FINAL REPORT. Prepared For. Prepared by

Transcription

1 INDEPENDENCE LAKE 2010 RECREATION USER SURVEY FINAL REPORT Prepared For The Nature Conservancy Reno, Nevada Prepared by Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning Sacramento, California

2

3 INDEPENDENCE LAKE 2010 RECREATION USER SURVEY FINAL REPORT February 2011 Prepared For The Nature Conservancy Reno, Nevada Prepared by Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning th Street Sacramento, California Cover photo courtesy of The Nature Conservancy. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning

4

5 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 OBJECTIVES... 1 REPORT CONTENT... 2 METHODOLOGY... 2 Sampling Volume... 4 Response Rate... 5 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS VISITOR VOLUME... 7 Average Use... 7 Peak Use... 9 Estimated Season Use Volume RECREATION USER PROFILE Recreation User Party Characteristics First and Repeat Visitation Visitor Origin Information Sources RECREATION USE PATTERNS AND PREFERENCES Length of Stay Recreation Activities Primary Activity Length of Stay by Primary Activity Recreation Preferences Suggested Improvements AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES AWARENESS AIS and Prevention Awareness Water Recreation at Other Waterbody Within Past Month Time Since Recreated at Other Waterbody PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX... I EXHIBIT A: Vehicle Counts (2010 Visitor Survey)... i EXHIBIT B: Survey Sampling (2010 Visitor Survey)... ii EXHIBIT C: Sampling Response Rate (2010 Visitor Survey)... iii EXHIBIT D: Other Waterbodies Recreated at Within Past Month and Number of Responses (2010 Visitor Survey)... iv EXHIBIT E: Other Waterbodies Recreated at Within Past Month by Waterbody Mentioned (2010 Visitor Survey)... v EXHIBIT F: Suggested Changes at Independence Lake (2010 Recreation User Survey)... vi EXHIBIT G: Intercept Survey Protocol... x EXHIBIT H: 2010 Recreation Use Questionnaire... xi Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning

6

7 Executive Summary The following presents a summary of research findings for the Independence Lake 2010 Recreation User Survey conducted during the summer and fall of 2010 for The Nature Conservancy (TNC) which profiles recreation use at Independence Lake (IL). The report reviews research methodology, visitor volume, visitor origin, visitor group characteristics, recreation activities, Aquatic Invasive Species awareness, and a series of management and planning implications for future recreation use at Independence Lake Preserve. The study was conducted by Chuck Nozicka Consulting, Tourism and Recreation Planning, Sacramento, California. Summary of Findings The following outlines the findings, research observations, and implications for recreation planning and management as presented in the Independence Lake Recreation 2010 Recreation User Survey. Methodology The 2010 survey utilized a self-administered methodology to ensure no fielding staff interview bias. A total of 284 cleaned and reviewed questionnaires were used to provide the data set. Sampling occurred from late June through October with total of 62 sampling days stratified by week day, weekend day, and holiday. Visitor Volume An estimated 2,500 visitor days occurred at the IL preserve during the 2010 season from late June through September. Average highest use was 37 persons at one time on a holiday between 10am and 2pm; peak day use was highest during the same time period with 46 persons at one time. Recreation User Profile The average visitor party lead is 50.5 years old; they arrived with a party of 2.88 persons consisting of 2.42 adults and 0.46 children under 17 years old, IL hosted a somewhat older recreation user with those comprising the largest age group (32.2%); The majority of visitors arrived in groups of 1-2 persons (61.8%), followed by parties of 3-5 persons (30.5%); The majority of recreation users (69.4%) were first time visitors to IL in 2010; Most visitors are from northern California and northern Nevada; California visitors are primarily from the SF Bay Area (30.7%); Truckee/Tahoe (27.2%), the Central Valley (19.8%); and nearby Northern Sierra region communities (14.9%); Nevada visitors are primarily from Reno/Sparks (88.7%); Personal Knowledge and word-of-mouth was the most mentioned information source about IL (53.5%), news story was also mentioned by 29.2%; Recreation Use Patterns and Preferences The average length of stay was 3.42 hours, with the largest proportion (41.4%) staying 2.5 to 4 hours. The top five recreation activities at IL were: 1) walk/hike (61.6%); 2) view scenery/nature (45.8%); 3) picnicking (37.0%); 4) photography (37.0%); and 5) paddle sports (34.9%); Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning i

8 Walk/hike (31.5%) and paddle sports (29.0%) were the most mentioned primary activity; The most highly rated IL attributes (very or somewhat important) are: experience solitude (88.6%); hiking trails (82.8%); and beach access (79.0%); Among written suggested improvements the most mentioned were: 1) fine as is (21.2%); 2) provide camping (19.0%); 3) better lake access (17.5%); 4) better access road (13.1%); 5) more better trails (10.5%); and 6) better signage (6.6%). Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Awareness The AIS threat was seen as serious by 41.2%, followed by 21.9% who said it was somewhat serious; the remaining 36.9% said the threat was either modest, posed no threat, or they do not know. When asked about clean, drain, and dry decontamination practices, 41.6% said that they do it after every outing; the remaining 58.4% said that they never heard the term, heard of it somewhere, do it sometimes, or they do not know. Among 2010 visitors, 75.7% had water recreated at another waterbody with the previous month; for the first other water body listed, 52.4% had water recreated within the previous week. Respondents listed a total of 116 other waterbodies where they had water recreated within the previous month; Lake Tahoe was the most frequently mentioned. Planning and Management Implications IL has attracted a new group of users that participate in an array of recreational activities but were primarily attracted to IL to walk/hike or kayak. The needs of this new user group should be balanced with the interests of previous visitors and those arriving for other activities. Visitors represent a somewhat older user arriving in smaller groups thus implying that managers address this group s needs while also allowing for younger users and occasional larger group use. Kayaking and fishing are the most popular activities and as such management decisions must balance these preferences with any potentially conflicting uses. Trails, camping, and other land side uses are considered important part of the IL recreation experience; with improvements for these activities high on users perceived list of priorities. Solitude is the most highly values characteristic at IL; planning and management approaches should consider the impacts of policies and activities on this characteristic to ensure a sustainable high quality recreation experience. AIS introduction is a distinct threat to the unique IL ecosystem; indicating the importance of planning, management, and programs that ensure the IL preserve remain AIS free. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning ii

9 1. Introduction This report provides an accurate profile of recreation use at Independence Lake (IL) during the 2010 season. Entitled Independence Lake 2010 Recreation User Survey, the research describes preserve recreation use including visitor origin, activity patterns, recreation preferences and Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) threat awareness. The information provides The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and its management partner, Truckee Donner Land Trust (TDLT), with a decision making tool for recreation programming and communications; and helps ensure that management policies provide a high quality recreation experience while protecting the lake ecosystem from aquatic invasive species. Chuck Nozicka Consulting has significant experience conducting tourism development and recreation use by applying primary and secondary research to a range of planning and development projects. These projects including planning and development work in the Lake Tahoe Basin as well as in other Sierra Nevada recreation destinations. For twenty-five years our firm has focused its work on community planning and development with a focus on the dynamic recreation and tourism sector. We have assisted communities and resource managers with analysis that provides long term sustainability in recreation experience quality, environmental integrity, and economic benefit for local communities and resource managers. Objectives The project provides a profile of recreation use at the IL preserve including but not limited to observed visitor counts, activity patterns, origin of recreation users, recreation preferences, and recreation users awareness of and response to AIS introduction. The IL 2010 Recreation User Survey project includes several specific research objectives including: Develop a thorough research instrument and methodology applicable for the 2010 work and which may be confidently applied to all subsequent IL recreation use research. The research design and execution is intended to provide accurate and defendable baseline data; Establish the profile of recreation use during the peak summer season (June/July/August) and during the post peak season (September/October). To the extent applicable we have included elements that may allow for comparison to similar research conducted in 2008; Ascertain recreation use patterns and frequencies including but not limited to: first time and repeat visitation, information sources about IL, size of recreation group (number of persons in visitor party), length of time at IL during current outing, activities participated in during outing, visitor origin, recreation attribute preferences, AIS awareness, boat use at other water bodies and associated AIS decontamination practices; Conduct vehicle counts to determine volume of use and maximum persons at one time (PAOT); Assess and present study findings in this comprehensive report including tabular and graphic presentations of all salient findings; Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 1

10 Present consultant observations and conclusion with respect to their implications for future recreation planning and management at Independence Lake Preserve. Report Content Following is a summary of each research task according to the chapters in this report. In addition to this Introduction chapter the report includes the following: Chapter 2 Visitor Volume. This section presents the results of on-preserve vehicle counts and associated visitor volume at one time. This data provides preserve planners with an estimate for persons at one time during average and peak use periods. Chapter 3: Recreation User Profile. We identify the origin of IL visitors, average size of visitor party, number of adults and children in party and the gender and average age of group leader or primary respondent. This section also identifies whether the visitor is a first time recreation user at IL or has visited the site in previous years. Chapter 4: Recreation Use Patterns and Preferences. This chapter outlines the rates of participation in a range of available recreation activities and identifies the primary recreation activity that the respondent participated during their visit. In addition we present a ranking of IL attributes by level of importance as perceived by 2010 season visitors and a review of openended write in comments about how IL might be improved in the future. Chapter 5 AIS Awareness. This section describes the visitor s awareness of the AIS threat to IL. We also present the respondents knowledge about the recommended Clean, Drain, and Dry after-boating AIS decontamination process. Finally, we list the other water-bodies at which IL visitors have recreated within the month prior to their IL visit and the specific time since that outing for lakes mentioned. Chapter 6: Planning and Management Implications. As indicted by the data and the consultant s professional observations, we outline a series of implications for recreation management and future associated recreation programming. Methodology For the primary data collection tasks we utilized a self-administered on-site intercept survey. The self-administered intercept (completed at the IL preserve) does not require one-on-one interviews by fielding staff and yet ensures a measurable number of returns and controllable sample for each fielding location. Surveys are completed by the respondent and then returned to fielding staff. This allowed for maximum number of completed surveys per the budget. In addition, this sampling method removed field researcher bias and simply required a polite greeting and the on-preserve staff to hand a questionnaire to the potential respondent, with one respondent per visitor party, typically a group leader or spokesperson (See Intercept Protocol, Appendix Exhibit G). Given that recreational access to IL was via the parking lot and access trail we were fortunate to have a very controlled point at which we could intercept users. Since staff was stationed at IL for a range of management tasks we selected a variety of sampling days throughout the season distributed among weekday, weekend, and holiday periods. Sampling did not require that each and every user be surveyed for a reliable data set. (See Pictures 1-1 and 1-2) Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 2

11 PICTURE 1-1: Intercept Survey Site, at IL Parking Lot PICTURE 1-2: Staff at Intercept Survey Site, Adjacent to IL Parking Lot Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 3

12 Sampling Volume The final sample size totaled 284 reviewed and cleaned completed questionnaires. Sampling conditions included the focused access point, a defined vehicle capacity, and a select range of recreation uses that ensured an accurate recreation user population sample. In addition, the access road conditions and information about activities at IL in the media during 2010 likely provided a more targeted user group compared to the population at-large. As a result the 284 returns are considered a robust sample with a 95% range of confidence on a yes/no type response. Furthermore we stratified the sampling procedure to include weekday, weekend, and holiday samples, with a total of 62 sampling days from late June through early October. Figure 1-1, shows the number of surveys collected by type of day for each month of sampling. As indicated, we gathered a sample with good distribution throughout the season including a number that likely reflects the season s flow of recreation activity, with August the peak month. Note that holiday sample included the 4 th of July and Labor Day extended weekends. (For all sampling dates and returns per date see Appendix: Exhibit B) FIGURE 1-1: Survey Sampling 80 Survey Sampling Per Month By Completed Surveys Per Type of Day Independence Lake 2010 Sampling Days= June July August September October Weekday Weekend Holiday Source: Fielding staff counts and Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 4

13 Response Rate Sampling was conducted during focused time periods that did not require the on-preserve staff to visually or mathematically stratify who was selected as a respondent in other words during sampling periods each and every visitor party was contacted with a survey. Given the nature of the preserve, a relaxed atmosphere, and an efficient and easily completed questionnaire, almost all recreation users were willing to participate in the survey (See questionnaire in Appendix: Exhibit H). Accordingly, the response rate was extremely robust with an overall average of 98% of those contacted completing a survey instrument. See Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1: Survey Response Rate Weekday Weekend Holiday Contacts Surveys Response Contacts Surveys Response Contacts Surveys Response July % % N/a N/a N/a August % % N/a N/a N/a September % % % October N/a N/a N/a % N/a N/a N/a TOTAL % % % Source: Fielding staff counts and Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 It should also be noted that while IL staff and associated volunteers distributed surveys, Chuck Nozicka Consulting visited the preserve during fielding, provided sampling protocols for staff, regularly contacted staff about any fielding question or problems, and reviewed and cleaned all questionnaires for accuracy. Most importantly, the survey methodology and response rate did not require on-site stratification so this approach ensured that the sample would be void of any interviewer bias. Given the very controllable sampling environment, the sample size and the high response rate, we consider the 284 respondent sample to accurately represent recreation activity at IL during its first year as operated by TNC as the Independence Lake Preserve. Research Limitations All survey or polling methodologies have some limitation. For the self-administered approach, we rely on questionnaire design and question wording to elicit an accurate response. However, each answer is a respondent s interpretation to a question s meaning. Fortunately, this particular research project relied on a very simple, relatively concise questionnaire that was intentionally worded with clear and straight-forward language. Upon our review and scan of each returned questionnaire we found no evident misinterpretation of the questionnaire on the part of our respondents. The Independence Lake 2010 Recreation User Survey represents a profile of recreation use at IL specifically during the 2010 season. Accordingly this does not directly indicate that recreation patterns will be identical in future years. Recreation patterns will change per any changes in visitor awareness or new information sources about IL, changes to the management approach, and preserve access. For example, IL did not feature camping during 2010 so camping related questions (and written comments about camping) were largely an assessment of interest in future camping activity. Similarly, IL was managed as a non-motorized destination in 2010, with preferences for motorized recreation primarily contained in the open-ended comment question. Additionally, we anticipate that management changes per camping and motorized recreation could change the recreation user profile as identified in Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 5

14 Page Intentionally Blank Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 6

15 2. Visitor Volume This chapter reviews results of vehicle counts at IL parking facilities and applies the average party size as determined though survey results to arrive at number of persons on-site at one time. Car counts were done in four intervals during the day: 6am up to 10am, 10am up to 2pm, 2pm up to 4 pm, and 6pm until dark. (See vehicle counts by day in Appendix: Exhibit A) Average Use As indicated in Figure 2-1, the overall average per day varies by both time of day and type of day. The mid-day period between 10am and 2pm is clearly the primary use period at IL. This is consistent regardless of type of day. Note however that weekday visitation tends to fall only slightly in the later afternoon; perhaps these visitor were vacationing, staying in the region overnight and had the time for late afternoon recreation. Finally as might be expected average use is significantly higher on weekend days and is greatest during extended holiday weekends. FIGURE 2-1: Average Vehicles Per Day Per Time Period Average Vehicles By Day Per Use Period Independence Lake 2010 Counting Days= Weekday Weekend Day Holiday 6am-10am 10am-2pm 2pm-4pm 6pm-dark Source: Fielding staff vehicle counts and Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 7

16 When calculating the average vehicles per time period with the average party size as determined via survey responses (2.88 persons) we can arrive at an estimate of persons at one time (PAOT) on a typical day at IL. The results show that the average number of persons at one time is greatest on holidays between 10am and 2pm with an average of 37 persons (rounded), and 24 persons during the afternoon period between 2pm and 4pm. Weekends see approximately two fewer recreation parties on average during the same time periods. Finally, as might be expected, weekdays see less use overall, with a flatter use pattern throughout the day. See Table 2-1. PAOT calculations are useful for managers since staffing, facility development, and infrastructure such as parking can be addressed with this information. In addition, impacts to the preserve caused by use can be mitigated by addressing relative impacts per volume and managing visitor use to ensure a high quality recreation experience and associated sustainable environmental setting. TABLE 2-1: Average Persons at One Time (PAOT) Per Day Per Time Period Weekday Weekend Day Holiday 6am-10am am-2pm pm-4pm pm-dark Note: Average Party Size = 2.88 persons; PICTURE 2-1: IL Parking Lot Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 8

17 Peak Use Peak use is an important tool for preserve managers because it allows them to plan facilities, amenities, and staffing for those time periods when the IL preserve is under the most use pressure. It also allows managers to determine whether facilities and infrastructure should be developed for average use, with augmented staffing and programming to address the occasional peak; or whether facilities and infrastructure should be developed for the peak and then provide an excess capacity for the typical use day. Peak use calculations look at recorded counts for the highest use days during the 2010 season. As indicated in Figure 2-2, peak use is substantially higher than overall average use, with a more pronounced peak for each type of day during the 10am to 2pm time period. When looking at PAOT calculations we find that the highest use at IL during the summer of 2010 was on a holiday with 46 persons on-site at one time (rounded) See Table 2-2. Note weekday peak use shows a more robust amount of use when compared to the average and is in fact not significantly lower than peak weekend day use. Certainly this makes planning staff and supporting recreation amenities for the occasional peak week day a more challenging proposition. See Table 2-2. FIGURE 2-2: Peak Vehicles Per Day Per Time Period 18 Peak Vehicles By Day Per Use Period Independence Lake 2010 Counting Days= Weekday Weekend Day Holiday 6am-10am 10am-2pm 2pm-4pm 6pm-dark Source: Fielding staff vehicle counts and Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 9

18 TABLE 2-2: Peak Persons at One Time (PAOT) Per Day Per Time Period Weekday Weekend Day Holiday 6am-10am am-2pm pm-4pm pm-dark Source: Fielding staff vehicle counts and Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 Estimated Season Use Volume Though PAOT calculations are useful for preserve planning purposes it can also be helpful to estimate total use volume during the season. However, counting each and every person that entered the preserve was not feasible during the research, so the study used periodic vehicle counts to estimate activity levels at a given point in time. Using this vehicle data and applying average party size we can at least calculate a starting point for estimating season visitor volume. Table 2-3 shows total number of days for each day type and the associated average per time period arriving at a high estimate of 3,134 visitors to IL during the season (last weekend in June through September). Please note that this is only a starting point and educated guess work, because several factors temper our accuracy. First, we can assume that there may be an overlap among users per each time period some morning users will leave early or arrive later and stay into the mid day period. Similarly some mid-day users may leave early or arrive later during the period and stay later. In addition, peak use is higher than average use, particularly on weekdays which are more numerous. Accordingly, we may assume that our tally is a moderately high estimate. Note that the experienced on-preserve resident staff also reported an ocular estimate of about 2,000 visitors this season. If we assume this was a modest visual estimate and adjust our high calculated estimate, we arrive at 2,500 persons recreating at IL during the 2010 season with that number slightly lower or higher. Reportedly, this is a significant increase over use levels during previous years. TABLE 2-3: Maximum Visitation Estimate Weekday Weekend Day Holiday Subtotal 6am-10am am-2pm pm-4pm pm-dark Subtotal # Days TOTAL 1, , ,133.5 Note: Average Party Size = 2.88 persons; Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 10

19 3. Recreation User Profile This chapter reviews visitor characteristics including demographics, recreation party size, first or repeat visit to IL, and visitor origin. Recreation User Party Characteristics As indicated in Table 3-1, respondents reported an average recreation party size of 2.88 persons, comprised primarily of adults (2.42.), with children constituting a minority of visitors. See Table 3-1. Overall, the bulk of visitor parties are relative small with the majority arriving in groups of 1-2 or 3-5 persons (See Figure 3-1). TABLE 3-1: Recreation User Profile Characteristic Average Party Size 2.88 Members18 or over 2.42 Members 17 or under 0.46 Average Age 50.5 Respondent Gender Male 53.4% Female 46.6% FIGURE 3-1: Party Size Visitor Party Size at Independence Lake 2010 N= % 6 to % More than % 1 to % Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 11

20 In addition, our average reported age indicates a relatively older visitor with lead respondents averaging 50.5 years of age (see Table 3-1). Looking at break out by age category in Figure 3-2, we see that visitation to IL during 2010 was dominated by those in the 45 to 54, and 55 to 64 age groups. This group is typically associated with the so-called baby boom generation and object of significant study and market segmentation. FIGURE 3-2: Age Distribution Age Group of Respondent Independence Lake 2010 N= and Under 2.9% 25 to % 35 to % 45 to % 55 to % 65 and over 11.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percent of Respondents First and Repeat Visitation Figure 3-3 and 3-4 show a distinct change in recreation use at IL between 2008 and Use prior to acquisition was characterized by a majority of users having visited IL previously. However, in 2010 we see a significant shift with a majority of first time visitors recreating at IL. This indicates that the preserve attracted a new user group which may have a set of expectations for recreation at IL that differs from those having an historic familiarity with the preserve s recreation use and setting. In effect IL attracted a new group of recreation stakeholders in 2010 whose input managers will need to address in addition to the input provided by stakeholders who recreated at IL during previous years. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 12

21 FIGURE 3-3: First and Repeat Visit to IL, 2010 Visit to Independence Lake By First Time and Previous 2010 N=284 First Visit 69.4% Previously Visited 30.6% FIGURE 3-4: First and Repeat Visit to IL, 2008 Visit to Independence Lake By First Time and Previous 2008 N=103 First Visit 38.0% Previously Visited 62.0% Source: Haas (2008); Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 13

22 Visitor Origin California provides the bulk of visitors to IL followed by Nevada. This visitation profile indicates that IL functions as a regional destination. In addition, a small percentage of visitors arrived from a diverse selection of other states, presumably among those visiting other destinations in the wider region. See Figure 3-5 and Table 3-2. Overall, this distribution is somewhat similar to the findings from recreation user research conducted in the Lake Tahoe area (Chuck Nozicka Consulting), with a majority from California but a substantial proportion also arriving from Nevada, particularly nearby northwestern Nevada communities. FIGURE 3-5: Visitor Origin Visitor Origin at Independence Lake 2010 N=283 California 74.6% Other Nation 0.0% Other State 3.9% Nevada 21.6% TABLE 3-2: Other States OTHER STATES Alaska 1 Arizona 1 Florida 1 Michigan 2 New Jersey 1 New York 1 Oregon 1 Utah 1 Washington 1 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 14

23 Looking at first time visitors compared to those that have visited IL in previous years we see that recreation users from Nevada are more likely to have visited previously compared to California visitors. This may be due to the proximity of Reno and the preserve s previous ownership by NV Energy. In addition, we understand that Reno news media covered the IL acquisition by TNC and this information may have encouraged previous recreation users from Nevada to revisit the lake during the 2010 season. FIGURE 3-6: Origin by First and Repeat Visit 100% Visitor Origin By First and Repeat Visit N=283 80% 72.0% 81.8% 60% 59.0% 41.0% 40% 28.0% 20% 18.2% 0% California Nevada Other First Repeat Further analysis of visitor origin using respondent-provided zip code data and clustering cities by 3 digit code yields a profile of regions within each state where IL visitors reside. As indicated in Figure 3-7, California visitors arrive from a range of different regions though predominantly from the northern portion of the state. Not surprisingly those from the San Francisco Bay Area (30.7%) comprise the largest segment from within California, a condition typical in this northern Sierra Nevada region. What is surprising is the percentage from the Truckee-Lake Tahoe area more than one-in-five Californians (27.2%). The Central Valley region also provides a substantial proportion of California visitors followed by those from communities in the northern Sierra Nevada region, the foothills, and other California. Within Nevada, as shown in Figure 3-8, nearly all of those who visited reside in northern Nevada, presumably influenced by the Reno-Carson City region s proximity and prior ownership of the IL property by NV Energy, associated repeat visitation, and media coverage. Note also that a small portion arrives from Nevada within the Lake Tahoe Basin adding to the noteworthy numbers from Truckee/Lake Tahoe in California. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 15

24 FIGURE 3-7: California Visitor Origin by Region California Visitor Origin Independence Lake 2010 N=202 Bay Area 30.7% Truckee/Tahoe 27.2% Central Valley 19.8% Northern Sierra 14.9% Foothills 5.0% Other California 2.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percent of Respondents FIGURE 3-8: Nevada Origin by Region Nevada Visitor Origin Independence Lake 2010 N=62 Reno/Sparks 87.1% Carson/Douglas 4.8% Other Nevada 4.8% Tahoe 3.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Respondents Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 16

25 Information Sources Figure 3-9 shows the array of information sources that visitors used to find out about recreation at IL. Interestingly, most came to IL because of word-of-mouth information. Of course personal knowledge/word of mouth includes previous users as well; however, with so many new visitors we may assume that IL was a part of the conversation among the area s recreationalists. Word of mouth may also have been influenced by news reports, a category that on its own is the second most mentioned source of information and cited by more than one-in-four visitors. In combination this indicates a buzz among regional recreation users provided the bulk of the information about IL (Personal knowledge/word of mouth 53.5%; and News Story 29.2%). FIGURE 3-9: Information Sources Information Sources Independence Lake 2010 N=284 Personal/Word of Mouth 53.5% News story 29.2% Other sources 13.4% TNC website 7.0% Other websites 5.3% Local business 2.1% Boating guidebook 1.1% Visitor center 0.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 17

26 A combined 12.3% used web sites (TNC web site 7.0%; other web sites 5.3%), with 13.4 % using a range of miscellaneous information (See Figure 3-9). As news media driven interest subsides in coming years, we anticipate that users will access a range of information to find out about recreation at IL. Note then, that among the other information sources listed, maps and signs were mentioned most frequently, though this was a limited number of respondents overall. See Table 3-3. The findings indicate that a certain number of visitors found IL via a way-finding process looking at maps or by driving in the area and using directional signs. While personal knowledge/word-of-mouth will probably generate a substantial proportion of information about recreation at IL, the Internet and traditional means such as maps and signs will continue to play a role as information sources. TABLE 3-3: Other Information Sources OTHER WEB SITES N Google 4 Google Earth 2 TDLT 2 Face Book 1 KCRA web site 1 NV energy 1 Parks 1 Trout Unlimited 1 OTHER SOURCES N Map 7 Sign 6 VIA magazine 2 Reno Gazette 2 TDLT 1 TNC staff 1 Waiter 1 Ranger 1 TDLT 1 SF Chronicle 1 Trail book 1 Business 1 Snowmobile 1 Tahoe World 1 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 18

27 4. Recreation Use Patterns and Preferences Chapter four summarizes recreation activity at IL during the 2010 season including participation in recreation activities overall and the respondents primary activity while at the preserve. In addition we present respondents ratings of IL attributes and their importance for ensuring an exceptional recreation experience. Length of Stay The average length of stay for those visiting IL in 2010 was 3.42 hours. Given the time necessary to travel to IL via the rough access road we would expect that visitors would apply that investment to this reasonably long length of stay. As indicated in Figure 4-1 only a very small percentage stayed at IL for under 1 hour (1.5%), though a substantial minority (38.0%) spent 1 to 2 hours. However, nearly two-thirds of those visiting IL spent a significant portion of their day at the preserve (2.5 to 4 hours 41.4%; 4.5 top 6 hours 17.9%; 6.3% more than 6 hours). This is a robust amount of time since many were first time visitors and presumably scouting-out the preserve. As a result, we expect that in coming years if these lengths of stay increase with users familiarity, parking capacity and other related facilities may become challenged. FIGURE 4-1: Length of Stay Length of Stay at Independence Lake 2010 (Average 3.42 Hours) N=268 1 to 2 hours 38.0% 2.5 to 4 hours 41.4% Under 1 hour 1.5% More than 6 hours 6.3% 4.5 to 6 hours 17.9% Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 19

28 Recreation Activities Among activities that respondents mentioned, hiking/walking (61.6%) was by far the most popular activity at IL during the 2010 season. Of course, given the number of first-time visitors this is not surprising, in fact other activities mentioned included several other somewhat more passive recreational pursuits including simply viewing nature (45.8%), picnicking (37.0%), photography (37%), and swimming (23.6%). What was surprising was the proportion of those who traveled to IL to canoe or kayak (34.9%) since stowing a kayak or similar craft on or in a vehicle and the associated gear does require some anticipation of use. We expect that the media coverage of the preserves non-motorized status for 2010 may have encouraged some whose interest is specifically focused on paddle sport destinations. See Figure 4-2. FIGURE 4-2: Activity Participation Rates Activity Participation Independence Lake 2010 N=284 Walk/hike 61.6% View scenery/nature 45.8% Picnicking 37.0% Photography 37.0% Kayak/raft/canoe 34.9% Swimming 23.6% Dog walking 24.3% Fishing (from shore) Fishing (boat/float/waders) Mountain bike 6.7% 15.8% 13.0% Other activity Waterplay/float device Running/jogging 3.5% 1.1% 6.3% Sailboat/board 0.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 20

29 Another activity requiring some anticipation of use was fishing activities (fishing from shore and float tube fishing; 15.8% and 13.0% respectively). See Picture 4-1. Another noteworthy activity and one with management implications is dog walking, nearly one-quarter (24.3%) arrived at IL with their dogs. If this popular use continues managers may need to address dog use by providing dog refuse bags, signage, or use regulations. Finally, 2010 saw a range of other activities from a small proportion that came to ride mountain bikes (6.3%) to those visiting the preserve for an array of other activities. TABLE 4-1: Other Activities OTHER ACTIVITIES ATV 2 Boat motor 1 Came to motor 1 Curious 1 Dog in water 1 Exploring 1 Geocaching 1 Kayak scouting 1 Learn about LCTT 1 Nature study 1 Play 1 Relive memories 1 Rowing 1 See change 1 Skip rocks 1 Stargazing 1 See TNC screw-up 1 N PICTURE 4-1: Float Tube Fishing at IL 2010 Source: The Nature Conservancy 2010 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 21

30 Primary Activity Further insight into user motivations to visit IL is provided by looking at the primary recreation activity conducted while at the preserve. As indicated in Figure 4-3, hiking/walking remain the most popular activity at the preserve, with nearly one-third (31.5%) mentioning that activity. However, once again we see the emergence of kayaking as a primary activity (29.0%) and at levels similar to hiking. See Picture 4-2. Given the number of first-time visitors we would expect a high proportion of activities that are not gear-dependent on the primary recreation list. However, in addition to kayaking, another gear-oriented activity that received a substantial proportion of mentions was fishing with a combined 13.3% (shore and float fishing 8.1% and 5.2% respectively). Finally, a wide range of other activities were mentioned as primary activities by smaller percentages of respondents including mountain biking, dog walking, and water-play with a float device. FIGURE 4-3: Primary Recreation Activity 2010 Primary Activity Independence Lake 2010 N=248 Walk/hike 31.5% Kayak/raft/canoe 29.0% View scenery/nature 8.1% Fishing (shore) Fishing (boat/float/waders) Other 5.2% 3.6% 8.1% Picnicking 3.6% Mountain bike 3.6% Dog Walking 3.2% Photography 2.0% Swimming 1.6% Waterplay/float device 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percent of Respondents Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 22

31 PICTURE 4-2: Kayaking at IL 2010 Source: The Nature Conservancy 2010 In comparison to these findings, those surveyed in 2008 mentioned camping as the primary recreational activity by a wide margin. See Figure 4-4. Of course camping was not available at the preserve in 2010 so we can only anticipate that a percentage of future IL visitors will travel to the preserve specifically to camp. Accordingly, IL managers may need to balance the interests of those who are primarily day recreation users with those who are staying overnight. For example, privacy needs per the location of camp sites in relation to dedicated day use areas may emerge as a necessary site planning issue. In addition, overnight visitors boat storage or associated docking facilities versus day use boating facilities will need to be considered. These potential conflicts will challenge managers to implement a recreation planning approach that meets different user needs while maintaining the environmental quality and natural setting that make IL unique. When considering other recreation activities the predominance of non-motorized boating will likely continue. According to the 2008 survey, the largest proportion of water recreation users participated in non-motorized boating activities. Similar to results in 2010, kayaking was the most mentioned water recreation equipment choice. To the extent that motorized boating alternatives are included as part of the recreation spectrum at IL, managers will need to ensure that non-motorized uses and motorized uses are compatible. Since the data to date does indicate some use challenges, we recommend that IL managers continue to survey recreation user activity patterns during upcoming years. Monitoring recreation use can ensure that recreation quality at IL stays at the highest levels by applying an informed range of sustainable economic and environmental management approaches. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 23

32 FIGURE 4-4: Primary Recreation Activity 2008 Primary Activity Independence Lake 2008 N=103 Camping 52% Other* 12% Boat fishing 10% Walking hiking 9% Non motor boating 9% Shoreline fishing Picnicking Swimming Motor boating 4% 3% 2% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents Source: Hass 2008; Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 FIGURE 4-5: Water Recreation by Equipment Used 2008 Water Recreation at Independence Lake By Equipment Type 2008 N=65 Nonmotorized/kayak 46% Other 10% Waders 1% Nonmotorized/wader 5% Nonmotorized/ float 8% Float tube 14% Motorized boat 17% Source: Hass 2008; Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 24

33 Length of Stay by Primary Activity Table 4-2 shows the average length of stay per a list of selected primary recreation activities. As indicated, water-based and equipment-oriented activities occupy longer stays compared to other activities. Fishing with float tubes or waders represents an activity with the longest stay at an average of 5.75 hours; followed by kayaking at 4.09 hours. The data have significant management implications as these activities become more popular or as those pursuing these activities become more familiar with IL the turn-over in vehicle parking could pose a capacity challenge. Vehicles left by those staying longer take up space otherwise available to shorter day use recreation. Moreover, to the extent that overnight camping use is implemented, vehicle parking will further restrict available access for day users. Managers should monitor use and plan for augmented parking and or consider use restrictions and entry road signage stating current capacity. TABLE 4-2: Primary Activity by Length of Stay Primary Activity Avg. Stay (hours) Fishing (boat/float/waders) 5.75 Kayak/raft/canoe 4.09 Waterplay/float device 4.00 Fishing (shore) 3.35 View scenery/nature 3.15 Picnicking 2.93 Walk/hike 2.91 Mountain bike 2.61 Dog Walking 2.50 Swimming 2.00 Photography 1.90 Recreation Preferences In order to measure user preferences for amenities we listed a range of recreation attributes, and then asked respondents to rank on a five point scale including very important, somewhat important, neutral, somewhat unimportant and very unimportant. A combination of importance ratings provides respondents relative rating of each. This technique is a valuable tool for managers since there may be development limitations and therefore program priorities may be necessary. Accordingly, this metric illustrates the 2010 users priority list. As shown in Figure 4-6, experiencing solitude while at IL is the most highly ranked attribute, with 88.6% saying it was very or somewhat important. As a result managers need to consider the impacts of programs and improvements on the sense of solitude provided to recreation users at IL. Among facilities hiking trails are regarded as most important closely followed by access to the water including beach access for visitors and access for watercraft. A next tier of rankings includes fishing and campsites, with these attributes nonetheless still garnering a majority response. Respondents regarded boat-in camping as a less critical priority. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 25

34 FIGURE 4-6: Recreation Attribute Ratings Attribute Ratings By Very/Somewhat Important Inpendence Lake 2010 N=245 Experience Solitude 88.6% Hiking Trails 82.8% Beach Access 79.0% Watercraft Access 66.6% Fishing 59.8% Campsites 54.5% Boat-in Camping 38.0% 0% 50% 100% Percent of Respondents Additional insight can be identified for certain attributes by looking at the full range of ranking responses. As shown in Table 4-3, there is a difference among attributes, with some showing a high percentage of neutral or negative responses. For example, boat-in camping was regarded as unimportant by a combined 37.4% (very unimportant, 29.7%; somewhat unimportant, 7.7%). In addition this attribute also received the highest percentage of neutral ratings (23.9%) so opinions ranged widely. Accordingly the IL team may see stakeholder input vary across the board for certain IL characteristics, with select user groups strongly in favor of an attribute s importance to IL recreation and another group equally opposed to the same attribute. While campsites and fishing are highly rated as important they nonetheless have a proportion of recreation users who either do not regard them as important to the IL experience or are neutral about them. Watercraft access has fewer low ratings. However, solitude, hiking trails, and beach access show the most robust support with very small percentages of negative responses. These findings reinforce the notion that 2010 users see IL as a peaceful place if solitude can be interpreted so and recreation management decisions at the IL preserve will need to carefully consider the impact use changes may have on this attribute. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 26

35 TABLE 4-3: Recreation Attribute Ratings By Percent of Respondents Very Important Somewhat Important Neutral Somewhat Unimportant Very Unimportant Campsites Watercraft Access Hiking Trails Beach Access Experience Solitude Boat-in Camping Fishing Suggested Improvements The questionnaire provided an opportunity for respondents to provide written comments and suggestions about future management of IL Preserve. Written comments are important for those reviewing research such as the 2010 survey because respondents who take the time to write their thoughts demonstrate a keen interest in the destination. Figure 4-7 shows a summary of those comments by category (See all comments in Appendix: Exhibit F). As is typical in these types of open-ended questions, a percentage of written comments was simply affirmative about the experience or fine as is (21.2%), and stated no need for further improvements. The most frequently written improvement was to provide camping (19.0%). The rough road and time it takes to get to IL does beg for the opportunity to stay overnight. In addition, IL has a prior history of camping activities, so clearly respondents would like to see IL feature camping again. Second among specific recommendations was improved lake access. The trail from the parking lot to the lake shore is lengthy and has a gradient that for some made carrying paddle sport craft and gear difficult (see list of written comments Appendix: Exhibit F). The need for a more convenient access point or method of accessing the lake is indicated. (Note that during the season the TNC did provide kayak roller carts which were well received and did get specific mention in the comments section.) Better road access was mentioned as well, though in this case the road is a county government responsibility, with road improvements not controlled by The Nature Conservancy. Trails were also mentioned in write-in comments while this attribute was also clearly emphasized in other survey questions. Interestingly, signs directing visitors to IL were mentioned. Certainly a visitor traveling the access road and finding either unexpected conditions or a full capacity parking lot would like to know this information prior to tackling the access road. Some visitors mentioned having made wrong turns along the access route. Finally, a conflict among users was evident with regard to motorized boating. Nearly equal proportions of written comments were in favor of a strictly non-motorized destination or urged IL to provide motorized boating access. As managers gather additional public input about recreation plans at IL, his dichotomy will very likely continue to remain a challenge. Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 27

36 FIGURE 4-7: Suggested Improvements Suggested Improvements By Type Independence Lake 2010 N=137 Fine as is 21.2% Camping 19.0% Lake access 17.5% Better road 13.1% Trails 10.2% Better signs 6.6% No motor boats 5.1% Allow motor boats 4.4% Educate/info 1.5% Parking 1.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent of Respondents Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 28

37 5. Aquatic Invasive Species Awareness This section briefly presents findings related to recreation user awareness of the Aquatic Invasive Species Awareness (AIS) threat to IL and the visitor s awareness of AIS prevention techniques. In addition, we further determine the relative threat to IL by identifying other waterbodies that users have visited within the previous month and how recently those visits occurred. AIS and Prevention Awareness Among those surveyed during the 2010 season, 41.2% said that AIS threat was serious at the preserve, with an additional one-in-five (21.9%) considered the threat somewhat serious. See Figure 5-1. However, the remaining combined 36.9% of respondents said that they do not know about the AIS threat (21.2%), thought it was a modest threat (11.9%), or said AIS was no threat (3.8%). Given the emphasis on preventing AIS invasion at IL, these data indicate a relatively low level of awareness on the part of IL visitors. Managers may have to address this situation with a range of potential options including but not limited to: education, restrictions, screening, and decontamination practices. FIGURE 5-1: AIS Awareness Aquatic Invasive Species Threat to Inpendence Lake 2010 N=260 Serious threat 41.2% Somewhat serious 21.9% Do not know 21.2% Modest threat 11.9% No threat 3.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 29

38 Further emphasizing this relative lack of visitor awareness is the simple fact that the walk-in entry point to the IL preserve and survey sampling location was near a boat decontamination station that featured information signage about AIS. Interestingly, when broken out by those who have visited IL previously and first time visitor we see very little distinction in awareness. In fact, repeat visitors are slightly more prone to consider the AIS threat is either modest or that AIS is no threat to the IL at all. Clearly, a very proactive program to prevent AIS Introduction to the IL ecosystem is warranted. PICTURE 5-1: AIS Decontamination Station at IL 2010 Located at Walk-in Entry Point TABLE 5-1: AIS Awareness by First and Repeat Visitor By Percent of Respondents Repeat First Serious threat Somewhat serious threat Modest threat No threat Do Not Know Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 30

39 Another measure of AIS awareness was to ask those surveyed if they had heard of the term Clean, Drain, and Dry. This term refers to a standard decontamination practice for those participating in water recreation especially boating activities. In similar proportions to the AIS question, 41.6% said that they did the Clean, Drain, and Dry protocol after every outing. However, only 9.9% said that they practice this process sometimes, with the remaining combined 48.5% either saying; they do not know the term (14.5%), they had heard of it somewhere (11.5%), or never heard that term (22.5%). Combined with the limited awareness about the AIS threat to IL, visitor reported Clean, Drain, and Dry practices indicate a threat of introduction because water craft brought to the IL has very likely not been through an adequate visitor-conducted decontamination process. FIGURE 5-2: Clean, Drain and Dry Awareness "Clean, Drain and Dry" Awareness at Inpendence Lake 2010 N=262 Yes, do it after every outing 41.6% Never heard that term 22.5% Do not know 14.5% Heard of it somewhere 11.5% Yes, do it sometimes 9.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% Percent of Respondents Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 31

40 Water Recreation at Other Waterbody Within Past Month Another measure of the potential AIS introduction threat to IL is whether visitors have recently recreated at other water bodies, how recently they were at those destinations, and at what water bodies they recreated. As indicated in Figure 5-3, the bulk of those surveyed had been at other water bodies within a month prior to their IL visit (75.7%). FIGURE 5-3: Water Recreated at Other Waterbody Water Recreated at Other Waterbody Within Past Month 2010 N=263 Visited Other lake 75.7% No Other Lake 24.3 Respondents were then given the opportunity to list each water body at which they had water recreated and the time since that visit. These included multiple responses with respondents provided an opportunity to list up to six recently visited water bodies. The results yielded a surprising total of 116 different water recreation destinations (For a complete list see Appendix: Exhibit D). Among this extensive list a concentration of lakes and rivers in the immediate IL region was mentioned most often. Lake Tahoe (17.8%) was prominent considering the full range of 116 other waterbodies listed, followed by Donner Lake (13.0%). Looking at this data another way by individual respondent Lake Tahoe remains the most frequently listed water recreation destination with about one-third (33.2%) of all respondents who visited other lakes having listed the Lake Tahoe destination. This is not surprising given the Tahoe Basin s predominant position as a regional recreation attractor. Closely following Lake Tahoe was Donner Lake, another large waterbody and recreation destination. The nearly one-in-four respondents (24.1%) listing Donner Lake and nearby Truckee River (6.5%) is a somewhat surprising result; though this finding may reflect the proportion of those who visited IL from the Tahoe-Truckee area that visited IL in See Table 5-2. A second tier of other regional water bodies was also listed among the top ten mentioned including Prosser Reservoir, Boca Reservoir, the Truckee River, Stampeded Reservoir, Jackson Meadows, Gold Lake, Lake Davis and Frenchman s Reservoir. Overall, the Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 32

41 large number of water bodies mentioned indicates that AIS prevention at IL will be especially daunting. A limited list of lakes and rivers would at least provide IL managers with a reasonable estimate of the AIS threat per the contamination data compiled and available for a limited number of water bodies. However, determining the AIS threat potential among the full list may be challenging. Table 5-2: Top Ten Mentioned Other Water Bodies Visited Within Past Month By Percent of Responses and Percent of Respondents 2010 Water Body Percent of Responses Percent of Respondents N Lake Tahoe 17.8% 33.2% 66 Donner Lake 13.0% 24.1% 48 Prosser Res. 4.3% 8.0% 16 Boca Res. 3.5% 6.5% 13 Truckee River 3.5% 6.5% 13 Stampede Res 3.2% 6.0% 12 Jackson Meadows 3.0% 5.5% 11 Gold Lake 2.2% 4.0% 8 Lake Davis 2.2% 4.0% 8 Frenchman s Res. 1.6% 3.0% 6 For purposes of comparison, the top ten listed other lakes in the 2008 survey, shows a somewhat similar pattern, though Donner Lake is not as well represented as in See Table 5-3. Of course keep in mind that this list was also limited to within 75 miles so we do not know how many other lakes those recreating at IL in 2008 had previously visited outside this limit. In any case, it appears that that IL has been fortunate to avoid significant AIS introduction given the mobile water recreation user. Table 5-3: Top Ten Mentioned Other Lakes Visited Within 75 Miles of Independence Lake By Percent of Responses and Percent of Respondents 2008 Other Lake Percent of Responses Percent of Respondents N Lake Tahoe 17.2% 34.0% 35 Jackson Meadows 9.3% 18.4% 19 Donner Lake 8.3% 16.5% 17 Stampede Res. 8.3% 16.5% 17 Boca Res. 6.4% 12.6% 13 Prosser Res. 4.9% 9.7% 10 Gold Lake 3.9% 7.8% 8 Frenchman Res. 3.4% 6.8% 7 Pyramid Lake 3.4% 6.8% 7 Lake Davis 2.9% 5.8% 6 Source: Hass 2008; Chuck Nozicka Consulting 2010 Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 33

42 Time Since Recreated at Other Waterbody Finally we can gain additional insight into potential AIS introduction to IL by knowing how recently visitors have water recreated at another waterbody. We do understand that AIS can live on water recreation gear for some time after an outing with the most recent outing posing the greatest threat (We will leave any further and clearly more knowledgeable discussion of that threat to the scientific community). The findings indicate that a significant proportion of visitors to IL had water recreated at other waterbodies very recently, with 52.4% of the first waterbodies mentioned having been visited within one week (1-2 days ago, 21.9%; 3 day to 1 week ago, 30.5%). As a measure of potential threat this metric is problematic for IL managers. Note that not all of those who said that they had water recreated at other water bodies listed multiple destinations, so we can regard the first listed as a revealing overall threat factor. However, threat monitoring remains a challenge since a segment of the IL user population represents an extremely active water recreation participant group and did list multiple other waterbodies recreated at within the previous month. See Figure 5-5, and Appendix Exhibit E. As the Figure 5-6 shows, the time since the respondent water recreated at the second thru fifth listed waterbodies further implies an additional and potential AIS threat. Even though a higher percentage of these lakes and rivers had been one month or more ago, a substantial proportion had still been to a water recreation destination within a relatively short period of time. Among those responding nearly one-third (32.9%) had been water recreation destinations within one week of the IL outing (1-2 days ago, 13.6%; 3 days to 1 week ago, 19.3%). Finally, comparable findings from the 2008 survey indicate similar time since water recreation at other waterbodies, with 43% having boated at another waterbody within one week and a substantial 29% within 8-14 days. See Figure 5-3. Taken in total, the findings summarized in this chapter indicate a significant threat of AIS introduction for IL managers and begs for further scientific analysis and an associated review of recreation management options to ensure AIS prevention at Independence Lake Preserve. FIGURE 5-4: Water Craft at Other Lake 2008 Days Since Last Water Craft Use at Other Water Body 2008 N= Days 29% 15 Days or more 29% 1-7 Days 43% Source: Haas (2008) Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 34

43 FIGURE 5-5: Water Recreated at Other Water Body By First Listed FIGURE 5-6: Water Recreated at Other Water Body By Second Thru Fifth Listed Time Since Recreated at Other Waterbody By First Waterbody Mentioned Inpendence Lake 2010 N=199 Time Since Recreated at Other Waterbody By Second thru Fifth Waterbodies Inpendence Lake 2010 N= days ago 21.9% 1-2 days ago 13.6% 3 days to 1 week ago 30.5% 3 days to 1 week ago 19.3% 2 weeks ago 14.4% 2 weeks ago 22.7% 3 weeks ago 16.0% 3 weeks ago 13.1% 1 month or more 15.5% 1 month or more 28.4% Do not know 1.6% Do not know 2.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percent of Responses Percent of Responses Chuck Nozicka Consulting Tourism and Recreation Planning 35