estimating visitor use and distribution in two …

164 Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326

ESTIMATING VISITOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION IN TWO ADIRONDACK WILDERNESS AREAS

(APA Act 1998). Major reviews of the master plan must take place every five years by the APA in consultation with the NYSDEC, as required by statute.

Each individual Unit Management Plan (UMP) must conform to the guidelines and criteria set forth in the master plan and cannot amend the master plan itself. These UMPs are required to contain an inventory and assessment of the physical, biological, and social attributes of each area as well as applicable administrative actions. UMPs should be used as a mechanism to refine and apply the general guidelines and criteria stated in the master plan to specific conditions on the ground, at a level of detail appropriate to administration and management. UMPs can assist in resolving questions of interpretation and application of the master plan (APSLMP 2001).

The Adirondack Park contains 17 units of wilderness totaling over 1 million acres. At the present time, 10 units have met the requirement for the individual UMP development (NYSDEC webpage 2004). Seven UMPs are either in the draft stage of development or have not yet been addressed. Of the 10 completed UMPs, most have not been reviewed 5 years from their date of completion as directed by the APSLMP. UMPs are required to measure and monitor visitor use and its effects on the resources, which will aid in the planning and management of forest preserve areas. This study selected two areas based on the recommendations from the NYSDEC and other associated UMP planners. Neither area had a UMP and planners felt that this study would be beneficial to their developing UMPs for these two areas.

2.0 Site DescriptionsMcKenzie Mountain and West Canada Lake Wilderness Areas are two major destinations for recreational users seeking a wilderness experience in the Adirondack Park.

McKenzie Mountain Wilderness area (MMWA) is located in the Northeast corner of the Adirondack Park. It is in Essex County in the towns of St. Armand, North Elba, Saranac Lake, Lake Placid, and Wilmington. These

Nathan E. Peters Graduate StudentState University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry211 Marshall HallOne Forestry DriveSyracuse, NY 13210

Chad P. Dawson ProfessorState University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Abstract This study evaluated the temporal and spatial distribution of use and the patterns of use in two Adirondack wilderness areas from May through November of 2003. The three methods used for collecting the baseline data for this study were: active infrared trail counters, trail registers, and on-site visitor interviews. The locations for collecting information via registers, counters, and interviews were at major trailheads that provide access to these wilderness areas. Each method provided unique information relating to visitor use such as: group size, length of stay, destinations, and the dates and times visitors were utilizing the area.

1.0 Introduction In June of 1972 the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) approved and submitted the master plan for management of New York’s state lands following statutory procedures and extensive public hearings around the state. The master plan was designed to guide preservation, management, and use of these public lands by state agencies in the future. The overriding theme of the plan is to ensure protection and preservation of the natural resources of the state lands within the park. “It also serves as a place for human use and enjoyment, so long as the resources in their physical and biological context as well as their social or psychological aspects are not degraded (APSLMP 2001, p. 1).”

Section 816 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act directs the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to develop, in consultation with the APA, individual management plans for each unit of land under its jurisdiction classified in the master plan

165Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326

Eleven major trails provide access to destinations, such as Indian Lake, Falls Pond, Otter Brook, Northville-Lake Placid trail (north and south), Sucker Brook, Pillsbury Mountain, Miami River, Spruce Lake, T-Lake Mountain, and the South Branch trail. Recreational activities in this area in the spring, summer, and fall months include hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing.

3.0 Purpose of StudyThe objective of this study is to aid UMP planners in developing baseline visitor use data in support of UMPs for each of the two wilderness areas. It will help establish a prototype for monitoring and implementation of visitor use assessments within these and other units within the Adirondack and Catskill parks.

4.0 MethodsResearch was conducted on recreational use in MMWA and WCLWA in the Adirondack Park from May through November of 2003. The three methods utilized to gather data for this study are outlined below.

1. Estimations of recreational use with active infrared automated trail counters at eight access points in the MMWA and 11 access points in the WCLWA. The trail counters recorded the date and time that the users entered or exited the wilderness area from May 15 to November 1, 2003.

2. Brief on-site interviews were conducted systematically at all 19 major access points to the areas studied from May 15, 2003 to November 1, 2003. Interview questions were used to determine use characteristics and trip related experiences via the follow up survey.

3. Visitor data collected at 19 self-registration sites to gain information regarding date, group size, length of stay, and trip destination.

Active Infrared trail counters (sender and receiver units) were installed within 50 feet on each side of the trails providing access to the areas studied. They were mounted to trees with a large diameter in attempts to avoid false counts due to trees swaying in the wind. They were located on or near uphill or narrow portions of trail where users would likely be single file (Yuan et al. 1995). Camouflage was utilized to further conceal the equipment to prevent theft or tampering by the users.

areas are major destinations for visitors who generate a great deal of recreational use in MMWA throughout all seasons of the year. There are numerous trailheads to the 37,616-acre wilderness area providing public access from all sides.

MMWA is densely forested with mixed hardwoods and softwoods at lower elevations, while spruce and fir dominate the forest above 2,500 feet. The area is composed of steep and rugged terrain and the elevation ranges from 1,463 feet to 4,869 feet with excellent views from atop McKenzie, Haystack, Baker, and Moose Mountains. There are eight bodies of water and numerous pristine brooks and streams contributing to the lush ecosystems found in the valleys of MMWA.

Six trailheads provide access to destinations within MMWA such as Moose Pond, Mt Baker, Jackrabbit trail (east and west), Haystack / McKenzie mountains, and the Connery Pond trail which provides access to Whiteface Mountain. Spring, summer, and fall use in this area include hiking, camping, rock climbing, hunting, and fishing (APSLMP 2001).

West Canada Lake Wilderness area (WCLWA) is located in the Southwest corner of the Adirondack Park in Herkimer and Hamilton counties in the towns of Ohio, Morehouse, Arietta, Lake Pleasant, and Indian Lake. WCLWA is bounded on the north by Moose River Plains, on the east by both public and private land, on the south by Jessup River Wild Forest and private land, and on the west by West Canada Creek and private land. Access to several trailheads within this wilderness area is limited to travel on seasonally maintained dirt roads. Users of three public campgrounds and the Moose River Plains area, which are adjacent to WCLWA, contribute to use on some of the area’s foot trails.

WCLWA consists of mixed hardwood and softwood forests with the terrain ranging from swamp flats and rolling hills to steep mountains. The elevation ranges from 1,390 feet in the valleys to 3,899 feet at the height of the land. This 156,695-acre wilderness area contains 168 bodies of water including numerous pond, lakes, and streams totaling 2,460 acres. There is also considerable acreage in spruce-fir swamps and beaver meadows (APSLMP 2001).


Vegetation that could potentially cause false counts between the two units was removed. Most operational problems in infrared trail counter equipment are related to improper initial setup and installation (Watson et al. 2000). Each pair of counters were visited weekly to download the previous week of data and to ensure that data was not lost because of equipment malfunction or changes in the surrounding area.

Trail register sheets from the trailheads were collected and entered into a spreadsheet for further analysis. Information gathered includes date, number of users per group, length of stay, and trip destinations. Registers provide valuable information about use in the area; however, signing is voluntary so participation was a concern (Watson et al. 2000).

Brief on-site field interviews were conducted to find out further trip-related information about each group entering or exiting the area. Information gathered includes group size, length of stay, number of previous visits to the wilderness area, trail register compliance, destination, date, time, type of user, and location of interview. The name and address of the interviewed users were also collected to send out more detailed surveys about trip related experiences. The follow-up surveys were mailed to the user promptly after the field interview to ensure a high response rate. Information was gathered regarding how the management activities in the area were perceived by the users and how those perceptions impacted their wilderness experience.

Using these techniques together can increase the validity of the data collected (Dawson et al. 2001). Analysis and comparison of the results of each technique provided additional detailed information about recreational users in the areas studied, allowing for more management implications to be made regarding use in the area.

5.0 Results and DiscussionTo illustrate the temporal distribution of use in each area, trail counter event dates and frequencies were graphed (Figures 1 and 3). The x-axis dates represent Saturday of each week and the y-axis represents the number of events recorded per day. Similar trends were identified in both areas. Seasonally, use levels were lower early in the season with use picking up mid-summer and dropping back off as summer temperatures decline. Weekends received higher levels of use than that of weekdays. Holiday weekends were the most distinguishable peak times for recreational use. One noticeable difference between the two areas was that there was an additional spike of increased use in the fall in WCLWA, which can be attributed to late season backpacking and hunting.

Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to illustrate the use and distribution of recreational users in each area (Figures 2 and 4). ArcGis 8.3 and ArcCatalog software was utilized to analyze the data gathered via trail counters, registers, and interviews. The coverages for each area were acquired from the APA’s CD-rom set containing administrative data for the Adirondack Park. The purpose of these maps is to illustrate, using

Figure 1.—McKenzie Mountain wilderness temporal distribution from trail counter data.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

24-M

ay

31-M

ay

7-Ju

n

14-J

u n

2 1-J

un

2 8-J

u n

5-Ju

l

1 2-J

u l

19-J

ul

2 6-J

u l

2 -A

ug

9 -A

ug

16-A

ug

23-A

ug

30-A

ug

6-Se

p

13-S

ep

20-S

ep

27-S

ep

4-O

ct

Date

Use

r C

ount

s pe

rD

ay

1


a graduated line thickness, the use levels of each trail providing access to these wilderness areas.

Comparisons between data gathered via trail counters versus that gathered from trail registers indicate significant differences in each of the areas studied. The number of users accounted for in the trail registers were subtracted from the number of events on the trail counters divided in half, assuming all users hiked in and out on the same trail ((TC/2) -TR = difference). The difference column represents the number of users not accounted for in the trail register on each trail. Negative numbers demonstrate a higher frequency of compliance of those signing the trail register than the actual number of users reaching the trail counter (Tables 1 and 2). Speculations can be made that these differences are due to the location of the trail counter in relation to the trail register. Trails having negative differences had trail counters located more than a 5-minute walk from the trail register.

Throughout the study 84 interviews were attempted in MMWA and 105 in WCLWA (Table 3). Of those attempted, 83 were completed in MMWA and 103 in WCLWA.

Figure 2.—McKenzie Mountain wilderness spatial distribution from trail counter and interview data..

1

Table 1.—McKenzie Mountain Wilderness number of visitors from trail counters versus trail registers.

TrailTrail

Counter/2Trail

Register Difference

Whiteface Landing 812 628 184Connery Pond 1081 1412 -331Jackrabbit (East) 595 473 122Haystack / McKenzie 2755 2564 191Jackrabbit (West) 615 225 390Mt Baker 6270 4211 2059Moose Pond 681 374 307

TOTAL 12808 9887 2921


Figure 3.—West Canada Lake Wilderness temporal distribution from trail counter data.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2 4-M

ay3 1

-May

7 -Ju

n

1 4-J

un2 1

-Ju n

28-J

un

5 -Ju

l

12-J

ul

19-J

ul

2 6-J

ul2 -

Aug

9-A

u g16

-Aug

2 3-A

ug30

-Aug

6-Se

p1 3

-Sep

20-S

ep27

-Sep

4-O

ct11

-Oct

1 8-O

ct25

-Oct

1-N

o v

Date

Us

er

Co

un

tsp

er

Da

y

1

Figure 4.—West Canada Lake Wilderness spatial distribution from trail counter and interview data.Figure 4: West Canada Lake Wilderness spatial distribution from trail counter and interview data.

1


Responses from the field interview questions were analyzed to determine trail register compliance, day versus overnight use, and the number of previous visits to the area. In MMWA 44.6% of the users interviewed did not sign the trail register and in WCLWA, 8.0% did not sign (Table 4). In MMWA, day users were often non-compliant compared to the WCLWA (Table 5). In WCLWA, 5.0% of overnight users were non-compliant with signing the trail register (Table 5). The higher level of register non-compliance in MMWA could be attributed to users feeling more comfortable entering the area on short hikes due to its proximity to nearby developed areas; those entering WCLWA may feel a greater sense of remoteness.

Noncompliance was higher among those who had previous visits to the area: 52.8% of MMWA users had been to the area previously, but did not register, and in WCLWA, 8.8% of the users have been to the area previously, but did not register (Table 6). These differences could be attributed to the users feeling a greater sense of remoteness and risk when entering WCLWA compared to those entering MMWA.

In MMWA it was evident that users on short hikes and those with a greater familiarity with the area (i.e., had previous visits to the area) were less likely to be compliant with signing the register. In WCLWA, the level of non-compliant users who had been to the area previously did not greatly differ with familiarity to the area. WCLWA user registration compliance was most likely greater due to the remote character of the area and users wanting to be found if assistance was needed.

Comparing register noncompliance rates determined from the field interviews with those determined from analysis of trail registers and counters, it is evident that there is a difference. Based on interview responses, 45% of the users in MMWA were noncompliant while 8% were non-compliant in WCLWA. Noncompliance rates calculated when comparing the register and counter numbers were much lower than that found in the interviews, 23% in MMWA and 2% in WCLWA. The small sample size of interviews might explain (e.g. sampling error) why the estimated rate of non-compliance is higher based on the field interviews. Increasing the sample size would provide a rate of non-compliance that is more representative of the population.

Table 2.—West Canada Lake Wilderness number of visitors from trail counters versus trail registers.

TrailTrail

Counter/2Trail

Register Difference

Sucker Brook 340 497 -157NPT (North) 436 548 -112Miami River 628 575 53Pillsbury Mtn 893 827 66Spruce Lake 526 428 98NPT (South) * 467 532 -65T-Lake Mtn 417 480 -63South Branch 94 127 -33Indian Lake 198 156 42Falls Pond 405 376 29Otter Brook 379 167 212

TOTAL 4783 4713 70

* Missing 20 days of trail register data.

Table 3.—Visitor interview totals and refusal rates in 2003 studies.

MMWA WCLWAInterviews Attempted 84 105Interview Refusal Rate 1.2% 1.9%

Table 4.—Trail register compliance by visitors in 2003 studies.

Trail Register

NNon-

Compliance (%)

Compliance (%)

MMWA 44.6 55.4 83WCLWA 8.0 92.0 88

TOTAL 25.7 74.3 171

Table 5.—Day-use versus overnight users and trail register compliance.

Trail Register

NNon-

Compliance(%)

Compliance(%)

MMWA Day-use Overnight

45.00

55.0100.0

802

TOTAL 43.9 56.1 82

WCLWA Day-use Overnight

10.45.08.0

89.695.092.0

484088TOTAL


6.0 Sources of ErrorTrail registers provide a means by which managers can monitor recreational use in a particular area by gathering information about group size, length of stay, and trip destinations. There are, however, sources of error that should be taken into account when using these for estimation of visitor use. All of these sources could lead to an inaccurate representation of who is utilizing the area and for what length of time. Outlined below are the potential sources of error identified in trail registers for this study.

• Users reporting in the trail register the number of hours in the wilderness area or days they will be spending in the geographic area rather than the number of days spent in the wilderness area.

• Illegible handwriting, entering fictitious trips, or not reporting the correct date.

• More than one group member signing the register, and writing the number of users in their party causing multiple counts of the same group.

• Noncompliance (e.g., visitors not signing registers).

Trail counters are an effective way of monitoring visitor use. However, as with self-registration, there are sources of error that need to be accounted for when utilizing the data gathered. Outlined below are the potential sources of error identified in trail counters for this study.

• Mechanical interference due to environmental factors such as wind causing the sway of limbs and trees, heavy rain and fog, and the position of sun in relation to the trail counters’ infrared light source.

• Tampering or theft of counters by recreational users.

• Browsing wildlife being counted on the trail (e.g., moose, whitetail deer).

• Damage to counter or camouflage from curious wildlife (e.g., black bear, squirrels).

7.0 ConclusionsThe methodology for data collection in this study and Dawson et al. (2001) serve as building blocks for incremental change and improvement to the visitor use assessment prototype. We were able to collect baseline visitor use data in each of the areas studied reaffirming the value of this prototype. Minor changes to be made to improve the methodology for future studies would include locating trail counters closer to trail registers and increasing the sample size of interviews conducted.

The data collected for this study is beneficial to the Adirondack Park Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Unit Management Plan planners, as it will aid in developing indicators for the Limits of Acceptable Change planning process. The baseline information collected emphasizes the areas that are currently receiving higher levels of use and the areas in which staffing and fiscal support may be needed for future management to maintain or improve the conditions of the resource and the recreational experience.

8.0 AcknowledgmentsThis project was supported by the Adirondack Park Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Cornell University, and the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

9.0 CitationsAdirondack Park Agency. (1998). Adirondack Park

Agency Act. Raybrook, NY.

Adirondack Park Agency; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2001). Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. Raybrook, NY.

Cole, David N. (1996). Wilderness recreation trends, 1965 through 1994. Res. Pap. INT-RP-488. Ogden,

Trail Register

NNon-

Compliance(%)

Compliance(%)

MMWA No Yes

27.652.843.9

72.447.256.1

295382TOTAL

WCLWA No Yes

6.58.88.0

93.591.292.0

315788TOTAL

Table 6.—Previous visits to area and trail register compliance.


UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Dawson, Chad P.; Simon, Mark; Oreskes, Rebecca; Davis, Gary. (2001). Great Gulf Wilderness use estimation: Comparisons from 1976, 1989, and 1999. Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-276. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.

Hendee, J.C.; Dawson, C.P. (2002). Wilderness management. North American Press. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden CO.

Lynch, Joel; Vogt, Christine; Cindrity, Stan; Nelson, Charles. (2002). Measuring and monitoring trail use: A nationwide survey of state and federal trail managers. Res. Proj. East Lansing, MI: Dept. of

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, MSU.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2004). Unit Management Plans for State Lands. March 15, 2004. “http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dlf/publands/ump/index.html.”

Watson, Alan E.; Cole, David N.; Turner, David L.; Reynolds, Penny S. (2000). Wilderness recreation use estimation: A handbook of methods and systems. Res. Pap. RMRS-GTR-56. Ogden, UT:USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Yuan, Susan; Maiorano, Brian; Yuan, Michael; Kocis, Susan M.; Hoshide, Gary T. (1995). Techniques and equipment for gathering visitor use data on recreation sites. 2300-Recreation, 9523-2838- MTDC. Missoula, MT: USDA, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program.

estimating visitor use and distribution in two …

Documents