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 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 on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, & Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest.

Site type	TYPE	SAMPLING STRATUM	# DAYS SAMPLED	# DAYS IN POPULATION	SAMPLING RATE
DUDS	NONPROXY	HIGH	13	250	5.20
DUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	12	458	2.62
DUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	11	1,465	0.75
DUDS	PROXY	SV1	4	379	1.06
GFA	NONPROXY	HIGH	22	783	2.81
GFA	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	32	3,046	1.05
GFA	NONPROXY	LOW	19	12,216	0.16
OUDS	NONPROXY	HIGH	1	167	0.60
OUDS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	0	647	0.00
OUDS	NONPROXY	LOW	8	2,550	0.31
OUDS	PROXY	DUR4	4	1,977	0.20
OUDS	PROXY	DUR5	2	29	6.90
OUDS	PROXY	RE1	4	36	11.11
OUDS	PROXY	RE4	5	1,066	0.47
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	HIGH	13	181	7.18
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	MEDIUM	14	769	1.82
WILDERNESS	NONPROXY	LOW	11	2,829	0.39

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 GMUG National Forest recreation use estimate

VISIT TYPE	VISITS	80 % CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
SITE VISITS	3,935,921	28.7
NATL FOREST VISITS	3,385,808	29.1
WILDERNESS VISITS	56,351	32.5

The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, & Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest participated in the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) project from October 2002 through September 2003. The forest coordinator was Kathy Moore. The forest coordinator reported that several of the higher use developed campgrounds in the proxy stratum were closed during the sample year due to active timber sales.

Recreation use on the forest for fiscal year 2003 at the 80 percent confidence level was 3,385,808 national forest visits. The 80 percent confidence interval width was +/- 29.1 percent. There were 3,935,921 site visits, an average of 1.13 site visits per national forest visit. Included in the site visit estimate are 56,351 Wilderness visits.

A total of 1,894 visitors were contacted on the forest during the sample year. Of these, 13.6 percent refused to be interviewed. Of the 1,637 people who agreed to be interviewed, about 19.4 percent were not recreating, including 3.9 percent who just stopped to use the bathroom, 4.3 percent were working, 6.6 percent were just passing through, and 4.6 percent had some other reason to be there. 80.6 percent of those interviewed said their primary purpose on the forest was recreation and 92.6 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 on GMUG by site type and form type 1/

FORM TYPE	DEVELOPED DAY USE	DEVELOPED OVERNIGHT	GENERAL FOREST AREA	WILDERNESS
BASIC	151	13	241	30
ECON	129	13	214	30
SATIS	130	13	227	31

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 GMUG NF recreation visitors

MALE	FEMALE
70.1	29.9

Table 5. Age distribution of GMUG NF recreation visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	17.35
16 TO 19	2.85
20 TO 29	11.20
30 TO 39	13.96
40 TO 49	19.67
50 TO 59	18.36
60 TO 69	12.10
70 PLUS	4.52

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

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of GMUG NF recreation visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
95.0	2.1	0.1	0.6	0.9	0.1	1.5

Less than one percent (0.2) 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 forest’s primary market area.

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

ZIPCODE	COUNT	PERCENT
81503	56	5.50639
81401	47	4.62144
81224	44	4.32645
81435	40	3.93314
81504	36	3.53982
81230	33	3.24484
81501	26	2.55654
81413	24	2.35988
81428	19	1.86824
81506	19	1.86824
81526	15	1.47493
81416	14	1.37660
81521	11	1.08161
81419	10	0.98328
81432	10	0.98328
81520	9	0.88496
81624	9	0.88496
81301	8	0.78663
81505	8	0.78663
81427	7	0.68830

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

There was an average of 2.73 people per vehicle with an average of 2.19 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 38 days on the forest, and 91 interviews were obtained. There were 52.6 percent male and 47.4 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 GMUG NF Wilderness visitors

AGECLASS	PERCENT
UNDER 16	12.45
16 TO 19	0.50
20 TO 29	9.59
30 TO 39	23.26
40 TO 49	26.05
50 TO 59	21.36
60 TO 69	6.78
70 PLUS	0.00

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of GMUG NF Wilderness visitors

WHITE	HISPANIC OR LATINO	NATIVE AMERICAN	AFRICAN AMERICAN	ASIAN	PACIFIC ISLANDER	OTHER
97.5	1.5	1.2	0.1	0.7	0.0	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 GMUG NF Wilderness visitors

WLDZIP	COUNT	PERCENT
81401	5	5.49451
81224	4	4.39560
81428	3	3.29670
81435	3	3.29670
80027	2	2.19780
80226	2	2.19780
80303	2	2.19780
80305	2	2.19780
80904	2	2.19780
80917	2	2.19780
81413	2	2.19780
81416	2	2.19780

The average length of stay in Wilderness on the forest was 58.8 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 3.2 different days.

Just over eight percent of Wilderness visitors said they used the services of a commercial guide.

Table 11 gives detailed information about how the Wilderness visitors rated various aspects of the area. A general example of how to interpret this information: If the visitors had rated the importance of the adequacy of signage a 5.0 (very important) and they rated their satisfaction with the adequacy of signage a 3.0 (somewhat satisfied) then the forest might be able to increase visitor satisfaction. Perhaps twenty-nine percent of visitors said the adequacy of signage was poor. The forest could target improving this sector of visitors for increased satisfaction by improving the signage for Wilderness.

Wilderness visitors on the average rated their visit 4.0 (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 25.5 percent said there was hardly anyone there (a 1 on the scale).

Table 11. Satisfaction of GMUG NF Wilderness Visitors.

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	5
Developed facility condition	.	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	8
Condition of environment	0.0	0.0	0.0	12.3	87.7	4.9	4.8	31
Employee helpfulness	0.0	0.0	0.0	8.7	91.3	4.9	4.2	12
Interpretive display	0.0	42.4	45.5	9.0	3.1	2.7	2.7	11
Parking availability	0.0	0.0	21.7	51.3	27.1	4.1	3.4	29
Parking lot condition	0.0	7.2	17.6	18.7	56.5	4.2	2.8	23
Rec. info. available	0.0	16.3	19.4	38.2	26.1	3.7	3.3	27
Road condition	1.0	3.0	49.6	38.8	7.7	3.5	3.4	29
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	13.1	39.3	47.6	4.3	4.0	29
Scenery	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0	5.0	4.6	31
Signage adequacy	1.8	25.1	18.1	44.7	10.2	3.4	3.2	30
Trail condition	11.7	2.6	5.0	52.4	28.3	3.8	3.4	31
Value for fee paid	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4

*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 that 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 28.9 hours. Nearly 26 percent (25.93%) 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 GMUG NF

Site Visit Average	Developed Day Use	Developed Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness	National Forest Visit
22.7	4.1	35.3	30.2	58.8	28.9

The average recreation visitor went to 1.13 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. 93.4 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, viewing wildlife, downhill skiing, and hiking/walking (see Table 13). Each visitor also picked one of these activities as their primary activity for their current recreation visit to the forest. The top primary activities were downhill skiing, snowmobiling, hunting, viewing natural features, hiking/walking (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. GMUG NF activity participation and primary activity

Activity	% Participating	% as Main Activity
Developed Camping	4.52	2.48
Primitive Camping	4.98	0.77
Backpacking	0.88	0.15
Resort Use	4.03	0.91
Picnicking	6.57	1.23
Viewing Natural Features	41.70	7.61
Visiting Historic Sites	5.44	0.12
Nature Center Activities	3.20	0.21
Nature Study	3.74	0.06
Relaxing	20.93	4.53
Fishing	11.32	5.71
Hunting	13.02	11.17
OHV Use	13.06	4.24
Driving for Pleasure	17.37	1.50
Snowmobiling	14.74	14.05
Motorized Water Activities	0.15	0.00
Other Motorized Activity	0.35	0.22
Hiking / Walking	22.66	7.77
Horesback Riding	2.55	1.90
Bicycling	3.43	2.59
Non-motorized Water	1.27	0.58
Downhill Skiing	26.58	25.66
Cross-country Skiing	7.00	5.75
Other Non-motorized	0.80	0.44
Gathering Forest Products	2.25	0.31
Viewing Wildlife	27.75	1.93

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: downhill ski area, forest trails, forest roads, scenic byway, and snowmobile area/trails. Table 14 provides a summary of reported facility and special area use.

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

FACILITY	PERCENT
Developed Campground	4.44
Developed Swimming Site	0.20
Forest Trails	20.48
Scenic Byway	13.93
Wilderness	3.64
Museum	3.57
Picnic Area	4.95
Boat Launch	3.72
Designated OHV Area	5.56
Forest Roads	17.66
Interpretive Displays	2.49
Information Sites	0.63
Organization Camps	0.20
Developed Fishing Site	3.79
Snowmobile Area/Trails	13.08
Downhill Ski Area	20.54
Nordic Trails	4.90
FS Lodge	8.16
FS Fire Lookout	0.00
Snowplay Area	3.67
Motorized Trails	7.14
Recreation Residence	1.77

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, 90.92 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 39 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 5.8. About 36 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 3.6. 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 GMUG NF recreation visitors

Substitute response	Percent who would have:
Come back another time	12.0
Stayed at Home	16.5
Gone elsewhere for the Same activity	52.1
Gone elsewhere for a Different activity	13.4
Gone to Work	4.0
Had some other substitute	3.0

Average annual outdoor recreation activity

In the 12 months prior to the interview the typical visitor had come to this forest 31.9 times for all activities, including 13.4 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. Over 20% said they spent less than $500 per year, and about 5% said they spent over $10,000 per year (Table 16).

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

$$ spent each year on outdoor recreation	Percent of Total
UNDER 500	20.38
500 - 999	18.81
1000 - 1999	19.75
2000 - 2999	17.24
3000 - 3999	5.33
4000 - 4999	5.64
5000 - 9999	7.84
OVER 10000	5.02

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 GMUG NF recreation visitors at Developed Day Use sites

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	0.8	0.5	7.6	32.0	59.1	4.5	4.2	85
Developed facility condition	0.0	0.3	11.7	34.4	53.6	4.4	4.0	105
Condition of environment	0.0	0.0	2.0	27.5	70.5	4.7	4.6	128
Employee helpfulness	1.9	1.9	5.6	27.2	63.4	4.5	4.0	108
Interpretive display	3.2	3.2	24.7	33.9	35.1	3.9	3.6	93
Parking availability	0.0	3.3	1.2	48.3	47.2	4.4	3.7	109
Parking lot condition	2.7	0.6	3.6	55.4	37.7	4.2	3.3	107
Rec. info. Available	0.2	1.1	10.9	40.0	47.8	4.3	3.8	103
Road condition	0.0	1.9	3.7	48.9	45.5	4.4	3.8	80
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.0	0.8	30.1	69.1	4.7	4.5	125
Scenery	0.0	0.0	5.5	5.2	89.3	4.8	4.4	129
Signage adequacy	1.3	4.5	7.1	39.8	47.4	4.3	4.1	127
Trail condition	0.0	0.3	3.9	30.0	65.9	4.6	4.3	70
Value for fee paid	2.6	2.4	7.6	36.4	51.0	4.3	4.5	52

*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 GMUG 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	0.0	29.3	70.7	4.7	4.2	12
Developed facility condition	0	0.0	0.0	17.0	83.0	4.8	4.2	11
Condition of environment	0	9.2	0.0	6.1	84.7	4.7	4.4	13
Employee helpfulness	0	0.0	0.0	34.7	65.3	4.7	4.0	11
Interpretive display	.	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	8
Parking availability	0	0.0	9.2	24.5	66.3	4.6	3.8	13
Parking lot condition	0	0.0	10.3	21.3	68.4	4.6	3.4	12
Rec. info. Available	0	0.0	13.1	72.7	14.2	4.0	3.7	10
Road condition	0	19.3	6.8	37.3	36.6	3.9	3.8	11
Feeling of safety	0	0.0	6.1	18.9	75.0	4.7	3.9	13
Scenery	0	0.0	0.0	15.3	84.7	4.8	4.2	13
Signage adequacy	0	0.0	15.8	33.7	50.5	4.3	3.6	13
Trail condition	0	0.0	8.3	25.1	66.6	4.6	4.0	10
Value for fee paid	0	0.0	12.3	73.7	14.0	4.0	4.2	11

*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 GMUG NF recreation visitors in General Forest Areas

ITEM	Poor	Fair	Average	Good	Very Good	Average Rating *	Mean Importance **	N obs
Restroom cleanliness	10.8	8.4	6.0	38.1	36.7	3.8	3.5	60
Developed facility condition	0.0	1.8	27.5	42.3	28.3	4.0	3.4	54
Condition of environment	0.0	3.2	0.8	45.7	50.3	4.4	4.5	153
Employee helpfulness	0.7	1.4	0.9	17.7	79.3	4.7	4.3	70
Interpretive display	7.8	2.9	37.6	42.8	9.0	3.4	3.4	70
Parking availability	7.0	8.2	15.9	43.8	25.0	3.7	3.7	118
Parking lot condition	9.0	9.2	16.3	40.3	25.2	3.6	3.4	101
Rec. info. Available	0.3	1.9	26.4	42.5	28.9	4.0	3.8	104
Road condition	0.4	7.5	10.2	58.3	23.6	4.0	3.9	129
Feeling of safety	0.0	0.3	4.2	32.5	63.0	4.6	4.1	151
Scenery	0.0	0.0	2.8	15.8	81.4	4.8	4.4	157
Signage adequacy	0.6	2.1	17.2	53.4	26.7	4.0	3.8	150
Trail condition	0.4	4.8	12.7	47.4	34.7	4.1	4.1	117
Value for fee paid	0.0	2.8	19.7	32.0	45.5	4.2	3.8	43

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

Crowding Rating	Developed Day Use	Overnight Use	General Forest Area	Wilderness
10 Overcrowded	1.9	0.0	6.2	0.0
9	0.0	11.3	0.1	0.0
8	1.8	18.4	0.9	0.0
7	5.6	0.0	7.3	11.7
6	11.0	30.6	9.8	2.6
5	11.9	6.9	15.1	13.5
4	9.2	0.0	8.8	12.3
3	22.0	9.2	16.9	29.3
2	19.2	0.0	19.8	5.2
1 Hardly anyone there	17.3	23.6	15.0	25.5

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 GMUG NF recreation visitors

Site Name	What Accommodation could be made
0206 Old Ski Hill (winter)	bathroom needs to be pumped
0206 Old Ski Hill (winter)	ATV signage more; more sources drinking water; pump toilet
0210 Skyway (winter)	improved cell phone coverage
0210 Skyway (winter)	trash receptacles; more toilets
0210 Skyway (winter)	better outhouse county line2
0210 Skyway (winter)	clean toilets; allocate funding for winter recreation
0210 Skyway (winter)	like to widen ski trails
0210 Skyway (winter)	grooming coordinated with Nordic Council; warming shed
0211 Lands End (summer/winter)	improve trails
0211 Lands End (summer/winter)	like to see more bears
0212 County Line (winter)	ski rentals, warm up hut
0215 Trickle Pk/Hwy 65(summer/winter)	more open roads for trucks
0215 Trickle Pk/Hwy 65(summer/winter)	snowmobile signs- more
0219 Surface Creek(summer/winter)	better parking area at end of plowing
0219 Surface Creek(summer/winter)	better maps; more non-motorized trail (horseback)
0219 Surface Creek(summer/winter)	open the roads
0223 Hightower (summer/winter)	open roads that are closed
0223 Hightower (summer/winter)	fresh water; dumpster
0509 Alta Rd (FR632)/Hwy 145 (H)	more trails- moderate hiking ability
0509 Black Bear/Bridal Veil Rd (H)	keep 4x roads naturally 4x rather than grade
0509 Black Bear/Bridal Veil Rd (H)	better maps
0509 Black Bear/Bridal Veil Rd (H)	keep roads open
0509 Black Bear/Bridal Veil Rd (H)	better trails marking, lack of information
0509 Black Bear/Bridal Veil Rd (H)	sign bridge
0511 Jud Wiebe/Tomboy Rd (H)	distance notations on trail signs/ mile markers
0511 Jud Wiebe/Tomboy Rd (H)	less signs of organized/civilized presence
0511 Jud Wiebe/Tomboy Rd (H)	need better signage
0511 Jud Wiebe/Tomboy Rd (H)	improve signage- trial directions, but not obtrusive
0603 Big Cimarron Rd/FS Bdy (H)	better signs- information about Silver Jack Run history and operation
0604 Owl Cr Pass Rd/FS Bdy (H)	trail marking, signage
0604 Owl Cr Pass Rd/FS Bdy (H)	water for dispersed camping
0612 Camp Bird/US 550 Jct (H)	keep area well signed- sign the start of 4X4 roads
0614 Engineer/US 550 Jct (M)	improve signage
0619 E Dallas Rd/FS Bdy (M)	allow use of ATVs
0619 E Dallas Rd/FS Bdy (M)	just keep forest open to hikers
0703 Needle Creek (L)	more posted information about Reservoir water level
0703 Needle Creek (L)	more trail maintenance
0725 Kebler East (H)	grooming could be better
0725 Kebler East (H)	more snowmobile trails; more groomed
0725 Kebler East (H)	Porta- john
0725 Kebler East (H)	Porta- john at TH; signage for safety
0725 Kebler East (H)	bathroom at trailhead
0725 Kebler East (H)	cabins and Lost lake open again; toilets at TH
0725 Kebler East (H)	warm place and restrooms
0725 Kebler East (H)	open restrooms
0725 Kebler East (H)	limit tours
0725 Kebler East (H)	sign better snow trails, mark them better
0725 Kebler East (H)	bathroom at trailhead
0752 Crested Butte (M)	better trail information
0762 Jack Cabin Cutoff (M)	do less
0808 Minnesota Creek (L)	no parking, closing roads, restoration of road and pads- like it used to be2
0810 Kebler (L)	signs at Coal Ck runoff
0810 Kebler (L)	need emergency number on back of hunting license
0810 Kebler (L)	sign- closed campground should be places far in advanced before driving all the way there'
0810 Kebler (L)	restrooms
0810 Kebler (L)	keep 4-wheelers off back roads up towards Dollar
0810 Kebler (L)	shower
0810 Kebler (L)	more trail access for motorized
0810 Kebler (L)	Beckwith Pass trail mile markers
0810 Kebler (L)	information/brochures
0817 Crystal Valley Winter (L)	coffee and doughnuts
0817 Crystal Valley Winter (L)	summer-steel posts need snow move lanes
0817 Crystal Valley Winter (L)	cleaner outhouses
0817 Crystal Valley Winter (L)	signs
0817 Crystal Valley Winter (L)	maps of trails
D-11 Windy Point Overlook (H)	water at Windy Point
D-12 South Bank Day Use (H)	admirable job
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	some campgrounds still not open/ would like to see no motorized boat use in Mesa
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	fee areas (camping) too expensive
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	more paved roads (motorcycle riders)
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	more maps/guides for mtn. Biking
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	in depth maps
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	more pull offs
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	more elevation signage
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	no paid fees
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	rides of area at visitor center
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	RVs (lack of RV designated sites)
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	information on birds and flowers
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	larger camp sizes for large trailers
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	more comprehensive website
D-18 Grand Mesa Visitor Center (H)	pave Lands End Rd
D-23 Fruita Picnic Ground (M)	individual would like better signage on private land
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	improve signage
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	better signing on Bald Hill- directional/safety
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	signage on small trails, thru Silverton area
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	picnic areas
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	Leigh Ann- more PIT projects
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	less expensive skiing
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	protect forest, no roads in wilderness
D-26 Telluride Ski A (Ski season)	signage for peaks and Alta area
D-27 Crested Butte Ski A(ski season)	improve recreational facilities/parking
D-28 Powderhorn Ski A(ski season)	expand area
D-28 Powderhorn Ski A(ski season)	snow lifts
D-28 Powderhorn Ski A(ski season)	bigger picnic area- especially during races
D-28 Powderhorn Ski A(ski season)	person would like to see Hwy 65 widened
D-28 Powderhorn Ski A(ski season)	more beginner level slopes
D-3 Red Mountain Overlook (H)	information on fishing conditions
D-3 Red Mountain Overlook (H)	provide a restroom
D-3 Red Mountain Overlook (H)	tours of mines- historic sites
D-3 Red Mountain Overlook (H)	provide a restroom
Friends Hut (L)	toilet at trailhead
Little Bear CG (M)	safety of money collection
One Mile CG (concession) (H)	fishing information- what flies to use
Spruce Lodge (H)	road improvement
W-1 Silver Pick Trail (M)	have forest service vehicles carry tow chains
W-12 Oh Be Joyful (H)	RV uses need to be limit here
W-12 Oh Be Joyful (H)	better signage
W-12 Oh Be Joyful (H)	put mileage to Blue Lake on trail head sign
W-16 Copper Creek (H)	mile markers on trail
W-17 East Maroon Pass (H)	pit toilet
W-17 East Maroon Pass (H)	we want someone to carry us
W-51 Matterhorn (H)	don't do anything to wilderness; police wilderness; provide area for rec vehicles to camp
W-51 Matterhorn (H)	14Rs initiative doing excellent job
W-51 Matterhorn (H)	more trail maintenance
W-8 Dark Canyon (M)	no hunters; no cows
W-8 Dark Canyon (M)	cell tower, phone at campground
W-9 Horse Ranch (M)	told on internet that Inuih campground was open
spruce lodge	road improvement

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 on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, & Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest.

Table 2. Annual GMUG National Forest recreation use estimate

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

Table 4. Gender distribution of GMUG NF recreation visitors

Table 5. Age distribution of GMUG NF recreation visitors

Table 6. Race/ethnicity of GMUG NF recreation visitors

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

Table 8. Age distribution of GMUG NF Wilderness visitors

Table 9. Race/ethnicity of GMUG NF Wilderness visitors

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

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

Table 13. GMUG NF activity participation and primary activity

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

Table 15. Substitute behavior choices of GMUG NF recreation visitors

Average annual outdoor recreation activity

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

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

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

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