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 for Clearwater NF.

	Nonproxy			Proxy
Strata	Total days in nonproxy population	Days sampled # percent		Total days in proxy population	Days sampled # percent
OUDS H	40	7	17.5	3,161	15	0.5
OUDS M	349	9	2.6
OUDS L	849	8	0.9
DUDS H	415	11	2.7	0
DUDS M	515	11	2.1
DUDS L	1,869	9	0.5
Wild H	187	10	5.3	0
Wild M	132	9	6.8
Wild L	1,723	8	0.5
GFA H	2,494	35	1.4	0
GFA M	4,776	14	0.5
GFA L	14,138	26	0.1
TOTALS	27,852	157	0.6	3161	15

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. Clearwater NF annual recreation use estimate

National Forest Visits

Site Visits

Wilderness Visits

Visits

Error

Rate

Visits

Error Rate

Visits

Error

Rate

915,921

56.4 %

1,114,661

51%

4,822

27%

The forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2000 through September 2001. The main contact person was Thelma Gober. The forest was assigned 184 interview days (including 8 for viewing corridors) and accomplished 180 of them (accomplished 98 percent). The forest reported that two major fires impacted the survey area. One closure from late August to the end of September closed one campground while the other closure affected dispersed use throughout the forest in late summer because all campfires were banned. Also a road construction project affected access to several major campgrounds. Otherwise it was an average year for recreation use. The forest coordinator reported that the pneumatic traffic counters used in the study counted correctly at least 90% of the time and the Trailmaster counter counted correctly 75% of the time, but it was only used twice.

Recreation use on the Clearwater national forest for fiscal year 2001 at the 80 percent confidence level was 0.92 million national forest visits +/- 56 percent. There were 1.11 million site visits, an average of 1.2 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 4,821 Wilderness visits.

A total of 711 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year. Of these, 3.2 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 688 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 19 percent were not recreating, including 3 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 5 percent were working, 9 percent were just passing through, and 2 percent had some other reason to be there. About 81 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 85 percent of those were exiting for the last time. Of the visitors leaving the forest agreeing to be interviewed, about 70 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. Clearwater NF number of last-exiting recreation visitors by site type and form type 1/

Form Type	Day Use	Overnight	General Forest	Wilderness
Basic	55	61	122	5
Satisfaction	32	32	62	2
Economics	25	33	49	0

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 recreation visitors- Clearwater NF

Gender

Male 83.9

Female 16.1

Table 5. Age distribution of recreation visitors – Clearwater NF

Age Group	Percent in group
Under 16	19.3
16-20	3.2
21-30	13.0
31-40	19.7
41-50	16.2
51-60	19.5
61-70	6.2
Over 70	3.1

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

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of recreation visitors - Clearwater NF

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0.1
Asian	0.0
White	98.0
American Indian/Alaska Native	1.4
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	0.0
Other	0.4

No forest visitors were from another country. 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 over 170 different zip codes reported. This information can be used with programs such as “zipfip” or census data for more extensive analysis. Table

Table 7. Zip codes of recreation visitors – Clearwater NF

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
83501	48	10.9
83843	44	10.0
83544	23	5.2
99163	20	4.5
59802	15	3.4
99403	14	3.2
83546	11	2.5
83549	10	2.3
59801	9	2.0
83855	9	2.0
59847	6	1.4
83553	6	1.4
59803	5	1.1
59808	5	1.1
72433	5	1.1
83536	5	1.1
83854	5	1.1
Other zip codes	300	45.7

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

There was an average of 2.2 people per vehicle with an average of 2.4 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. However, on most of the sampled days no visitors were available to be interviewed. To increase the sample size for demographic data, we included not only people interviewed at wilderness sites, but also those interviewed elsewhere who said they visited wilderness. All visitors to Wilderness on the forest were male. Tables 8 and 9 display the age distribution and race/ethnicity of Wilderness visitors.

Table 8. Age distribution of Wilderness visitors – Clearwater NF

Age Group	Percent in group
Under 16	0
16-20	17.7
21-30	13.7
31-40	20.7
41-50	44.7
51-60	3.2
61-70	0
Over 70	0

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of Wilderness visitors

Category	Total percent national forest visits
Black/African American	0
Asian	0
White	82.3
American Indian/Alaska Native	0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino	0
Other	17.7

The Wilderness visitors (including those interviewed at Wilderness sites and those interviewed elsewhere who said they visited Wilderness) were from a variety of zip codes. The distribution of Wilderness visitor zip codes is shown in Table 10. There were 30 different zip codes reported.

Table 10. Zip codes of Wilderness visitors

Zip Code	Frequency	Percent
83501	4	12.1
59847	2	6.1
01061	1	3
15215	1	3
18553	1	3
48358	1	3
59801	1	3
59808	1	3
59824	1	3
59860	1	3
59865	1	3
63131	1	3

The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 12.0 hours. In addition, all visitors were asked on how many different days they entered into designated Wilderness during their national forest visit even if we interviewed them at a developed recreation site or general forest area. Of those visitors who did enter designated Wilderness, they entered 1.8 different days.

Three 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.

NOTE: Only 2 Wilderness visitors answered satisfaction surveys. This sample size was too small to be able to perform analysis of the satisfaction questions. As a result, the data normally displayed in Table 11 are suppressed.

CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE VISIT

A basic description of the visitor’s activity pattern while on the national forest was developed. This 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 Clearwater national forest for a national forest visit was 47.9 hours. Over twelve percent (12.2%) 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

Site Visit Average	DUDS	OUDS	Wilderness	GFA
35.9	1.8	46.4	12.0	42.7

The average recreation visitor went to 1.2 sites during their national forest visit. Forest visitors sometimes go to just one national forest site or area during their visit. For example, downhill skiers may just go the ski area and nowhere else. Sixty-four 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 general relaxing, viewing natural features, fishing, driving for pleasue, and primitive camping (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 general/relaxing, fishing, off-highway vehicle travel, developed camping, and snowmobile travel (see Table 13). Please note that the results of the NVUM activity analysis DO NOT identify the types of activities visitors would like to have offered on the national forests. It also does not tell us about displaced forest visitors, those who no longer visit the forest because the activities they desire are not offered.

Table 13. Activity participation and primary activity

Activity	Percent participation	Percent who said it was their primary activity
Camping in developed sites (family or group)	15.3	7.7
Primitive camping	43.1	6.6
Backpacking, camping in unroaded areas	1.5	0.4
Resorts, cabins and other accommodations on Forest Service managed lands (private or Forest Service run)	1.5	0
Picnicking and family day gatherings in developed sites (family or group)	18.7	4.7
Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc on national forest system lands	41.5	0.7
Viewing natural features such as scenery, flowers, etc on national forest system lands	58.7	4.0
Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/area	6	0.3
Visiting a nature center, nature trail or visitor information services	2.9	0
Nature Study	8.2	0.4
General/other- relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc,	59.2	30.7
Fishing- all types	49.2	13.9
Hunting- all types	8.6	4.3
Off-highway vehicle travel (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc)	30.4	8.8
Driving for pleasure on roads	45.1	1.5
Snowmobile travel	6.9	6.7
Motorized water travel (boats, ski sleds, etc)	0	0
Other motorized land/air activities (plane, other)	1.9	0
Hiking or walking	41.4	3.5
Horseback riding	0.1	0.1
Bicycling, including mountain bikes	5.5	0.4
Non-motorized water travel (canoe, raft, etc.)	2.9	0.2
Downhill skiing or snowboarding	1	1
Cross-country skiing, snow shoeing	3.6	3.2
Other non-motorized activities (swimming, games and sports)	9.1	0.3
Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products	16.7	3.1

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 forest service roads, developed campgrounds, hiking trails, scenic byways and picnic areas. Table 14 provides a summary of facility and special area use.

Table 14. Percentage use of facilities and specially designated areas

Facility / Area Type	Percent who said they used (national forest visits)
Developed campground	21.2
Swimming area	7.2
Hiking, biking, or horseback trails	15.3
Scenic byway	10.8
Designated Wilderness	1.1
Visitor center, museum	3.3
Forest Service office or other info site	2.1
Picnic area	10.2
Boat launch	1.2
Designated Off Road Vehicle area	0.0
Other forest roads	46.1
Interpretive site	2.2
Organization camp	7.7
Developed fishing site/ dock	0.0
Designated snowmobile area	4.6
Downhill ski area	0.0
Nordic ski area	2.9
Lodges/Resorts on National Forest System land	3.2
Fire Lookouts/Cabins Forest Service owned	0.5
Designated snow play area	0.1
Motorized developed trails	6.8
Recreation residences	0.1

Economic Information

Twenty-five percent of visitors interviewed were asked about the primary destination of their recreation trip. Since some people may incorporate a visit to the national forests as only part of a larger trip away from home, not all visitors chose the national forest as their primary destination. Of the 20 percent of visitors that went to other sites, fifty 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 length of time these recreation visitors were away from home on their trip was 93 hours.

In the 12 months prior to the interview the visitors had come to this forest 4.0 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	64.3
Gone somewhere else for a different activity	4.8
Come back another time	1.8
Stayed home	27.9
Gone to work at their regular job	0
None of these	1.2

Average yearly spending on outdoor recreation

In a typical year, visitors to this forest spent an average of $3404.80 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 recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites – Clearwater NF

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	6.6	93.4	4.9 31	4.7 27
Available parking	0.4	0.8	0.9	40.7	57.1	4.5 31	4.2 26
Parking lot condition	0.4	0	12.6	39.7	47.3	4.3 30	3.8 26
Cleanliness of restrooms	0	0	1.1	53.2	45.7	4.4 19	4.7 16
Condition of the natural environment	0	0	1.1	41.2	57.7	4.6 31	4.7 26
Condition of developed recreation facilities	0	0	1.9	36.8	61.3	4.6 26	4.6 21
Condition of forest roads	4.7	1.1	22.2	36.2	35.7	4.0 21	3.9 18
Condition of forest trails	0	4.7	4.8	46.2	44.2	4.3 20	4.1 19
Availability of information on recreation	1.2	4.7	1.2	32.9	60.1	4.5 23	4.3 21
Feeling of safety	0	0	3.8	42	54.2	4.5 30	4.4 25
Adequacy of signage	7.9	4.1	19.8	31.9	36.3	3.8 30	4.1 25
Helpfulness of employees	0	0	0	17.5	82.5	4.8 26	4.5 25
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0	0	0	14.9	85.1	4.9 31	4.8 26
Value for fee paid	-	-	--	-	-	- 9	- 9

* 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.

Table 17. Satisfaction of recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites –Clearwater NF

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	6.5	93.5	4.9 32	5.0 25
Available parking	0	0	0.4	30.7	68.9	4.7 28	4.5 21
Parking lot condition	0	0	0	24.5	75.5	4.8 27	4.2 20
Cleanliness of restrooms	2.6	0	2.6	25.3	69.4	4.6 28	4.8 23
Condition of the natural environment	0	0	2.4	10.3	87.2	4.8 32	5.0 25
Condition of developed recreation facilities	2.6	0	0	10.4	86.9	4.8 28	5.0 22
Condition of forest roads	0	6.5	12	26.3	55.2	4.3 23	4.2 17
Condition of forest trails	0	4.2	12.8	58	25	4.0 18	4.6 13
Availability of information on recreation	0	20.3	2.6	20.9	56.1	4.1 28	4.7 22
Feeling of safety	0	0	1.7	12.2	86.1	4.8 32	4.9 25
Adequacy of signage	2.4	0	8.5	24	65.1	4.5 32	4.8 24
Helpfulness of employees	0	0	0	2.4	97.6	5.0 30	5.0 24
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0	0	0	5.2	94.8	4.9 32	5.0 25
Value for fee paid	0	0	2.4	17	80.6	4.8 27	4.5 20

* 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

Table 18. Satisfaction of recreation visitors in General Forest Areas – Clearwater NF

Item Name	Item by Percent response by * P F A G VG					Mean Satisfaction Of visitors (n)**	Mean Importance To visitors (n)**
Scenery	0	0.3	2.4	12.7	84.6	4.8 51	4.6 45
Available parking	1	0.7	9.2	59.2	30	4.2 40	3.6 36
Parking lot condition	0	0	26.4	36.9	36.7	4.1 32	3.2 28
Cleanliness of restrooms	0	0	28.9	18.5	52.6	4.2 20	4.4 25
Condition of the natural environment	1.5	6.2	0.7	53.5	38	4.2 51	4.5 45
Condition of developed recreation facilities	3.7	0	6.2	46.1	44	4.3 24	4.1 26
Condition of forest roads	8.8	15.4	23.2	31.1	21.5	3.4 47	3.8 43
Condition of forest trails	3.9	2.6	16.2	44.2	33.1	4.0 33	3.6 29
Availability of information on recreation	2.9	1	29.6	35.9	30.7	3.9 37	4.1 34
Feeling of safety	0	0	8.5	55.9	35.6	4.3 49	4.3 44
Adequacy of signage	1.5	0.6	9	48.9	40	4.3 50	4.2 44
Helpfulness of employees	0	0	1.4	47.8	50.8	4.5 36	4.3 35
Attractiveness of the forest landscape	0.3	1.7	1	60.6		4.6 50	4.5 44
Value for fee paid	-	-	-	-	-	- 6	4.2 12

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

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

(n) = number of responses upon which this rating is based

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 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	11.8	0	N/A	0.9
9	0	0	N/A	0
8	11.8	0	N/A	1.4
7	7.2	28.4	N/A	1.6
6	21	1.7	N/A	24.6
5	22	0.5	N/A	16.9
4	5.1	3.6	N/A	0.6
3	3.4	21.4	N/A	4.8
2	0	27.1	N/A	13.9
1 Hardly anyone there	17.7	17.4	N/A	35.1

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. Visitor responses are summarized below.

Table 20. List of comments received from recreation visitors

Site Name	Is there any other accommodation or assistance we could offer? Comments
Gaint White Pine Day Use	Better signage & maps available
	Better signage & maps available
Lochsa Lodge Day Use	Better signing
	Open Lolo Pass Visitor Center
Rd 250 at Gold Dollar Flats GFA	Better trail maintenance for motorized travel.
	Would like to have a campfire (currently restricted)
Rd 107 Saddle Camp GFA	Reintroduce fire to decadent stands, wildlife habitiat improvement
Rd 788 Jerome Crk GFA	More money for recreation
Jct Hwy 8/1452 Elk Cr. Falls GFA	Bathrooms are OK, could use improvement, picnic area would be nice.
	Tree across trail
	More interpretive history
Jct Rds 1 705/382 GFA	Blade the Road
Rd. 381 at FB (Moose Cr)	Fix signs
JCt. Rds. 447/ 377 (5 corners)	Keep road graded
Giant White Pine TH GFA	Small paper map at trailhead
	Interpretation, use of wood, stats on tree "why it was cut down"?
	More parking spaces
Rd. 100 Mussselshell GFA	No fees
Aquarius CG	Another restroom
	Keep just like it is, enforce rules with locals - garbage & fees
	Area map of N FK area with roads camps, yes trails
Wild Goose CG	Dumpsters
Powell CG	Shower facility
Colgate Licks Day Use	RV dump in campgrounds, showers in campgrounds
Lochsa Lodge Overnight	Nicer place to stay w/ bathrooms in cabin, hot water for showers
Giant Cedar Day Use	Better signs on trail
Elk Creek Falls Day Use	Water
	Brochures, maps of trails
	Open to motorcycles
Fish Creek River Access GFA	Put dumpsters back in developed sites
Wilderness Gateway CG	Longer spurs for motor homes / more flush toilets
	More entrance sign closer to highway
DeVoto Memorial Cedar Grove Day Use	Maintain develop rec facilities at higher standard (less logging impacts), More FS employees, better signage, trails & roads.
Lochsa Historic RD Day Use	Reservable sites in Powell Campground

Donald B.K. English

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

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

Table 2. Clearwater NF annual recreation use estimate

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

Table 4. Gender distribution of recreation visitors- Clearwater NF

Table 5. Age distribution of recreation visitors – Clearwater NF

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of recreation visitors - Clearwater NF

Table 7. Zip codes of recreation visitors – Clearwater NF

Table 8. Age distribution of Wilderness visitors – Clearwater NF

Use of constructed facilities and designated areas

Visitors’ average spending on a trip to the forest

Table 16. Satisfaction of recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites – Clearwater NF

Table 17. Satisfaction of recreation visitors at Developed Overnight sites –Clearwater NF

Table 18. Satisfaction of recreation visitors in General Forest Areas – Clearwater NF