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, except in the case of Alaska, where Tour Boats and Ferries were sampled. In Round 2 of sampling these Alaska boats and ferries are being moved to View Corridor category.

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 on the Tongass National Forest during 3 sample years combined are displayed in Table 1. The sample years were 1) January – December 2000, 2) October 2001-September 2002, and 3) October 2002 – September 2003. 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. Table 1 also shows the total number of days that were actually sampled within each stratum.

Table 1. Tongass NF population of available site days for sampling and percentage of days sampled by stratum (3 years combined)

Site type	TYPE	SAMPLING STRATUM	# DAYS SAMPLED	# DAYS IN POPULATION	SAMPLING RATE
DUDS	NONPROXY	HIGH	36	492	7.32
DUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	43	1381	3.11
DUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	30	3230	0.93
DUDS	PROXY	FR1	4	99	4.04
DUDS	PROXY	PTC1	1	122	0.82
GFA	NONPROXY	HIGH	28	543	5.16
GFA	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	63	4526	1.39
GFA	NONPROXY	LOW	70	39659	0.18
GFA	PROXY	RE1	5	884	0.57
OUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	0	15	0.00
OUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	30	7909	0.38
OUDS	PROXY	FE4	13	1002	1.30
OUDS	PROXY	RF4	7	7816	0.09
OUDS	PROXY	SUP4	16	13721	0.12
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	HIGH	13	126	10.32
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	40	1340	2.99
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	LOW	39	26035	0.15
WILDERNESS	PROXY	MA2	0	114	0.00
WILDERNESS	PROXY	RE4	4	494	0.81
WILDERNESS	PROXY	RF4	0	4074	0.00
WILDERNESS	PROXY	SUP4	13	4967	0.26

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).

As shown in Table 2, the Tongass received a total of 1.8 million national forest visits (18.7% error rate) and 2.1 million site visits (18.3% error rate). There were 200,014 Wilderness visits (40.9% error rate). The Wilderness estimate includes proxy data from outfitter guide records and cabin use not captured in the survey. View Corridor visits, which include the people on cruise ships on the Inland Passage and ferry use are not included in this estimate and will be provided separately. This is combined data from the 3 years of sampling on the Tongass. The Tongass National Forest is over 17 million acres in size; therefore it was divided into three separate sample areas over 3 years. The Juneau, Admiralty Island and Sitka Ranger Districts were sampled the first year, comprising 6.3 million acres. The second year of sampling (October 2001- September 2002) on the Tongass occurred on the Misty/ Ketchikan Ranger Districts and Prince of Whales Island (Thorn Bay and Craig Ranger Districts). The third year of sampling (October 2002- September 2003) occurred on Yakutat, Hoonah, Wrangell, and Petersburg Ranger Districts. The figures reported here may be different than previous reports due to statistical weighting and other issues.

Table 2. Annual Tongass National Forest recreation use estimate (2003)

VISIT TYPE	VISITS	80 % CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
SITE VISITS	2,134,864	18.3
NATL FOREST VISITS	1,830,673	18.7
WILDERNESS VISITS	200,014	40.9

The forest coordinators were Marti Marshall, Lynn Kolund, Nita Nettleton, Mike Johnson, and Sandy Skrien. The forest coordinators did not report any unusual weather or forest fire circumstances that may have affected recreation use during the sample year. There is some debate about the effectiveness of the sample strategy in the remote regions of Alaska, especially attempting to find visitors who have used general forest areas or Wilderness by surveying at boat harbors and air carriers. Few interviews were obtained with this methodology. For this reason, the data from the three years that parts of the Tongass National Forest were sampled are combined in this report to provide sufficient data for the analysis.

A total of 2,048 visitors were contacted on the forest during the three sample years. Of these, almost eight percent (7.8%) refused to be interviewed. Of the 1,888 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 30 percent (29.7%) were not recreating, including 1.0 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 8.5 percent were working, 11.1 percent were just passing through, and 9.2 percent had some other reason to be there. About 70 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 94.2 percent of them were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 66.2 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 Tongass NF recreation visitors by site type and form type 1/

FORM TYPE	DEVELOPED DAY USE	DEVELOPED OVERNIGHT	GENERAL FOREST AREA	WILDERNESS
BASIC	312	44	168	29
ECON	207	32	91	21
SATIS	190	35	92	29

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. All data presented here is the combined 3 years of Tongass data. Tables 4 and 5 display gender and age descriptors.

Table 4. Gender distribution of Tongass NF recreation visitors

MALE	FEMALE
55.7	44.3

Table 5. Age distribution of Tongass NF recreation visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	13.02
16 TO 19	1.49
20 TO 29	12.54
30 TO 39	18.42
40 TO 49	23.31
50 TO 59	18.43
60 TO 69	10.09
70 PLUS	2.71

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

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of Tongass NF recreation visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
89.2	2	5.5	0.7	1.8	0.2	0.9

About four percent (3.6) of forest visitors were from another country. The survey did not collect country affiliation. Many foreign visitors do use cruise ships to see Alaska. Unless the visitor actually set foot on the forest, the cruise ship use is analyzed under a separate category called “View Corridors” and is not reported here. The most frequently reported zip codes from sampled visitors are shown in Table 7. Additional zip code information was collected and is available by request. The forest can determine what percent of local visitor use they have by comparing the local forest zip codes to those listed. This information can be used to help identify the forest recreation market area.

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

ZIPCODE	COUNT	PERCENT
99901	211	18.4119
99801	151	13.1763
99835	139	12.1291
99833	72	6.2827
99929	29	2.5305
99928	25	2.1815
99803	23	2.0070
99802	13	1.1344
99821	11	0.9599
99824	11	0.9599
99919	8	0.6981
99921	8	0.6981
99689	7	0.6108
99922	6	0.5236
99925	6	0.5236
99516	4	0.3490
98121	3	0.2618
01760	2	0.1745
02130	2	0.1745
14424	2	0.1745
20136	2	0.1745
22030	2	0.1745
32504	2	0.1745
32935	2	0.1745
75023	2	0.1745
83843	2	0.1745
95404	2	0.1745
96707	2	0.1745
97739	2	0.1745
98028	2	0.1745
98033	2	0.1745
98107	2	0.1745
98221	2	0.1745
98245	2	0.1745
99577	2	0.1745
99709	2	0.1745
99827	2	0.1745
99926	2	0.1745
99950	2	0.1745

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

There was an average of 3.92 people per vehicle with an average of 2.01 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 53 days on the forest, and 48 interviews were obtained from exiting recreation visitors. There were 58 percent male and 42 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 Tongass NF Wilderness visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	29.03
16 TO 19	0.33
20 TO 29	17.62
30 TO 39	15.38
40 TO 49	23.79
50 TO 59	5.68
60 TO 69	8.12
70 PLUS	0.04

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of Tongass NF Wilderness visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
88.9	2.9	4.1	0	4.1	0	0

The Wilderness visitors were from a wide variety of zip codes. The most common Wilderness visitor zip codes are shown in Table 10. Additional zip code information is available upon request.

Table 10. Most common zip codes of Tongass NF Wilderness visitors

WLDZIP	COUNT	PERCENT
99801	17	23.6111
99929	10	13.8889
99833	7	9.7222
99803	3	4.1667
99901	3	4.1667
20136	2	2.7778
99689	2	2.7778
99821	2	2.7778
99824	2	2.7778
00801	1	1.3889
22151	1	1.3889
30087	1	1.3889
75007	1	1.3889
76109	1	1.3889
78620	1	1.3889
83353	1	1.3889
83843	1	1.3889
85745	1	1.3889
86303	1	1.3889
90292	1	1.3889
91326	1	1.3889
94605	1	1.3889
95012	1	1.3889
97114	1	1.3889
98006	1	1.3889
98027	1	1.3889
98247	1	1.3889
99516	1	1.3889
99712	1	1.3889
99802	1	1.3889
99832	1	1.3889
99835	1	1.3889
99903	1	1.3889

The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 26.6 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 1.2 different days.

Only one of those interviewed in Wilderness said they used the services of a commercial guide. Therefore, Wilderness Outfitter/Guide numbers kept by the forest were included as proxy data when calculating total Wilderness use.

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 3.1 (on a scale from 1 to 10) concerning crowding, meaning they felt there were few people there. Zero percent said the area they visited was overcrowded (a 10 on the scale) and 38 percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale). See Table 20 for a detailed breakout.

Table 11. Satisfaction of Tongass NF Wilderness Visitors.

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating	Mean Import.	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.0	0.0	0.7	7.5	91.8	4.9	2.1	12
Developed facility condition	0.0	0.0	0.0	48.5	51.5	4.5	3.1	15
Condition of environment	0.0	0.0	0.1	70.3	29.6	4.3	4.2	20
Employee helpfulness	.	.	.	.	.	.	3.8	5
Interpretive display	.	.	.	.	.	.	3.9	9
Parking availability	.	.	.	.	.	.	3.2	8
Parking lot condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	8
Rec. info. Available	0.2	53.8	0.2	44.0	1.9	2.9	2.4	10
Road condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	0
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	0.1	14.2	85.7	4.9	4.3	21
Scenery	0.0	0.0	0.0	33.6	66.4	4.7	4.2	16
Signage adequacy	9.3	9.2	79.0	2.6	0.0	2.7	3.0	10
Trail condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	7
Value for fee paid	3.0	0.4	0.8	4.5	91.4	4.8	3.2	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

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 16.6 hours. Almost four percent (3.5%) 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 Tongass NF

Site Visit Average	Developed Day Use	Developed Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness	National Forest Visit
8.7	1.5	9.9	11	26.6	16.6

The average recreation visitor went to 1.18 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. Overall, almost eighty-nine percent of visitors went only to the site at which they were interviewed.

During their visit to the forest, the top five recreation activities of the visitors were viewing natural features, hiking/walking, relaxing, viewing wildlife, and nature center activities (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 hiking/walking, viewing natural features, fishing, relaxing, and gathering forest products (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. Tongass NF activity participation and primary activity

Activity	% Participating	**% as Main Activity
Developed Camping	1.69	0.64
Primitive Camping	0.64	0.08
Backpacking	2.16	0.04
Resort Use	4.14	1.90
Picnicking	8.94	3.24
Viewing Natural Features	64.43	26.72
Visiting Historic Sites	6.21	0.33
Nature Center Activities	15.14	3.12
Nature Study	9.87	2.26
Relaxing	32.54	7.99
Fishing	13.53	8.28
Hunting	3.63	3.23
OHV Use	1.29	0.00
Driving for Pleasure	8.10	1.75
Snowmobiling	0.15	0.15
Motorized Water Activities	7.87	0.38
Other Motorized Activity	2.55	0.24
Hiking / Walking	59.48	30.54
Horesback Riding	0.28	0.00
Bicycling	2.30	1.19
Non-motorized Water	2.86	0.64
Downhill Skiing	0.53	0.38
Cross-country Skiing	0.99	1.01
Other Non-motorized	3.22	0.59
Gathering Forest Products	8.91	4.17
Viewing Wildlife	16.37	2.94

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

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

About 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: hike, bike, or horse trails, other forest roads, scenic byway, designated Wilderness, and Visitor Centers/Museum. Table 14 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.

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

FACILITY	PERCENT
Developed Campground	9.84
Swimming Site	4.08
Hike, Bike, Horse Trails	29.80
Scenic Byway	16.24
Designated Wilderness	14.48
Visitor Center or Museum	13.65
Picnic Area	7.92
Boat Launch	2.91
Designated OHV Area	0.00
Other Forest Roads	26.77
Interpretive Displays	7.69
FS Office or other Information Sites	2.16
Organization Camps	0.19
Developed Fishing Site/Dock	8.80
Designated Snowmobile Area	0.00
Downhill Ski Area	8.06
Nordic Ski Trails	1.15
Lodges, Resorts on FS land	0.06
FS Fire Lookout/cabins	0.47
Designated Snow play Area	0.00
Motorized Trails	0.13
Recreation Residence	0.39

Economic Information

About one-third of visitors interviewed were asked about the primary destination of their trip away from home. Not all visitors have recreating at the forest as the main reason they took their trip. Some people may incorporate a visit to the national forests as part of a multi-destination recreation trip away from home, and others may include it as part of a trip for business or family reasons. For this forest, 80.66 percent of visitors said that recreating here was the primary reason for their trip away from home. Another 5.75 percent said their primary purpose was recreating at some other place. The rest cited business or family reasons as their primary trip purpose.

Visitors were asked to select one of several substitute choices, if for some reason they were unable to visit this national forest. Almost 88 percent said they would have gone elsewhere for a different activity and just over 8 percent would have come back another time. All responses are shown in Table 15.

Almost 44 percent of forest visitors indicated their trip would include at least one night away from home, and the average nights away from home was 23.2 for those spending at least one night away from home. About 60 percent of visitors indicated they would be staying overnight within 50 miles of the forest, and the average for those staying nearby was 2.9 nights. In the 12 months prior to the interview the typical visitor had come to this forest 20.7 times for all activities, including 16.9 times to participate in their identified main activity.

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of Tongass NF recreation visitors

Substitute response	Percent who would have:
Come back another time	8.2
Stayed at Home	2.9
Gone elsewhere for the Same activity	19.5
Gone elsewhere for a Different activity	87.9
Gone to Work	0.3
Had some other substitute	2.4

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

Visitors were asked about their typical yearly spending on all outdoor recreation activities including equipment, recreation trips, memberships, and licenses. Results are given in Table 16. Nearly twenty-three percent reported spending less than $500 per year on recreation, while about 6.25 percent reported spending over $10,000 per year.

Table 16. Annual spending of Tongass NF recreation visitors on outdoor recreation

Annual Recreation Spending	Percent of Total
UNDER 500	23.44
500 - 999	15.00
1000 - 1999	17.50
2000 - 2999	10.31
3000 - 3999	8.44
4000 - 4999	4.69
5000 - 9999	14.38
OVER 10000	6.25

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 will be available later in a separate report and data file that can be used for planning analysis.

Visitor Satisfaction Information

About a 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 for a particular type of site on the forest.

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 Tongass NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating	Mean Import.	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.7	0.3	11.0	23.9	64.1	4.5	4.3	104
Developed facility c	0.0	0.0	3.0	32.5	64.5	4.6	4.0	157
Condition of environ	0.0	0.9	1.9	21.1	76.0	4.7	4.7	173
Employee helpfulness	0.2	0.0	0.2	22.7	77.0	4.8	4.2	109
Interpretive display	4.0	4.8	15.4	46.4	29.4	3.9	3.7	68
Parking availability	1.8	11.9	14.9	27.2	44.1	4.0	3.5	148
Parking lot conditio	3.0	3.3	13.8	27.6	52.2	4.2	3.1	140
Rec. info. availabil	0.7	4.1	12.3	41.7	41.2	4.2	3.6	118
Road condition	15.1	15.1	7.7	25.1	37.0	3.5	3.7	146
Feeling of safety	0.7	2.4	6.2	19.5	71.2	4.6	4.3	173
Scenery	0.2	0.6	0.5	7.3	91.4	4.9	4.8	173
Signage adequacy	3.3	1.2	21.2	31.8	42.6	4.1	3.6	159
Trail condition	0.0	3.3	4.8	32.8	59.2	4.5	4.1	133
Value for fee paid	0.0	6.0	0.8	21.1	72.1	4.6	4.1	75

* 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 Tongass NF recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating	Mean Import.	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.0	1.3	7.7	57.1	33.9	4.2	4.1	22
Developed facility condition	0.0	8.7	13.4	58.6	19.3	3.9	3.8	25
Condition of environment	0.0	0.4	0.0	62.2	37.4	4.4	4.2	26
Employee helpfulness	0.0	0.0	2.1	68.3	29.5	4.3	3.3	17
Interpretive display	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	9
Parking availability	0.0	0.0	3.9	69.6	26.5	4.2	3.6	19
Parking lot condition	0.0	0.0	2.0	62.5	35.5	4.3	3.1	16
Rec. info. available	2.2	4.0	35.2	18.6	40.0	3.9	2.8	21
Road condition	37.7	2.0	2.0	45.1	13.3	2.9	3.6	17
Feeling of safety	0.0	1.7	11.3	47.1	39.9	4.3	3.3	29
Scenery	0.0	0.0	0.0	22.7	77.3	4.8	4.0	22
Signage adequacy	3.4	0.0	16.8	58.0	21.8	3.9	2.7	20
Trail condition	2.0	3.2	10.3	72.0	12.5	3.9	4.0	22
Value for fee paid	0.0	5.0	20.1	33.8	41.1	4.1	3.6	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 Tongass NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Avg	Good	Very Good	Avg Rating	Mean Import.	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	1.8	9.1	0.0	72.9	16.3	3.9	3.6	25
Developed facility condition	0.0	0.0	21.6	55.0	23.5	4.0	3.8	34
Condition of environment	0.0	0.6	7.1	32.3	60.1	4.5	4.7	73
Employee helpfulness	0.0	0.0	0.7	51.0	48.3	4.5	3.8	50
Interpretive display	0.0	24.2	16.5	25.8	33.6	3.7	3.7	22
Parking availability	0.0	6.5	20.0	29.5	43.9	4.1	3.1	46
Parking lot condition	6.2	2.2	41.0	36.7	13.9	3.5	2.7	48
Rec. info. available	10.3	1.3	6.7	50.7	31.0	3.9	3.9	53
Road condition	5.6	3.4	34.1	41.7	15.3	3.6	3.7	44
Feeling of safety	2.3	0.0	17.3	31.0	49.4	4.3	3.7	70
Scenery	0.0	9.9	0.0	9.0	81.1	4.6	4.5	67
Signage adequacy	12.0	1.9	22.4	58.1	5.6	3.4	3.5	54
Trail condition	2.3	6.1	14.3	45.5	31.7	4.0	4.1	48
Value for fee paid	0.0	31.1	6.2	31.3	31.4	3.6	4.6	34

* 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 Tongass NF recreation visitors by site type (percent site visits)

Crowding Rating	Developed Day Use	Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness
10 Overcrowded	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0
9	2.0	0.0	0.0	0.1
8	4.2	0.0	0.4	0.0
7	5.0	0.0	2.1	26.7
6	6.3	3.1	2.1	0.8
5	18.2	10.0	12.5	26.7
4	14.1	5.8	10.2	0.2
3	15.6	5.5	14.6	7.6
2	12.8	16.3	7.9	0.0
1 Hardly anyone there	20.5	59.3	50.3	38.0

Other comments from Tongass National Forest 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 Tongass NF recreation visitors

Site Name	Accommodations or assistance the forest could provide…..
Cannon Beach #1	Interpretive center and historical preservation.
Cannon Beach #1	Info and signs at trailheads.
Dangerous River Bridge	Signage and literature.
Little Dry Island Cabin	Get rid of web site for cabin rentals.
Gut Island Cabin	Have dual purpose stoves - heating and cooking.
Gut Island Cabin	Better web site.
Woodpecker Cove Road	Picnic tables and more boardwalks.
Ohmer CG	Ohmer Creek trail map.
Swan Observatory	Map with GPS coordinates, downloadable web sites
Shakes Slough Cabin	Too many tour boats using out house.
Shakes Slough Cabin	Would like to be able to cut firewood. Difficulty finding cabin.
Frosty Bay Cabin	Eagle Cabin in bad shape. Too much undergrowth.
Harding River Cabin	Area around cabin needs work / outdoor barbeque would be nice.
Anon Wildlife Observation TH	Small tour groups be given more permits.
Anon Wildlife Observation TH	More interpretive displays and information.
Miscellaneous	Cabin too dark
	Provide hand rail or more uniform steps.
Auke Rec Picnic Area-DUDS	Say “no” to helicopter lands; Slowing traffic down, keep parked cars off road Reduce speed limit on road, garbage (need trash cans)
Lena Beach PG DUDS	Reserve the shelters, grade the road
Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center - DUDS	Trailhead distance markers Mounted telescopes in the covered outdoor viewing area Better signage along MGVC trail Better trash cleanup along Juneau road system Have facility demo fees accepted in Golden Age passport Check out pepper spray for trail Grade Montana Creek road Another overlook to E Glacier trail Quite overdeveloping trails Snack Bar would be nice
Starrigavan Bird viewing DUDS	Freedom for dogs!
Mendenhall Glacier Road GFA	Limit commercial group use on trails (too crowded) Signs along Moraine Ecology trail, bridge 2.5 miles up W Glacier trail Better signage along Moraine Ecology trail Trail along glacier valley to Nugget Creek Falls
West Glacier TH	Trailhead signs
Sawmill Creek CG	Make road safer and grade it Longer stay at campsites Local info
Auke Bay boat harbor- WIlderness	Improve parking facility at Auke Harbor Improve the parking/boating facility at harbor Alternative cooking shelter with wood stove at Mendenhall
Angoon boat harbor- Wilderness	Have pamphlets at trailheads
Ward Lake complex-road	More restrooms More picnic tables (3 comments) Soap in restrooms Spray for bugs Doggie bags for poop Signs about length and difficulty of trail
Fish Creek Wildlife Viewing Hyder	Improve road More parking and less crowds
Margaret Crk Wildlife Viewing	bathrooms
Sandy Beach	Drinking water at site
Perseverance TH	Map and signs about distance Fix bouncy boards; more signage More non skid on boardwalk
Thorne Bay Sandy Beach Rd	More developed beaches
Thorne Bay Gravelly Cr Rd	Info on fishing access areas Mark distances for hiking trails.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

Table 1. Tongass NF population of available site days for sampling and percentage of days sampled by stratum (3 years combined)

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

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

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

Visitors’ average spending on a trip to the forest