy of signage	0.0	4.2	12.5	25.0	58.3	4.4(24)	4.2
Helpfulness of employees	0.0	0.0	12.5	6.3	81.3	4.7 (16)	4.2
Interpretive displays, signs, and exhibits
Value for fee paid	0	8.7	8.7	34.8	47.8	4.2 (23)	4.2

Table 18. Satisfaction of White River NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas

Item Name	Item by Percent response by * P F A G VG					Mean Satisfaction Of Visitors (n)**	Mean Importance To Visitors**
Scenery	0.5	0.5	1.6	6.6	90.7	4.9 (182)	4.7
Available parking	5.9	5.9	14.1	33.3	40.7	4.0(135)	3.6
Parking lot condition	0.9	1.8	17.5	43.9	36.0	4.1(114)	3.3
Cleanliness of restrooms	0.0	2.2	15.2	26.1	56.5	4.4 (46)	3.7
Condition of the natural environment	1.1	1.1	2.8	24.0	70.9	4.6(179)	4.7
Condition of developed recreation facilities	1.7	0.0	8.5	28.8	61.0	4.5 (59)	3.9
Condition of forest roads	1.5	6.0	9.8	46.6	36.1	4.1 (133)	3.8
Condition of forest trails	0.8	3.3	9.2	31.7	55.0	4.4 (120)	4.2
Availability of information on recreation	8.4	2.8	14.0	37.4	37.4	3.9 (107)	3.7
Feeling of safety	0.0	1.2	6.9	27.2	64.7	4.6 (173)	4.0
Adequacy of signage	4.1	6.5	16.6	40.2	32.5	3.9 (169)	3.9
Helpfulness of employees	0.0	1.0	5.0	19.8	74.3	4.7 (101)	4.1
Interpretive displays, signs, and exhibits	6.5	16.1	29.0	48.4	0.0	3.2 (31)	3.9
Value for fee paid	3.9	7.8	15.7	23.5	49.0	4.1 (51)	4.0

*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

Note: items that had less than 10 responses are not reported

Crowding

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.

Table 19. Perception of crowding by White River NF recreation visitors 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	0.9	1.0	1.0
9	0.0	2.9	0.0	1.0
8	19.7	9.4	3.0	5.8
7	13.4	13.1	7.0	4.1
6	5.4	4.9	15.0	4.1
5	25.6	15.0	21.6	13.3
4	14.6	10.0	10.2	7.6
3	1.7	11.9	19.0	16.5
2	15.3	19.4	12.6	30.8
1 Hardly anyone there	4.4	12.4	10.6	15.7

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. Responses are summarized in Table 20.

Table 20. List of comments received from White River NF recreation visitors

Site Name Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments:

Sapphire Point #10-95	Information center
Sapphire Point #10-95	More information advertising in publications about where to find out about lodging facilities on National Forest land
Ashcroft Townsite	More information - scale model of town in a building.
Ashcroft Townsite	Topographic map on display and wildflower info.
Maroon Bells Day Use	Larger signage for cars ban
Maroon Bells Day Use	More maps
Maroon Bells Day Use	We waited @ highlands for bus for 1/2 hour
Maroon Bells Day Use	soap in restrooms
Maroon Bells Day Use	more atv trails
	distance on the signs
Cow Creek South CG #10-82	Pump toilets before weekend.
Ruedi Marina CG - nonproxy -03-13	Marked pathway for elderly
Difficult CG	Dump stations for RV/List of dump station locations
Hanging Lake 04-29	keep pollution out
Hanging Lake 04-29	Forest Service info at all the Tourist info centers in Glenwood Springs
Hanging Lake 04-29	Post "Bring water"
Beaver Creek Village Site 07-26	Availability of trail maps
Brush Creek 04-35	Better signage from I-70
Tigiwon Road Site 07-17	Improve trail signage and add map
Tigiwon Road Site 07-17	Better signage
Tigiwon Road Site 07-17	Restroom at trailhead, removal of sketchy trees
Tigiwon Road Site 07-17	Post signs indicating according to time
Deer Creek #10-30	More motorized roads.
Spruce Creek Trail #10-56	Trail signing needs to be clearer.
NO NAME TRAIL 1847 08-01	Keeping undeveloped areas undeveloped.
Leadking/Crystal-03-18	Enforcing noise level in campgrounds (loud generators)
Leadking/Crystal-03-18	Trash cans available; trash service
Leadking/Crystal-03-18	More pullouts on Leaking Loop
Leadking/Crystal-03-18	Wishes Dow would stock in GFA
South Fork FP-03-40	special burn permit
Hagerman/Ivanhoe 105 Rd-03-43	More open trails for mountain Subers
Hagerman/Ivanhoe 105 Rd-03-43	Please keep folks from littering (try posting)
Hagerman Pass-03-44+B471	Info on Douglas Ghost town
Lincoln-2	Better access / parking for horse trails.
Lincoln-2	Active management of climbing area
Sunny Side-9	Clear some of the brush to improve views
Hunter Creek-11	Sign for bikers to please slow down
Smuggler-12	Better signs, Motorbikes were noisy. Would prefer if area was off limits to motors.
Smuggler-12	Better signage at Hunter Creek Trail
Smuggler-12	More signage for outsiders
Smuggler-12	Better trail maps at trail heads
Smuggler-12	continue to preserve what we have
Smuggler-12	keep the trail open
Smuggler-12	Better website, "National Park Service has a much better website than the F.S.".
Ute Trail-16	Prohibit cell phone use on trail.
Fryingpan River Road-03-02	Active involvement in Ruedi reservoir water level
Fryingpan River Road-03-02	Paying for sewer drop and camping is redundant. (Campers should have access to drop)
Fryingpan River Road-03-02	Sign for time limit on dock. People sitting at base of dock, couldn’t use but wanted to
Fryingpan River Road-03-02	Hard to tell where is private / public land on river (where to fish?)
Wilcox Junction 20	box of free trail maps @ trail head
02-28 Little Trap(Forest Boundary)	Yampa district more hiker friendly than Blanco's and Meaker's horse trails
NY Mtn TH (Polar Star) 04-03	Map at TH rope in steep terrain would be very helpful
Booth TH 07-103	Enforce dog leash law, toilet at trailhead.
Booth TH 07-103	Signage direction to TH
Booth TH 07-103	Labeled mileage and mileage to next destination
Booth TH 07-103	Restroom
Avalanche - FDT 1959 03-101	Where are the elk? Dow would not say.
Avalanche - FDT 1959 03-101	Availability of firewood
East Fk FDT1970(03-104) MaroonPass	Junction at Buckskin pass not marked Signage poor and trail not marked well.
Cathedral FDT 1984	Website of trails, trail descriptions and other information.
Cathedral FDT 1984	Bathrooms in parking lot
Conundrum FDT 1981	Simple maps @ trailhead that you can take with you
Conundrum FDT 1981	Garbage can @ trailhead, Permanent cables between trees @ campsites to hang food away from bears, etc.
Crater Lake FDT 1975	Signs saying how much farter to Crater Lake
Linkins Lake FDT 1979.1	restrooms @ trailhead/garbage can for dog poop
Linkins Lake FDT 1979.1	pick up dog pooh off trail
Linkins Lake FDT 1979.1	a shuttle to be able to do the loop
Bogan Flats Group-03-03	Larger turnaround area in group site parking (Bogan Flats campground)
Yeoman Park Campground 04-47	More acceptance of motor vehicles / dirt bike trails
Yeoman Park Campground 04-47	Designate on sign for Guilford cave
Yeoman Park Campground 04-47	Dumpster instead of individual garbage. Dryer sheets in outhouse
Sweetwater Lake Campground 04-52	Upgrade shoreline
Sweetwater Lake Campground 04-52	Grade the roads more often
MEADOW LAKE C.G.	Keep roads open and areas accessible
Ruedi Marina DU-03-03	Handicapped boat trailer parking at Ruedi

Donald B.K. English

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring project

Definition of Terms

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

Visitor Use Estimates

Table 2. Annual White River National Forest recreation use estimate

Table 3. Number of last-exiting recreation visitors by site type and form type 1/

Description of Visitors

Table 4. Gender distribution of White River NF recreation visitors

Table 5. Age distribution of White River NF recreation visitors

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of White River NF recreation visitors

Table 7. Zip codes of White River 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 White River NF Wilderness visitors

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of White River NF Wilderness visitors

CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT

Table 12. Site visit length of stay (in hours) by site/type on White River NF

Table 13. White River NF activity participation and primary activity

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

Table 14. Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas on White River NF.

Economic Information

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of recreation visitors

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

Visitors’ average spending on a trip to the forest

Visitor Satisfaction Information

Table 16. Satisfaction of White River NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

Table 17. Satisfaction of White River NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

Table 18. Satisfaction of White River NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas

Crowding

Table 19. Perception of crowding by White River NF recreation visitors by site type (percent site visits)

Other comments from visitors

Table 20. List of comments received from White River NF recreation visitors