INTRODUCTION

Scope and purpose of the National Visitor Use Monitoring project

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 timeframe of data collection was established for the first sampling cycle, and a five-year timeframe for succeeding cycles. The first sampling cycle was completed in September 2003. The second sampling cycle begins October 2004. This ongoing monitoring effort 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.

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 -- defines the degree of certainty that a range of values contains the true value of what is being estimated. For example, an 80% confidence level refers to the range of values within which the true value will fall 80% of the time. Higher confidence levels necessarily cover a larger range of values.

Confidence interval width (also called error rate) - these terms define the reliability of the visit estimates. The confidence level defines the desired level of certainty. The size of the interval that is needed to reach that level of certainty is the confidence interval width. The confidence interval width is expressed as a percent of the estimate and defines the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. The smaller the confidence interval, the more precise is the estimate. An 80 percent confidence level is very acceptable for social science applications at a broad national or forest scale. For example: There are 205 million national forest visits plus or minus 3 percent at the 80 percent confidence level. In other words we are 80 percent certain that the true number of national forest visits lies between 198.85 million and 211.15 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 proxy or nonproxy sites, each day that a recreation site or area was open for recreation, the site day was categorized as 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

Site type	TYPE	SAMPLING STRATUM	# DAYS SAMPLED	# DAYS IN POPULATION	SAMPLING RATE
DUDS	NONPROXY	HIGH	11	106	10.38
DUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	11	280	3.93
DUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	9	744	1.21
GFA	NONPROXY	HIGH	22	674	3.26
GFA	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	26	1,720	1.51
GFA	NONPROXY	LOW	26	17,548	0.15
OUDS	NONPROXY	HIGH	9	60	15.00
OUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	9	177	5.08
OUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	9	1,558	0.58
OUDS	PROXY	FE4	6	744	0.81
OUDS	PROXY	RE2	5	651	0.77
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	HIGH	9	20	45.00
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	9	123	7.32
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	LOW	9	735	1.22

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 Helena National Forest recreation use estimate

VISIT TYPE	VISITS	80 % CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
SITE VISITS	535,417	23.8
NATL FOREST VISITS	528,855	24.1
WILDERNESS VISITS	3,027	39.2

The Helena National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2002 through September 2003. The forest coordinator was David Payne. During the sample year from October 1 2002 through September 30, 2003, the forest coordinator reported a difficult fire season. Fire restrictions in July, August, and September curtailed visitor use due to fire closures in many popular areas.

Recreation use on the forest for fiscal year 2003 was 528,855 national forest visits. The 80 percent confidence interval width was +/- 24.1 percent. There were 535,417 site visits, an average of 1.01 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 3,027 Wilderness visits.

A total of 868 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year. Of these, 3.5 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 838 people who agreed to be interviewed, 26.5 percent were not recreating, including 5.3 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 2.9 percent were working, 7.8 percent were just passing through, and 7.6 percent had some other reason to be there. About 73.5 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 90.7 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 86 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	DEVELOPED DAY USE	DEVELOPED OVERNIGHT	GENERAL FOREST AREA	WILDERNESS
BASIC	54	37	99	5
ECON	54	22	103	5
SATIS	51	25	100	4

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

Descriptions of forest visitors were developed based upon the characteristics of interviewed visitors and expanding to the national forest visitor population. Tables 4 and 5 display the gender and age distributions for national forest visits.

Table 4. Gender distribution of Helena NF recreation visitors

MALE	FEMALE
82.6	17.4

Table 5. Age distribution of Helena NF recreation visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	23.96
16 TO 19	1.01
20 TO 29	9.11
30 TO 39	18.30
40 TO 49	20.91
50 TO 59	15.39
60 TO 69	8.45
70 PLUS	2.86

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

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of Helena NF recreation visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
99.0	0.1	0.4	0.2	0.6	0.0	0.0

Less than one-half of one percent of forest visitors were from another country. The survey did not collect country affiliation. The most common visitor zip codes are shown in Table 7. Additional zip code information was collected and is available upon request. This information can help determine the primary market area for the forest.

Table 7. Most common zip codes of Helena NF recreation visitors

ZIPCODE	COUNT	PERCENT
59601	125	26.4271
59602	106	22.4101
59635	36	7.6110
59634	17	3.5941
59404	12	2.5370
59639	10	2.1142
59405	9	1.9027
59604	8	1.6913
59701	7	1.4799
59644	6	1.2685
59715	6	1.2685
59728	6	1.2685
59801	5	1.0571
59401	4	0.8457
59102	3	0.6342
59421	3	0.6342
59624	3	0.6342
59636	3	0.6342
59638	3	0.6342
59840	3	0.6342

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

There was an average of 2.35 people per vehicle with an average of 2.06 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 27 days on the forest, and 14 interviews were obtained. There were 52.6 percent male and 47.4 percent female visitors to Wilderness on the forest. Due to the lack of sufficient interviews to characterize Wilderness visitors Tables 8, 9, and 11 do not contain data. Table 10 shows the zip codes of the 14 visitors interviewed.

Table 8. Age distribution of Helena NF Wilderness visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	.
16 TO 19	.
20 TO 29	.
30 TO 39	.
40 TO 49	.
50 TO 59	.
60 TO 69	.
70 PLUS	.

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of Helena NF Wilderness visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
.	.	.	.	.	.	.

Table 10. Zip codes of Helena NF Wilderness visitors

WLDZIP	COUNT	PERCENT
59602	7	50.0000
59601	2	14.2857
59635	2	14.2857
43015	1	7.1429
59405	1	7.1429
98826	1	7.1429

Table 11. Satisfaction of Helena NF Wilderness Visitors.

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	1
Developed facility condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	1
Condition of environment	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4
Employee helpfulness	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2
Interpretive display	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2
Parking availability	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2
Parking lot condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2
Rec. info. available	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4
Road condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2
Feeling of safety	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4
Scenery	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4
Signage adequacy	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4
Trail condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4
Value for fee paid	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	0

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

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

N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was 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 10.8 hours. Over 10 percent (10.57%) 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 Helena NF

Site Visit Average	Developed Day Use	Developed Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness	National Forest Visit
8.2	1.9	13.4	7.8	64.6	10.8

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. 99.1 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 hiking/walking, viewing wildlife, viewing natural features, relaxing, 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 hunting, other non-motorized, hiking/walking, gathering forest products, 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. Helena NF activity participation and primary activity

Activity	% Participating	% as Main Activity
Developed Camping	8.57	3.51
Primitive Camping	3.85	0.27
Backpacking	8.37	0.00
Resort Use	5.21	0.14
Picnicking	14.71	2.40
Viewing Natural Features	60.33	0.79
Visiting Historic Sites	18.01	5.20
Nature Center Activities	0.95	0.00
Nature Study	9.55	0.00
Relaxing	54.13	5.42
Fishing	7.44	2.88
Hunting	39.43	36.46
OHV Use	14.69	5.64
Driving for Pleasure	41.15	1.43
Snowmobiling	3.48	1.01
Motorized Water Activities	1.54	0.78
Other Motorized Activity	0.16	0.07
Hiking / Walking	62.04	9.06
Horesback Riding	4.01	3.49
Bicycling	1.51	0.25
Non-motorized Water	1.13	0.27
Downhill Skiing	0.07	0.00
Cross-country Skiing	0.37	0.25
Other Non-motorized	16.03	11.71
Gathering Forest Products	13.06	8.47
Viewing Wildlife	63.32	3.45

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

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

One-third 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: forest roads, forest trails, motorized trails, developed swimming site, and developed campground. Table 14 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.

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

FACILITY	PERCENT
Developed Campground	7.56
Developed Swimming Site	7.67
Forest Trails	29.55
Scenic Byway	9.38
Wilderness	1.63
Museum	0.30
Picnic Area	6.65
Boat Launch	1.50
Designated OHV Area	6.58
Forest Roads	50.73
Interpretive Displays	0.59
Information Sites	0.00
Organization Camps	0.24
Developed Fishing Site	6.96
Snowmobile Area/Trails	0.44
Downhill Ski Area	0.00
Nordic Trails	0.20
FS Lodge	0.00
FS Fire Lookout	0.20
Snowplay Area	0.30
Motorized Trails	13.83
Recreation Residence	0.15

Economic Information

About one-third of visitors interviewed were asked a series of questions that enabled economic analyses. Several questions focused on the trip away from home that included their visit to the national forest, and others about their annual visits to the forest and annual spending on all outdoor recreation.

This trip away from home

While away from home, some people just go to the forest, while others incorporate a national forest visit as part of a larger trip away from home. On this forest, 92.3 percent said that recreating on 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. About 17.4 percent of visitors indicated their trip would include at least on night away from home. The average number of nights away for those staying away overnight was 3.5. About 17.1 percent indicated they would be staying overnight within 50 miles of this forest, and for them, the average number of nights in the local area was 2.8. Visitors estimated the amount of money spent during their trip within 50 miles of the recreation site at which they were interviewed (the trip may include multiple national forest visits, as well as visits to other forests or parks). This information will be available in a separate report and data file that can be used to estimate the local jobs and income that are generated by recreation visits to this forest.

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of recreation visitors

Substitute response	Percent who would have:
Come back another time	10.5
Stayed at Home	6.9
Gone elsewhere for the Same activity	78.5
Gone elsewhere for a Different activity	2.6
Gone to Work	0.7
Had some other substitute	1.3

Average annual outdoor recreation activity

In the 12 months prior to the interview the typical visitor had come to this forest 34.8 times for all activities, including 19.5 times to participate in their identified main activity. Visitors were also asked about the amount of money they spent in a typical year on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses. About 27% said they spent less than $500 per year, and a little more than 3% said they spent over $10,000 per year (Table 16).

Table 16. Annual recreation spending for visitors to the Helena NF

$$ spent each year on outdoor recreation	Percent of Total
UNDER 500	26.71
500 - 999	21.23
1000 - 1999	13.70
2000 - 2999	14.38
3000 - 3999	8.22
4000 - 4999	6.85
5000 - 9999	5.48
OVER 10000	3.42

Visitor Satisfaction Information

About one-third 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 17 through 19 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 17. Satisfaction of Helena NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.0	0.0	4.1	24.3	71.6	4.7	4.3	44
Developed facility condition	0.0	0.0	0.0	30.3	69.7	4.7	4.4	44
Condition of environment	0.0	1.9	0.0	37.8	60.3	4.6	4.6	48
Employee helpfulness	0.0	0.0	0.0	33.4	66.6	4.7	4.1	17
Interpretive display	0.0	0.0	13.1	38.7	48.2	4.4	4.1	27
Parking availability	0.0	2.1	5.8	32.7	59.4	4.5	4.1	44
Parking lot condition	0.0	2.1	3.9	29.5	64.6	4.6	4.0	43
Rec. info. available	0.0	0.0	21.4	36.7	41.9	4.2	4.2	33
Road condition	4.0	4.0	16.5	35.6	39.9	4.0	3.9	41
Feeling of safety	0.0	1.9	1.9	24.5	71.7	4.7	4.4	48
Scenery	0.0	1.6	1.9	23.4	73.1	4.7	4.2	49
Signage adequacy	5.1	3.8	3.5	40.4	47.2	4.2	4.2	48
Trail condition	0.0	0.0	16.0	25.5	58.5	4.4	3.7	16
Value for fee paid	0.0	2.7	2.7	20.3	74.3	4.7	4.5	35

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

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

N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was not reported

Table 18. Satisfaction of Helena NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.0	0.0	16.8	12.3	71.0	4.5	4.3	20
Developed facility condition	0.0	0.0	12.7	24.0	63.3	4.5	4.3	22
Condition of environment	0.0	0.0	1.1	22.9	76.0	4.7	4.2	25
Employee helpfulness	.	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	7
Interpretive display	.	.	.	.	.	.	2.9	9
Parking availability	0.8	0.0	2.6	34.4	62.3	4.6	4.1	18
Parking lot condition	0.0	0.0	0.0	57.1	42.9	4.4	3.5	18
Rec. info. available	27.3	0.0	30.5	6.1	36.0	3.2	3.6	13
Road condition	12.0	0.0	25.6	27.2	35.2	3.7	3.5	17
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	0.0	6.8	93.2	4.9	4.5	24
Scenery	0.0	0.0	2.6	17.0	80.4	4.8	4.4	25
Signage adequacy	0.0	2.7	0.6	49.3	47.5	4.4	4.0	23
Trail condition	0.0	0.0	0.7	40.2	59.1	4.6	4.3	16
Value for fee paid	0.0	0.0	16.5	55.7	27.8	4.1	3.5	15

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

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

N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was not reported

Table 19. Satisfaction of Helena NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.0	4.9	69.4	5.5	20.2	3.4	3.9	12
Developed facility condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	9
Condition of environment	0.7	0.7	6.0	62.4	30.2	4.2	4.5	74
Employee helpfulness	0.0	0.0	0.8	76.9	22.3	4.2	4.0	28
Interpretive display	1.0	3.7	44.9	50.4	0.0	3.4	3.0	15
Parking availability	1.1	2.2	6.7	39.6	50.4	4.4	2.7	44
Parking lot condition	0.0	0.0	44.0	52.5	3.5	3.6	3.3	11
Rec. info. available	2.6	3.6	7.2	80.3	6.4	3.8	3.5	40
Road condition	0.7	13.7	15.6	56.9	13.0	3.7	3.5	70
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	19.6	53.5	26.9	4.1	3.3	73
Scenery	0.7	0.0	0.3	42.6	56.4	4.5	4.7	74
Signage adequacy	12.2	4.3	16.4	35.8	31.2	3.7	3.6	73
Trail condition	0.0	0.0	25.5	51.2	23.3	4.0	3.9	37
Value for fee paid	.	.	.	.	.	.	2.3	7

*Scale is: Poor = 1 Fair = 2 Average = 3 Good = 4 Very good = 5

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

N obs means the number of visitors who responded to this item.

Note: For items with less than 10 responses the data was 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 20 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 20. Perception of crowding by Helena NF recreation visitors by site type (percent site visits)

Crowding Rating	Developed Day Use	Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness
10 Overcrowded	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.0
9	1.8	0.0	1.4	0.0
8	3.7	0.6	1.9	0.0
7	7.3	0.6	12.0	10.5
6	5.5	17.4	1.7	0.0
5	14.3	12.3	2.7	0.0
4	10.4	17.0	1.5	10.5
3	19.3	25.4	13.3	10.5
2	25.4	2.6	25.1	68.4
1 Hardly anyone there	12.3	24.1	39.7	0.0

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 21.

Table 21. List of comments received from Helena NF recreation visitors

Site Name	What Accommodation could be made
(01-17) Magpie Rd # 425	better maps (for finding free firewood areas)
(01-17) Magpie Rd # 425	less people; better signing- at top of Magnie going to Avalanche; more elk
(01-17) Magpie Rd # 425	back to way it was before the fire; keep trails closed; improve signage; OHV travel import
(01-17) Magpie Rd # 425	physically challenged accessible facilities
(01-19) Avalanche Rd #359	more signing; information in newspaper- what's open and closed; more parking in Maypie off
(01-52) Smith River - Eden Br. TO	geological internal information
(01-55) Gypsy Lake DU Picnic	complete trail around Cypsy Lake
(02-03) Target Range	more contact with forest rangers
(02-03) Target Range	public access "free day"
(02-03) Target Range	locked bathroom- unlocked
(02-04) Meriwether	forest service access; canoe landing; handicap facilities- wider ramp1
(02-12) Park Lake Campground - P	firewood availability
(02-16) Coulter Campground - NP	trail signage
(02-28) York Hill to Nelson	put water pump at BVR Creek-Missouri
(02-31) Little Butte @ FS Boundary	information on wildlife
(02-31) Little Butte @ FS Boundary	private land access
(02-32) Montana City	better signs, better maps, FS map- needs to show roads
(02-32) Montana City	less ATV use
(02-38)Telegraph Cr @Negro Mt TO	open up roads- Maryanne Creek, especially to mines
(02-38)Telegraph Cr @Negro Mt TO	signage about fire restrictions- fire preparedness, etc.
(02-38)Telegraph Cr @Negro Mt TO	better signing of travel restrictions
(02-38)Telegraph Cr @Negro Mt TO	work with private landowners in improving forest/access roads
(02-38)Telegraph Cr @Negro Mt TO	put a toilet at Bullion Parks
(02-61) Tree Farmer Rd	posting land ownership boundary
(02-61) Tree Farmer Rd	site closed road before gates/at set of roads8
(02-66) Charter Oaks TH	dust control on roads and speed limit on entire road- mix clay with gravel to prevent dust
(04-15)Virginia Cr Rd,S of Stemple	improve signing for ATV trails
(04-15)Virginia Cr Rd,S of Stemple	poor man parking area- bill parking to ski from Stample Pass
(04-15)Virginia Cr Rd,S of Stemple	more access; game retrieval access
(04-15)Virginia Cr Rd,S of Stemple	stop ATV traffic and MCs usage
(04-17) Marsh Cr. Rd	more public awareness, open more gates
(04-30) Sucker Cr. Rd	keep the forest open for recreation use
(04-30) Sucker Cr. Rd	interpretive signs (need more)
(04-30) Sucker Cr. Rd	more snow, more outhouses
(04-31) Copper Cr. Rd	better signs

Donald B.K. English

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

The Forest Stratification Results

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

Table 2. Annual Helena National Forest recreation use estimate

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

Table 4. Gender distribution of Helena NF recreation visitors

Table 5. Age distribution of Helena NF recreation visitors

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of Helena NF recreation visitors

Table 7. Most common zip codes of Helena NF recreation visitors

Table 8. Age distribution of Helena NF Wilderness visitors

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of Helena NF Wilderness visitors

Table 10. Zip codes of Helena NF Wilderness visitors

Table 11. Satisfaction of Helena NF Wilderness Visitors.

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

Table 13. Helena NF activity participation and primary activity

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

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of recreation visitors

Average annual outdoor recreation activity

Table 16. Annual recreation spending for visitors to the Helena NF

Table 17. Satisfaction of Helena NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

Table 18. Satisfaction of Helena NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

Table 19. Satisfaction of Helena NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas

Table 20. Perception of crowding by Helena NF recreation visitors by site type (percent site visits)

Table 21. List of comments received from Helena NF recreation visitors