Visitor Use Inventory, Monitoring and Recreation Impacts at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area

Transcription

1 Visitor Use Inventory, Monitoring and Recreation Impacts at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area FINAL REPORT August 4 Principle Investigator Randy Gimblett, Ph.D. School of Renewable Natural Resources University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 8571 Bureau of Land Management Agreement No. AAA11 Task : AAF41

2 Table of Contexts Visitor Use Inventory, Monitoring and Recreation Impacts at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area... 1 List of Figures... 4 List of Tables... 6 Executive Summary... 8 What is the current level of visitation at LCNCA?... 8 What are the current visitor travel patterns at LCNCA?... 8 What are the major indicators of campsite impact at LCNCA?... 8 What are the major problems as perceived by those visiting LCNCA?... 9 How Do Hunters Currently Use LCNCA?... 9 Future Issues and Concerns... 9 Introduction... 1 Acknowledgements... 1 The Study... 1 Recreation Sites Inventory and Mapping... 1 Procedures for Monitoring Campsite Conditions... 1 Las Cienegas Campsite Assessment Definitions and Procedures Analysis of Campsite Condition Data for Las Cienegas What are the Types of Recreation Groups that Frequent LCNCA and Occupy the Campsites?... 4 What Percentage of Campsites has Been Recently Used?... 6 How Many Campsites Reveal a High Amount of Development?... 6 What are the Current Conditions of Campsites?... 7 How Many Campsites Contain Some Degree of Impact from Nearby Activities?... 8 How much trash was found at the Campsites?... 8 What Vegetation Types Do the Campsites Tend be Located Near?... 8 What are the Critical Indicators of Campsite Impact?... 9 Summary... 9 Monitoring Visitor Flows and Patterns of Use in LCNCA... Response rate, Sampling Size and confidence levels... 1 What is the Typical Size of the Parties who Visitor LCNCA?... Where do the Visitors who Visit LCNCA Typically Reside?... What is the Frequency of Visits to LCNCA?... How Do Visitors Typically Learn about LCNCA?... What are the Preferred Months for Visiting LCNCA?... What Percent of Visitors Typically Are Encountered in LCNCA?... 4 Did Encounter Levels have a negative Effect on a Visitor s Experience?... 4 Did Visitors to LCNCA Remove Trash from Campsites?... 4 Are Visitors to LCNCA Attracted because of its Status as a NCA?... 5 How Many Visitors Bring Dogs to LCNCA?... 5 Common Modes of Transportation Visitors Use in the LCNCA?... 5 What Are the Preferred Recreation Activities Practiced by Visitors to LCNCA?... 6 What was the Overall Level of Visitor Satisfaction in the LCNCA?... 6 What are the Major Problems Identified by Visitors in the LCNCA?... 7 What Factors Do Visitors Cite as Important to the Recreational Experience?... 8 Summary of Visitor Survey... 9 What are the Typical Travel Patterns of Visitors in LCNCA?... 9 How Many Visitors Come to LCNCA Annually? What is the Distribution of Visitors Entering and Exiting the LCNCA? Estimating Visitor Use Levels in LCNCA... 46

3 Arrivals at Entrance Off Highway Arrivals at Entrance Off Highway Summary... 5 Where Did the Recreation Groups go when visiting the LCNCA?... 5 Survey of Local Hunters What Type of Game Do Hunters Target in LCNCA? What Percentage of the Hunters Camped Over night in LCNCA? What are the most Popular Hunting Times of the Year in LCNCA? How Frequently Do Hunters Visit LCNCA and what is the Size of the Typical Party? How Often Do Hunters come into Contact with Other Recreation Groups in LCNCA? Travel Simulation Modeling for LCNCA... 6 RBSim Multi-Agent simulation of Visitor Travel Patterns Developing the Simulation Network for LCNCA... 6 Hummel Area Oak Tree Canyon Area Discussion A Framework for Monitoring Visitor Use and Associated Impacts in Recreation Areas Task 1 Determining Visitor Travel Patterns Task 1.1- Developing a Sampling Plan Task - Determining Total Number of Visitors using Automated Counters... 7 Task a - Calculating Average Accuracy for Each Automated Counter Task b - Calculating Confidence Intervals and Use Estimates Task - Inventory and Monitoring of Campsite or Recreation Site Conditions... 7 Task a - Determining Campsite Condition Class and Impact Condition... 7 Task B Determining Management Standards and Guidelines Summary of Social and Biological Indicators for Visitor Monitoring Measures that can be derived from these indicators for Development Management Alternatives 76 Recommendations for Monitoring Literature Cited Appendix 1 Campsite Inventory Summer... 8 Appendix Assessment of Mechanical Counter Data... 1 Appendix - Names and addresses for a mailing list Appendix 4 - Hunting Survey Appendix 5 Visitor Use Survey Appendix 6 Glossary

4 List of Figures Figure 1 - Figure - Figure - Figure 4 - Figure 5 - Figure 6 - Figure 7 - Figure 8 - Figure 9 - Context Map of Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Location of All Campsites Group Versus Single Campsites Campsite Condition Class Evidence of Recent Use Histogram of group (left) and single party (right) campsite area. Condition of campsites by type Histogram of bare ground surrounding campsites with (1) and Without () Evidence of hunting Histogram of bare ground surrounding campsites with (1) and without () Evidence of OHV use Figure 1 - Road proximity (meters) versus log1 (area m ), which only Considers the Campsites with Evidence of Recent Recreation Use. Figure 1a - Amount of Development at Each Campsite Figure 1b - Percentage of Campsites for Each Condition Class Figure 1c - Percentage of Campsites for Each Condition Class Figure 1d - Percentage of Campsites for Each Condition Class Figure 11 - The Number of First Visits to LCNCA Figure 1 - The Number of Visitors by Month Figure 1 - The Number of Visitors by Day Figure 14 - The Modes of Travel Visitors Used During Visits to LCNCA Figure 15 - Reported Trips Traveling Through LCNCA Figure 16 - All Reported Trips by Mode of Travel Through LCNCA (Thickness of travel line depicts the intensity of use) Figure 17 - Reported Encounter levels with Others in LCNCA Figure 18 - The Location and Place of Mechanical Counting Devices in LCNCA Figure 19 - Illustrates the patterns of Visitor use for all mechanical counters Throughout the entire sampling period. Figure - Hourly Arrivals for All Counters Used in the Sampling Period Figure 1 - Weekday Arrivals in Las Cienegas National Conservation Area for all Counters Figure - Hourly Arrivals at the Highway 8 Entrance Figure - Monthly Arrivals at the Highway 8 Entrance for Sampled Period Figure 4 - Weekday Arrivals at the Highway 8 Entrance Figure 5 - Weekly Arrivals by Year at the Highway 8 Entrance Figure 6 - Hourly Arrival Patterns of Vehicles Entering the Entrance off Highway 8 Figure 7 - Weekday Arrivals of Vehicles Entering the Entrance off Highway 8 Figure 9 - Summary of Mapping Exercise with Each of the Recreation Groups (The Darker the Color the More of the Recreation Activities Overlap in the LCNCA) Figure - Hunting activities reported by the survey respondents Figure 1 - Number of Nights Each Type of Camping Practiced by Respondents Figure - Hunter Use of LCNCA by Month Figure - Typical Reported Hunting Party Size in LCNCA 4

5 Figure 4 - Statistical fit of other Visitor Activity sightings by respondent Activities, with confidence intervals represented by the Dashed line. This model excludes unreported activities Figure 5 - Principal component 1 versus with respondent (row) and major hunting type (column) scores. Figure 6 - A View of the Trails Network for LCNCA Figure 7 - Total Hourly Comparison of Arrivals at Hummel Between Baseline (Blue) and Simulated Trips (Red) Figure 8 - Total Monthly Comparison of Arrivals at Hummel Between Baseline (Blue) and Simulated Trips (Red) Figure 9 - Total Hourly Comparison of Arrivals at Oak Tree Between Baseline (Blue) and Simulated Trips (Red) Figure 4 - Total Monthly Comparison of Arrivals at Oak Tree Between Baseline (Blue) and Simulated Trips (Red) 5

6 List of Tables Table 1 - Recreation uses by campsite type Table - Campsite condition by campsite type Table - Recreation use evidence by site type Table 4 - Recreation use by evidence of use Table 5 - Recreation use by site condition Table 6 - Summary of Travel Modes of those Visiting the LCNCA Table 7 - Number of Visitor Days Spent on Each Recreation Activity Table 8 - Visitor Comments from Survey Table 9 - Reasons for Visiting LCNCA Table 1 - Other factors Cited By Visitors Important to Their Recreation Experience Table 11 - Mechanical Counter Pads used for Visitor Monitoring at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Table 1 - Hunting Along versus in Groups Table 1 - Hunting Activities with large residual values (those outside 95% confidence curve). Table 14 Typical Trips Acquired from Counter and Survey Data Used in the Simulation 6

7 List of Appendices Appendix 1 Campsite Inventory Summer Appendix Assessment of Mechanical Counter Data Appendix Names and Addresses for a Mailing List Appendix 4 Hunting Survey Appendix 5 Visitor Use Survey Appendix 6 Glossary 7

8 Executive Summary This report presents the framework and the inventory and monitoring of visitor use for Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (LCNCA). This cooperative project between the School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was undertaken December 1 thru December. The area now known as the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area was formally designated as a National Conservation Area (NCA) in recognition of its enormous value as a protector of species diversity within the Sonoran Desert. The following are some of the findings of this study: What is the current level of visitation at LCNCA? 8,-1, visitors entered LCNCA in vehicles during the sampling period from February through April 4. These estimates are derived from vehicle counter data collected at the two main entrance areas over the sampling period and then extrapolated to provide an annual visitor estimate What are the current visitor travel patterns at LCNCA? The travel patterns are extremely distinct in LCNCA. Typical routes follow existing roads, entering from highway 8 through LCNCA to 8 and visa versa. This route accounts for over ninety percent of all vehicular use in LCNCA All visitors enter LCNCA in vehicles and are attracted to high scenic value the area has to offer. Driving for pleasure, scenic viewing and the chance to experience long, expansive views of grasslands and mountain background are landscape qualities reported by visitors as being reasons for coming to LCNCA. In addition, an opportunity to view wildlife and hunt are the major recreation experiences visitors come to the LCNCA to experience. Visitors using LCNCA for recreation purposes do so in four-wheel drive or off road vehicles. This type of recreation use in LCNCA while dispersed, is concentrated along the existing major routes. ATV use continues throughout the LCNCA. Weekend use is consistently a dominant contributor to the visitor use patterns in LCNCA. During hunting season, overnight use during weekends, is a popular time for visitors to frequent the LCNCA. LCNCA is not the primary destination of winter visitors as it tends to be discovered on route to some other place. What are the major indicators of campsite impact at LCNCA? Visitor use at LCNCA is dispersed and impacts are relatively few and situated only at informally established recreation or campsites There are many dispersed campsites that show signs of being recently used. But many of these dispersed sites have been present for many years. Most of the campsites reside within close proximity of the access routes. Indications are these campsites are most heavily used by hunters during certain times of the year. Impacts to campsites are consistent. The amount of exposed or bare ground, removal of vegetation under story (grass and shrubby material) along with proximity from roads are prime indicators of campsite condition. A majority of the campsites fall into a condition class two which reveals a minimal degree of soil and vegetation loss but still in relatively low impact condition. 8

9 What are the major problems as perceived by those visiting LCNCA? Lack of visitor information, lack of signage, rough road conditions, lack of nonmotorized trails and camping facilities are consistently identified as unsatisfactory to those currently using the area. Illegal activity was identified as the most serious problem facing LCNCA. Lack of law enforcement was also identified as a growing safety concern for those visiting LCNCA. Social encounters and crowding caused by excessive levels of visitor use are not, at least at the moment contributing to dissatisfaction of those visiting the area. Visitation patterns and shear volume of visitors coming to the LCNCA, has not yet reached the level that leads to perceived social or environmental problems. Some respondents indicated isolated incidences of conflicts occurring in the LCNCA, but there is little hard evidence as to how frequently or the extent of where these situations occur. How Do Hunters Currently Use LCNCA? Peak hunting days are Friday through Sunday, with nearly 85% of the respondents reported using the area on a Saturday. Hunting big game, deer specifically and using ATV or OHV are the most popular activities of the hunters who responded to the survey. Marginally significant are the number of javelina, small game, and upland bird hunters. Future Issues and Concerns Data collected during the sampling period in - should only be considered a benchmark in terms of visitor use data. The monitoring program needs to be evaluated and perhaps streamlined to ensure that data can be systematically collected on visitor use patterns. Biological and social indicators should continue to be tested and evaluated as part of the monitoring program as awareness spreads about the LCNCA and visitor use levels increase. As more and more clandestine activity occurs during the night in the area, it will ultimately conflict with legal visitor use in the area. More importantly as improvements occur in the LCNCA such as campsite facilities or infrastructure and trail development, more visitors were attracted to spend longer periods of time in LCNCA then currently do. This legal overnight visitor use will ultimately clash with illegal night use and could become a more serious issue for the BLM. More specific studies need to be conducted to acquire more information on where and to what degree illegal activity is occurring in the area. Improving roads, providing more campsite facilities and non-motorized trails will open up access and increase use in the LCNCA. Given that there is relatively low levels of visitor use at the moment, some serious thought and a purposeful strategy needs to be undertaken to proactively plan for the increased use in the future. The campsite impact assessment in this report suggests that rehabilitation of campsites is not yet warranted. But with the baseline campsite conditions established and protocols in place for monitoring, these sites need to be continually monitored. It is apparent in some places like Oak tree canyon that some campsites could be removed and others hardened to ensure minimal expansion of the campsite area and signed. These measures would encourage campsite use in those areas already impacted and reduce the need to develop more dispersed sites. Signage, numbering and ground/pad improvement to the campsites could be considered in areas such as Oak tree. 9

10 Introduction This report describes the framework developed for inventory and monitoring of visitor use and associated impacts for the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in Southern, Arizona. This cooperative project between the School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was undertaken December 1, 1 through December,. The area commonly known as Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (LCNCA) is located North of Sonoita, Arizona, bordered to the west by Highway 8 and South by Highway 8, was formally designated as a conservation area in recognition of its enormous value as a protector of species diversity within the Sonoran Desert (See Figure 1). LCNCA is a superb example of the high elevation Sonoran Desert grassland, featuring important wildlife habitat, associated mountains and significant cultural resources. LCNCA has been a destination for many recreation activities for many years prior to its designation as a national conservation area. Since the LCNCA s designation, it is rapidly becoming a destination for local, national and international visitors who want to experience its natural beauty. Landscape changes due to illegal alien movement, OHV use, hunting and other recreation uses could have significant impacts on both the social and resource conditions in the conservation area. Proliferation of vehicular routes due to off road vehicular use, wash running and hunting to name a few are pose challenges to the conservation area s long term planning and management. While these problems are not insurmountable, the challenge is to develop a more systematic way to understand the dynamics of visitor use patterns throughout the conservation area in relation to the increasing use and demand for new access and recreation opportunities. Information that is necessary for managing visitor use in the conservation area is currently lacking. Understanding the spatial temporal distribution of visitor use is of fundamental importance to recreation management in LCNCA. The kind and amount of visitor use has profound effects on the quality of the natural resources, visitor experiences and facilities in the conservation area. Therefore, it is critically important to be able to monitor the flow of visitation, in space and over time, and to be able to predict how distributions are likely to change in response to both management actions and factors that are not subject to managerial control. In some situations this is easily done. However, the size of the conservation area, the complexity of traffic flow, and the amount of uncontrolled access along conservation area boundaries and private in holdings makes the monitoring and prediction of use patterns a challenge. Moreover, the importance of being able to monitor and predict visitor flow is particularly pronounced in a place like LCNCA, where biophysical conditions and experiential conditions are highly sensitive to intensity of use. Minimal work has been undertaken to study the social value this conservation area brings to the region. Aside from a few antidotal descriptions of the area, virtually no baseline inventory of existing visitor use conditions has been documented. The purpose of this study is to inventory and monitor existing social and ecological conditions related to recreation use of the area. The information collected will aid in the development of recreation management programs through the conservation area management planning. It is anticipated that the monitoring program once established will guide management into the future and provide baseline conditions for visitor use for comparison with other studies. 1

11 Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Bureau of Land Management - State Hwy State Hwy 8 Legend local_highways local_routes NCA boundary State Hwy Miles 1:179,94 Figure 1 - Context Map of Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 11

12 While inventorying and monitoring visitor flow within the conservation area boundaries is critically important, the ability to incorporate this information into long-term decision-making frameworks of shared importance. Increasingly, travel simulation modeling is gaining recognition as an important tool for natural resource planning and management. Although travel simulation models for natural resource settings have been experimented with for more than three decades, it is only in the last decade that the cost of modeling has plummeted and capabilities have soared. The objectives of this study are to: Document baseline visitor use distribution, patterns of use, visitor opportunities and experiences and associated impacts for LCNCA Develop a long term visitor use monitoring program for LCNCA Use a travel simulation model to replicate baseline visitor use behavior and subsequently to develop a prototype model that could be used to test current management strategies. Acknowledgements This project began two years ago and many of those researchers and field staff that worked on the project have come and gone. But special thanks go out to April Robaina, Karen Furenlid who dedicated an entire summer to undertaking the campsite inventory. John Lynch, Chris Sharp and Craig Billington have been instrumental in implementing the visitor inventory and monitoring system. Spencer Lace and Jonathan Scholnick for their invaluable assistance on the analysis of both the attitudinal and map data for this project. Special thanks go to Karen Simms and Catie Fenn of the BLM for their guidance during the life of this project and contribution to this valuable recreation inventory that can be used to guide the future planning and management of the LCNCA. 1

13 The Study This report describes a methodology that uses a combination of techniques to acquire a more thorough understanding of visitor use in LCNCA. The following sections, each document both the method used and the results of applying the method. Recreation Sites Inventory and Mapping documents the individual recreation sites that have been inventoried to capture their current resource conditions and to derive a condition class that defines the degree of human impact. Monitoring Visitor Flows and Patterns of Use. This section includes results from a self- documents hunter s administered survey that includes both attitudinal questions about the visit and mapped information about travel patterns. In addition this section documents the use of automated, mechanical counters to derive overall numbers of vehicles entering and exiting the conservation area as well as visitors on foot hiking the trails and results from focus group meetings with recreation groups who utilized the conservation area. Hunter Survey, responses to a brief hunting survey targeted at acquiring information on their hunting preferences in the conservation area. Finally, the section on Travel Simulation Model presents a computer simulation tool for replicating spatial patterns of visitors in the conservation area and generating baseline or current visitor use conditions. This model has the potential to develop and test alterative management scenarios or prescriptions that are proposed for LCNCA. Recreation Sites Inventory and Mapping This assessment consisted of mapping all existing visitor impact areas (campsite locations, drainage areas, etc.), existing gate s, fences, trailheads, etc. All impact areas were spatially captured and attributed using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and converted to Geographic Information System (GIS) inventory maps. In addition, all visitor impact areas were inventoried using a modified version of the Cole Camp site inventory methodology (Cole 1989,199). This methodology evaluates each of the impact areas, examining vegetation cover, firewood availability, vegetation density, composition, total area impacted, barren core area, litter and duff, social trails, mutilations and other important site attributes. Each campsite was photographed and a GPS coordinate captured to identify the location of the campsite. The data collected for each of the locations were used to derive an impact condition ranking as well as to determine viable, quantitatively evaluated ecological indicators that can be used for establishing a long term monitoring program. The fieldwork was undertaken from June, to August 5,. A separate volume that contains the raw field data with map accompanies this final report. Procedures for Monitoring Campsite Conditions The purpose of this inventory was to identify and document all single and group campsites in the LCNCA to create a framework for monitoring recreational activity in support of the management plan by the Bureau of Land Management. The campsite assessment documents the biological impact of recreational activities with emphasis on soil and vegetation disturbances. Since part of the LCNCA is still ranched, grazing disturbances were also be note d if found within the campsite area. Specific factors that were documented are: Area of Campsite, GPS Co ordinates, Campsite or Group Campsite, Recreation Evidence, Evidence of Recent Use, Campsite Condition, Campsite development, Disturbance Nearby Campsite, Trash Rating, Topography, Road Proximity, Number of Road Access Points, Vegetation Community, Predominant Plant Species, Species Richness, Exotic Species, Bare Ground, Erosion and Evidence of Wildlife. This inventory method is a hybrid from the established methodology created and used by David Cole at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Center. While Cole s methods have been applied in many wilderness settings, some of the quantitative measures and variables apply to landscapes commonly found in the Sonoran Desert. 1

14 Las Cienegas Campsite Assessment Definitions and Procedures Area: This factor refers of the size of the campsite. The boundaries of the campsite were determined by the edge of disturbance. Disturbance is defined for this study as flattened vegetation, bare ground caused by trampling or compaction or foreign site elements such as firerings, site furniture. Roads leading to campsites are not included in the campsite area. Campsite or Group Area: The difference between a single or group campsite is determined by the area and amount of site furniture and the number of fire rings present. Sites with two or more fire rings that are spread apart are considered group areas, where multiple camping parties share the site. Group sites may also have more site furniture such as a Ramada, seating, trashcans or barbeque grills. Single campsites usually have only one fire ring. Recreation Evidence: Recreation activities are assumed by evidence found at the site. Camping evidence includes signs of fire ring(s), garbage, or site furniture. Trails are of any kind, being animal or hiking trails or both. Horse evidence includes hoof prints, horsehair or droppings. Hunting evidence are bullets or shotgun shells in the vicinity. Cattle evidence includes hoof prints and cow dung. OHV use includes visible tire tracks in the vicinity. Category Recreation Activity Camping 1 Trails (hike, bike, or animal Horses Hunting 4 OHV (ATV, Motorcycles), 5 Cattle Evidence of Recent Use: A rating of 1 indicates that there is no evidence of a campsite, meaning no fire rings, site furniture or ashes are present at the site. This designation is for sites that were previously noted in that particular location but are reported as no longer present. A rating of indicates an abandoned site. Abandoned sites will have broken, scattered, or buried fire rings without any visible ashes nearby. These sites are typically overgrown and show no sign of recent disturbance such as trampling in the area. A rating of indicates that the site has been used by evidence of trampling, tire tracks, or garbage even though no ashes may be present to necessarily indicate that is has been used within the past year. A rating of 4 indicates a recently used campsite with ashes and an intact or broken fire ring and may include other evidence of use as well. Category Evidence of Reported Use No Evidence 1 Abandoned Not Recently Used Recently Used Under Canopy: This factor is a presence or absence measure of whether the fire ring is directly under a tree canopy. Campsite Condition: Campsite condition identifies the soil and plant condition of the site. The rating of indicates th at the site has not been impacted. Usually this is the case where a fire ring is found among an area where there is no evidence of flattened or trampled vegetation around, 14

15 showing no disturbance to the site. Such sites may be abandoned or rarely used, and have reestablished from prior disturbance. The rating of 1 indicates that some of the ground vegetation, such as grasses, have been flattened, but not permanently injured. The rating of is given if some of the ground vegetation of the campsite has been lost due to more frequent use, and or soil compaction is evident which inhibits vegetation growth after use of the site. The rating of is given to sites that are devoid of vegetation. This may be the case for frequently used sites, sites under a tree canopy or in a dried creek bed where vegetation is typically sparse. Condition Rating Campsite Condition Not Impacted 1 Ground vegetation flattened, but not permanently injured Partial loss of ground vegetation and some soil compaction No ground vegetation remaining Campsite Development: Campsite development rates the amount of constructed materials at the site. A rating of is given to sites that have primitive fire mounds that do not have organized rock rings, nor are dug in a pit. Sites with a rating of 1 have only a single fire ring. Site with a rating of have multiple fire rings, and or ash mounds. A rating of is given to sites with fire rings and site furniture such as seating, Ramada, and barbeque grills for example. These are considered heavily developed sites. Condition Rating Campsite Development No development 1 Single Fire ring Multiple Fire rings Heavily Developed with fire ring and site furniture Disturbance Nearby Campsite: Disturbance nearby the campsite is defined in this rating as disturbance evidence outside that of the defined campsite boundary. This may include grazing, tree mutilations for firewood, trash, ATV use or extensive trails. A rating of is given to a site where there is no evidence of disturbance outside of the campsite itself. A rating of 1 is given to sites that are grazed, have evidence of minimal tree mutilations, or have minimal trash. A rating of is a heavily disturbed site that may be full of trash, extensive mutilations, has extensive trails limiting vegetation growth, extens ive erosion, or a heavily grazed site where no grasses remain and much soil compaction is evident. Condition Rating Disturbance Nearby Campsite None, 1 Some Disturbance Heavily Disturbed Trash Rating: Trash is considered any foreign materials to the site. This includes plastic bags, food wrappers, abundant cigarette butts, clothes, soda cans, abundant toilet paper, etc. Rating Trash Rating None 1 Few (1-5 articles) Moderate (5-1 articles) Extensive (Over 1 articles or widespread) 15

16 Topography: The topography of each site is categorized into either a basin or canyon site. Canyon sites maybe between two small hills or between a large set of mountains. A basin is defined as any flat area not between slopes. Rating Topography None 1 Basin Canyon Road Proximity: The road proximity is the distance between the boundary of the campsite and the closest road, whether it is a main road or a small road leading only to the site. Rating Road Proximity None 1-1 ft 1- ft - ft 4-4 ft Road Access Points: The number of access points or locations where vehicles can enter the site, either off of the same road, as in a u-shape pullout, or off multiple roads. A campsite with a U- shape pull out has two points of entry, or access points. A campsite at a road junction can be access from either of the two roads and also has two access points. Vegetation Community: These vegetation categories are general and encompass a variety of more specific vegetation communities. The semi-desert grassland category includes Sacaton Prairies and Mesquite Bosques. The Oak woodland community includes grassland areas dotted with oaks and junipers. Riparian areas are exclusive to the riparian corridor and contain unique riparian plant species such as Fremont Cottonwood and Desert Willow. Rating Vegetation Community None 1 Semi-desert grassland Oak Woodland Riparian Predominant Plant Species: The predominant trees, shrubs and grass species are determined by the number of species present and the amount of area they cover. Species Richness: Species richness is a count of all the obvious perennial plant species in the vicinity of the site, usually within a 1 ft. radius of the campsite boundaries. Some species not included were grass species that were not predominantly evident, which may be difficult to determine at grazed sites. Exotic/Invasive Species: Exotic species are those that are not native to the geographical region and are invasive. The name of the species is noted as well as the percent of overall cover it inhabits at the site. For example, the site may only have % of vegetative cover, and of that cover 5% is by Lehamann s love grass. 16

17 Bare Ground: Bare Ground is defined by the amount of bare soil visible expressed as a percentage, not including tree/vegetation litter or gravel. Bare ground is determined by observation alone. An estimate is determined to help understand the difference between the amount of bare ground at the campsite and that of the surrounding natural area. Erosion: Evidence of erosion is documented for this study as a percentage of the site that is affected by any type of erosion. The notes section may provide information for what type of erosion was visible such as surface runoff, gullies, or surface streams. Erosion for this study was only documented for the campsite area, and does not include areas surrounding the site, such as the roads. Evidence of Wildlife: To note wildlife evidence at the site, categories of mammals, birds and insects have been delineated. Though cattle and horses are not wildlife of the region, their evidence of presence at the site is recorded as well. Some specific bird and insect species were identified but are not to be considered complete records of all species in the area. It is to serve only as a brief summary of the dynamics of the site, especially for example, swarms of flies, bees or abundance of cow dung that affect the ecological dynamics of the site, and or recreation activities. Analysis of Campsite Condition Data for Las Cienegas An assessment of the campsite data is presented below. The focus of this assessment was to inventory each of the campsites and provide an overall campsite impact rating from which future monitoring could be compared. Contingency tables and chi-square statistics were used to evaluate the relationships between campsite variables. For a complete list of the campsite inventory for, see Appendix A. Also accompanying this report is a complete copy of the original campsite inventory sheets. 17

18 Figure - Location of All Campsites Surveys in LCNCA 18

19 Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Bureau of Land Management - " " " " Legend " groupareas "Campsites" local_highways local_routes NCA boundary Miles 1:164,686 Figure - Group Versus Single Campsites 19

20 Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Bureau of Land Management Legend "Campsites" local_highways local_routes NCA boundary Miles 1:169,569 Figure 4 - Campsite Condition Classes

21 Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Bureau of Land Management - 1 Legend "Campsites" local_highways local_routes NCA boundary Miles 1:164,686 Figure 5 Evidence of Recent Use 1

22 Percentage of Campsites Typically Occupied by Group or Single Parties? There are 16 single party campsites and 46 group campsites evaluated on LCNCA. The group sites in this area are not necessarily larger than the single party sites; however, all of the campsites over 14 sq. ft. are group sites (See Figure 6). This is not surprising that the large sites are classified as group areas, as thi s is a criteria for attributing a s ite to group use. GroupArea campsite Count Proportion per Bar Count Proportion per Bar. 1 AREA. 1 AREA Figure 6 - Histogram of group (left) and single party (right) campsite area. Group campsites provide recreation sites for groups as do single party campsites This assessment shows that differences are statistically significant at the α=.5 level (Χ =4.67, p<.5) (Table 1). When user groups are compared with campsite type individually, horses and trails do not show significant differences at the p=.5 level. Table 1 illustrates the type of recreation activity that was found to be evident at each of the campsites. A total of 6 campsites were inventoried and 46 of the 6 sites were identified as group campsites and the remainder single sites. Of the group campsites, 6% revealed evidence of recreation trail use, 14% hunting and over 4% cattle. Compared to single campsites, evidence of cattle was found in 5% of the sites. Horses Count % Trails Count % Hunting Count % OHV Count % Cattle Count % Total of Campsites Single campsite Group campsite Total 6 Table 1- Evidence of Recreation use by campsite type The majority of group campsites had evidence of recent use (44 of 46 sites or 95.6%), while only two of the group sites were "not recently used." On the other hand, 48 of 16 single party campsites where not recently used or abandoned (%). The group sites are also more heavily impacted than single party campsites (See Table & Figure 7). The differences between the types of campsite are significant (Χ =17.41, p<.1), as about 1/ of the group sites are heavily impacted (no ground vegetation remaining). In addition, group sites have more evidence of

23 disturbances near by (these differences are significant; Χ =1.8, p<.1). Table is a comparison of campsite condition for single and group sites. The campsite condition class identifies the soil and plant condition of the site. The rating of indicates that the site has not been impacted. Usually this is the case where a fire ring is found among an area where there is no evidence of flattened or trampled vegetation around, showing no disturbance to the site. Such sites may be abandoned or rarely used, and have reestablished from prior disturbance. The rating of 1 indicates that some of the ground vegetation, such as grasses, have been flattened, but not permanently injured. The rating of is given if some of the ground vegetation of the campsite has been lost due to more frequent use, and or soil compaction is evident which inhibits vegetation growth after use of the site. The rating of is given to sites that are devoid of vegetation. This may be the case for frequently used sites, sites under a tree canopy or in a dried creek bed where vegetation is typically sparse. Management intervention usually occurs when campsites fall into the class 4 and 5. Class 4 sites typically lack all vegetation and bare mineral soil is widespread throughout the site. In addition to characteristics found in condition class 4, class 5 sites have tree roots exposed on the surface and soil erosion is significant (>5% of the area) with trees that are reduced in vigor or dead. Sites with condition class 4 & 5 are frequently subjected to some form of rehabilitation, hardening or some other form of aggressive management prescription. Condition Number of Single Sites Number of Group Sites Total Total Table - Campsite condition by campsite type Number of Campsites Single Group Class Class 1 Class Class Campsite Condition Class Figure 7 - Condition of campsites by type

24 Recreation Groups that Frequent LCNCA and Occupy the Campsites? This survey identifies campsites by the type of recreation use they are currently receiving. Indicator of the type of recreation use that frequently uses these sites are estimated based on the presence of trails associated with hiking or mountain biking, evidence of horse use, hunting camps, off-highway vehicle use (OHV), and ca ttle. Becaus e this study seeks to identify campsites, camping activity at these sites should be present in all cases. 165 out of 6 sites or 8.1% revealed evidence of the presence of cattle. Cattle do not constitute a valid recreation group, but it is clear from the high propo rtion of sites with evid ence of cattle, that ranching activity takes place throughout the study area and is a major contributor to some of the impacts found at the campsites. A major component of this survey is to identify recreation use patterns of each recreation group. Who camps where and to what degree are these sites impacted is a major focus of this assessment. It is not just the amount of recreat ion use a site sustains that is important, but the type of use that is occurring on t hat site is an equal predictor of impact. Trails: The presence of trails is not significant. There are no differences between trails and severity of use (i.e., evidence of use, disturbance, or trash), nor are there differences between the topographic or vegetation settings ( α=.1). Horse: Campsites with horse use were associated with a condition of some vegetation loss and soil compaction (11 of 1 or 91.66%), and only 1 site was in a condition of extensive ground vegetation loss (AX). Hunting: More hunting camps were in poor condition, with extensive ground vegetation loss (11 of 7, or 9.7%), compared to non-hunting camps (15 of 16, or 9.%). It appears that hunting camps are used more heavily than other camps (Χ =4.86, p<.5). Hunting campsites show similar patterns. The differences between the percent of bare ground in the hunting campsites (mean = 68.6%) and other sites is not significant (mean = 66.8%) (t=-1.4, df = 5.5, p =.158). However, hunting sites have significantly more bare ground surrounding them (mean = 6.9%) than other sites (mean = 5.%) (t= -.974, df=41.1, p<.1) (See Figure 8). 6 5 C ount 4..1 Proportion per Ba r BARE_SURROUN HUNTING 1 Figure 8 - Histogram of bare ground surrounding campsites with (1) and without () evidence of hunting 4

25 OHV Camps: OHV camps are also used more heavily than non-ohv sites, of which 9 of 1 had extensive loss of ground cover (Χ =8.147, p<.1). In addition, those OHV sites that had evidence of recent use showed a higher prevalence of nearby disturbance (Χ =8.1, p<.5). The reasons why hunting and OHV sites are more extensively impacted are not entirely clear. The average percent of bare ground within the campsite of OHV sites is 65.5% but is not significantly different from other sites (mean = 61.9%) (t=-.477, p=.68). In comparing these two samples of campsites only those sites that were recently used were considered. On average, OHV sites have a higher proportion of bare ground surrounding them (mean = 56.4%) as compared to all other campsites (mean = 8.5%) (See Figure 4), which is significantly different (t=-.57, df=, p=.4) (See Figure 9 & Tables, 4 & 5). 6 5 Count 4..1 Proportion per Bar BARE_SURROUN OHV 1 Figure 9 - Histogram of bare ground surrounding campsites with (1) and without () Evidence of OHV use. Trails Horses Hunting OHV Single party Group Table - Recreation use evidence by site type. Trails Horses Hunting OHV Abandoned 1 Not recently used 1 7 Recently used 7 9 Table 4 - Recreation use by evidence of use. Trails Horses Hunting OHV Not impacted 6 1 Vegetation flattened Some vegetation loss, soil compaction No Evidence of vegetation Table 5 - Recreation use by Site condition. 5

26 Road Proximity: The relationship between road proximity and site size is an important measure for predicting location of campsites and for site-specific management. An assessment of campsite size to proximity of roads clearly illustrates that the further away from the road the campsite is, the smaller and less impacted they are. Figure 1 clearly illustrates this pattern and strongly suggests that those campsites near roads are more heavily used, are used by larger groups and reveal more impact. The road proximity measure does consider small spur roads to campsites as roads, which adds the possibility that large campsites may have spur roads leading directly to them. 1 AREA ROAD_PROXIMI Figure 1 - Road proximity (meters) versus log1 (area m ), which only considers the campsites with evidence of recent use. What Percentage of Campsites has Been Recently Used? Over 77% of all campsites inventoried are single party sites. % are classified as group areas. Of all campsites over 75% of those sampled reveal evidence of recently being used. Some of the % of areas that showed very little recent use are extremely old and campsites that have naturally filled in with vegetation (See Figure 5). How Many Campsites Reveal a High Amount of Development? Over 74% of those sites inventoried contain at least one fire ring while over % contain multiple fire rings. Only % could be classified as heavily developed with a fire ring and other evidence of use such as constructed site furniture. This is very typical of this type of recreation use and is consistent throughout the conservation area (See Figure 1a) 6

27 8% 74% 7% Percentage of Campsites 6% 5% 4% % % % 1% 4% % % No Development High Development Amount of Development at Campsite Figure 1a Amount of Development at Each Campsite What are the Current Conditions of Campsites? The campsite condition ranking is an important m easure from which future management prescriptions can be developed. Out of all the sites inventoried only 1% indicated very little to no impact. Over 56% of all sites fell into a campsite condition class of that is evidenced by percentage of vegetation loss and soil compaction. Most interest is that over 14% of the sites fall into a condition class of three, which has virtually no ground vegetation remaining (See Figure 1b) 6% 57% tes 5% Pe rcentage of Campsi 4% % % 1% 17% 14% 1% % % % Class Class 1 Class Class Class 4 Class 5 Campsite Condition Class Figure 1b Percentage of Campsites for Each Condition Class 7

28 How Many Campsites Contain Some Degree of Impact from Nearby Activities? Disturbance nearby the campsite is defined in this rating as disturbance evidence outside that of the defined campsite boundary. This may include grazing, tree mutilations for firewood, trash, ATV use or extensive trails. Approximately 1% of those campsites inventoried have no disturbance near the campsite. However, over 5% have some degree of disturbance and over 19% would be considered heavily disturbed. Much of this disturbance is evidence of ATV and social trails leading in and out of the campsite. A small percentage can be accounted for by grazing and firewood collection (See Figure 1c). 6% 5% 51% Percentage of Sites 4% % % 1% 18% 1% %.5% No Disturbance Lots of Disturbance Nearby Nearby Degree of Disturbance or Impact of Sites Nearby Figure 1c Percentage of Campsites for Each Condition Class How much trash was found at the Campsites? All indications from a survey of the sites for trash, that generally it is not a huge resource issue but there are specific locations that account for about 8% of those that received a moderate to extensive amounts of trash rating. About 91% of the sites reported either having no trash (67.8%) or a few (1-5 articles)(.4%). Compared to other areas such as Ironwood Forest National Monument, trash at campsites in LCNCA could be considered a minor issue. What Vegetation Types Do the Campsites Tend be Located Near? Over 9% of the campsites are located in the semi-desert grassland. Only.9% of the remaining sites are situated in the oak woodland and the same percentage in riparian areas (.9%). Generally campsites are located where there is some vegetative cover for shade and coincide with the areas dominated by wildlife (See Figure 1d). 8

29 1% 9% 8% 9% 78% 7% 6% 5% 4% % 47% % 1% % 1% % 1% 4% 4% 9% 1% Acacia constricta Alligator Juniper Chilopsis linearis Fraxinus velutina Juniper Percentage of Sites Platanus wrightii Populus fremontii Prosopis Velutina Quercus dunnii Salix gooddingii Dominant Vegetation Around Campsites Figure 1d Percentage of Campsites for Each Condition Class What are the Critical Indicators of Campsite Impact? Th e amount of bare ground and vegetation under story removal or impact (grass and shrubby material), and distance from roads or routes are prime indicators of campsite impact. There is a direct correlation between percentage of under story vegetation removal or disappearance and bare ground to the degree of impact recorded at each of the sites. These two indicators are directly correlated with how far back from a road the campsite is located. The closer that campsite is located to a road, the higher percentage of bare ground was observed, more vegetation had been removed, the more likely there was a series of social trails and the larger the size of the campsite and impacted area. Summary Some findings can be extracted from the campsite inventory work. They are as follows: Visitor use at LCNCA is dispersed and impacts are relatively few and situated only at established recreation or campsites There are many dispersed campsites that show signs of recently being used. Most of these sites are not newly created, but have been established for a number of years. Most of the campsites reside within close proximity of the access routes throughout the conservation area. Indications are these campsites are used by hunters who use this area seasonally. Impacts at campsites are consistent. The amount of bare ground, removal of vegetation under story (grass and shrubby material) along with close proximity from roads are prime indicators of campsite impact. A majority of the campsites fall into a condition two ranking which has some, but minimal soil and vegetation impact. This ranking does not yet warrant a strong management prescription for rehabilitation of campsites. 9

30 Monitoring Visitor Flows and Patterns of Use in LCNCA Conventional survey and interview methodologies used to characterize the recreation experience have yi elded useful information about the visitor. While this information is important to understanding the general profile of visitors to a region, it does little to enhance our understanding of the spatial/temporal distribution of a visitor and their associated social and ecological impacts in the landscape. Managers require information on the spatial nature of the visitor to adequately manage for both the experience and to protect the recreation setting. This information includes the destination, arrival and departure times, number of visitors in a party, type of activity, nights camping etc. These spatial dynamic parameters likewise are imperative for constructing models to represent current conditions and testing out future management scenarios to reduce social and ecological impacts in a setting. Some researchers have attempted over the years to collect such data in recreation settings. Some have concluded that the most accurate visitor use data comes from self-issued or mandatory permit systems. This method can be one of the most effective ways for understanding recreational use in most recreation areas. While compliance varies from recreation area to recreation area, mandatory permit systems far outweigh trail registers or other forms of data collection. While observing a sample of trailheads on sample days produces accurate estimates of those entering the area, it is labor and time intensive and tends to lead to a limited sample. Other recreation areas have gone to agency-issued pe rmits. While h aving some disadvantages such as inconveniencing the visitor and being expensive to manage, this system does provide a mechanism for ensuring the visitor comes in to the agency office to pick up the permit and provide information about where they plan to go. While each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages, the sampling methodology in this study employs a combination of techniques for acquiring an accurate, representative sample of both spatial and temporal use patterns in LCNCA. The methodology for this research utilizes a combination of automated counter pad and traffic count devices in conjunction with visitor diary/surveys and observation for examining visitor flows and patterns of use. Automated technologies used for counting vehicles and visitors provide information on time of arrival at trailheads or key access points and overall numbers of ranch residents and visitors entering and exiting the conservation area. A visitor survey was used to obtain more specific information on the nature of the visit. This information includes characterization of the visitor (i.e. number in party, mode of transportation, identification of destinations visited, duration and preferred travel route to destination). The visitor survey provided attitudinal data on preferences, experiences and satisfaction levels resulting from the visit. Random observations during peak periods were used to provide verification on traffic and visitor patterns and overall visitor numbers at specific locations. The traffic and visitor flow data in conjunction with the survey data will provide information imperative for planning and management of the conservation area. In addition, this same data were used to characterize travel patterns, visitors and their interactions to build a simulation model that replicates visitor flow patterns in LCNCA. A Self-Administered Survey was used to capture visitor use patterns and attitudinal data in LCNCA. Sampling was undertaken between December 1, and September 1,. Four self-administered survey stations were strategically placed at main entrances and known entry points to the conservation area and associated where possible with Bureau of Land Management information signage where maps and location information about the conservation area can be found. In addition, where possible, survey stations were placed near trail or traffic counter pads (Trail and Traffic Counters) so that survey responses where possible, could be linked to counter times recorded on the data logger. The counter pads would inform the team as to when the party

31 arrived and the surveys, where they went and attitudinal information about their trip and responses to issues surrounding the conservation area. Because of the high number of access points, the potential danger of encountering drug traffickers or coyotes guiding illegal aliens, the anticipated low use levels, visitor contact or interviews were considered a less effective sampling strategy than using a self administered survey. Visitors that stopped at entry points to read informative signage could pick up a survey, read the instructions associated with how to fill out the survey and either de posit it in the station while leaving the conservation area of mail it back to the contact information provided on the survey. With little known information about how many visitors enter the conservation area on an annual basis, the survey stations were kept full and a return rate of 5-4% was expected (See Appendix 5 for a copy of the survey). The purpose of the survey/diary was to acquire information on visitor experiences and concerns as well as to acquire information on a map as to where they went while visiting the LCNCA. Questions in the survey were targeted as acquiring information on when visitors entered and exited the area, how many were in the party, where they were from, if they were a seasonal visitor to Arizona, how often and/or was this the first time they visited this area, how they found out about the area, which seasons they prefer to visit the area and days of the week they visit this area. Some questions regarding contacts with other visitors were asked to determine how many other visitors they encountered and what they were doing. Some awareness questions regarding the responsibility of packing out trash and presence of dogs are well as whether they were aware this was a National Conservation Area. More specific questions were asked to determine the type of recreation activity, mode of travel and the satisfaction level of the experience and some indication of their awareness of issues and problems with the LCNCA. Short intercept interviews and observations were undertaken randomly over the duration of the sampling. Twice a month on period days (Saturday or Sunday) during the peak months October thru May, members of the research team were stationed at access points to the conservation area where vehicles had to slow down to enter the area to both count and document time of entry and/or exit and to intercept those who stopped to ask them to complete a survey. These intercepts and observations were done to aid in validating the times and events logged by the trail and traffic counters and to provide and acquire information from the visitor. Trail and traffic counters where used to assess numbers of vehicles entering and exiting the area and at key locations throughout the conservation area. This information is essential in assessing sample and return rates and understanding volume rates. Focus group meetings were held periodically throughout the sampling period. A variety of recreation groups were invited in to talk about how they as visitors utilize the conservation area. Groups were provided with markers and maps and asked to describe how they utilized the conservation area. Response rate, Sampling Size and confidence levels A sampling strategy was be designed to limit sampling error to +/- 6% at the 95% confidence interval; an acceptable level of sampling error in management-driven social science research. The sampling strategy is based on the following equation to determine a statistically representative sample size. Where: N= the population size NP(1-P) (N-1)(W/Z)² + P(1-P) 1

32 P= the largest percentage of any category (5% is the worse case) W=tolerated sampling error (acceptable error rates are -.5%) Z=the critical value for normal distribution (1.96 for 95% confidence level) The confidence interval (CI) is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a confidence interval of 4 and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer you can be "sure" that if you had asked the question of the entire relevant population between 4% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked that answer. The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the confidence interval. The 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can be 99% certain. Survey Surveys Return Rates Response Rates Sample Size CI = (6%) Self-Administered Diary % 144 Mailed Hunter Survey 19 4% 19 Table 5a: Survey Return Rates For the visitor sampling at LCNCA, sampling rates were calculated at the 95% confidence level using a 6% confidence interval. Using the sampling formula described previously, a return rate of 144 self-administered diaries and 1 mail back hunter surveys were required to obtain a statistically significant sample. Table 5a illustrates the return rates for both surveys. 14 self - administered diaries were returned which provided a 6% response rate. While just short of the desired 144 surveys this is an adequate and representative sample. Likewise with the mail back hunter survey. 19 surveys were returned provid8ing a 4% response rate. The hunter survey met the minimum sample size to provide a statistically valid sample. What is the Typical Size of the Parties who Visitor LCNCA? No large user groups were reported in the surveys, and all of the respondents were part of parties of 5 or less. The median party size was (average =.77), with a considerable number of 1 and person parties. Where do the Visitors who Visit LCNCA Typically Reside? Over 95% of the visitors who responded to the survey indicated that they reside within a relatively close proximity or traveling distance to the area. Less that 5% of respondents indicated that they were seasonal or winter visitors who visit the area while touring Southern Arizona. What is the Frequency of Visits to LCNCA? Most of the respondents indicated that they visit LCNCA less than times per month. One respondent indicated that they visited the area 5 times a week; however, this visitor probably uses the area seasonally (question 5 indicates a different permanent residence). Some of the OHV users report visiting the area quite frequently. One respondent visits the area times a month to ride ATVs, while another camps in the area and rides a motorcycle (and target shoots) for 8 days a year. Thirty percent of the respondents indicated that their trip report represents the first time they had visited the area. It is interesting that % visited for the first time in the last years. Almost half (47%) of the respondents had visited for the first time in the last years. Perhaps more

33 experienced users of these areas are less likely to stop and pick up or fill out a trip report (See Figure 11) First Visits s dent Respon Figure 11 The Number of First Visits to LCNCA How Do Visitors Typically Learn about LCNCA? Thirty-two percent of the respondents indicated they learned about LCNCA via Word-of-Mouth (%). Of these, a small percent indicated respondents they learned of the area through a map, and some while driving in the area and through birding guidebooks. Only 8% were attracted by the new status of the study area as a National Conservation Area. What are the Preferred Months for Visiting LCNCA? Visitor sampling was undertaken between December 1, and September 1,. An analysis of data between these months reveals that the preferred months for visiting to LCNCA are as would be expected in the desert environments between the months of November and April. This pattern is consistent with most other public land settings in the desert Southwest where visitation is most prevalent in the winter months and tapers off du ring the hot summer months. There is also an apparent pattern of higher visitation on weekend days. In fact, Saturday and Sunday appear to be the most preferred days, but this may be due to biases in our small sample (See Figures 1 & 1). Visitation by Month % of Rrespondents J Fe anuary bruary March 4.59 April May June July August Sept O ember ctober Figure 1 The Number of Visitors by Month No vember December

34 Figure 1 The Number of Visitors by Day What Percent of Visitors Typically Are Encountered in LCNCA? This is a measure of the total number of users that the respondents encountered as travel through or spend time in LCNCA. Most of the respondents who answered this question observed between 1-4 visitors. Eighty three percent of the respondents encountered at least one visitor while visiting the area. Of those encounters, most were with a less than 5 visitors. This is extremely low as in many high use areas there could be hundreds of contacts on a daily basic. Crowding is not an issue in LCNCA. Did Encounter Levels have a negative Effect on a Visitor s Experience? While encounters in many recreation settings is an indicator of crowding and can lead to an unsatisfactory experience, this was not the case in LCNCA. None of the respondents indicated their experience had been effected by too many visitors to LCNCA. The dispersed nature of recreation and the fact that most visitors drive through LCNCA or to a particular destination, may account for the fact that encounter levels are relatively low. The majority of the encounters involved driving, and ATV/OHV use. It is likely that the encounters taking place along the roads or trails are the most frequent, which inflates or makes motorized travel the most conspicuous. Recalling the campsite distributions, many of the campsites are located very close to, or within sight of the roads. Perhaps the encounters respondents had with campers are limited to seeing a campsite from a road. Did Visitors to LCNCA Remove Trash from Campsites? Over ninety two percent of visitors to LCNCA knew enough to pack out their trash. Trash was not cited as a major management problem in the area. While some comments referred to trash allegedly left behind from illegal entrants crossing LCNCA, this does not appear to be a major problem as viewed by all visitors to the area. 4

35 Are Visitors to LCNCA Attracted because of its Status as a NCA? Since the area was designated as a National Conservation area it was thought that perhaps visitors would be drawn to the area because of this status. However only thirty percent of those visitors who responded to this question acknowledged that they were attracted to the area due to this designation. This is not significant. This is probably due to the fact that LCNCA it is not currently being marketed as a major attraction or popular destination in the Southwest. How Many Visitors Bring Dogs to LCNCA? Most of those visitors to LCNCA indicated that they do not bring their dogs. Of those respondents who did indicate that they did, reasons such as for pleasure/companionship and for hunting were noted. Modes of Travel Used s nt ponde of res % WD other car van ATV foot motorcycle non-4w D SUV bicycle bus horse Figure 14 - The Modes of Travel Visitors Used During Visits to LCNCA Common Modes of Transportation That Visitors Use in the LCNCA? Over seventy percent of those visitors to LCNCA travel in four-wheel drive vehicles, cars or pickup trucks. No one in this study reported using buses or horses in the area (See Figure 14 and Table 6. 5

36 Mode of Travel Percent 4WD 41.9% Car.9% Pickup 9.% Van 6.9% ATV 6.9% Foot 6.9% SUV 6.9% Motorcycle 4.6% Motor home 4.6% Non-4WD SUV.% Bicycle.% WD pickup.% Truck/trailer.% 4WD SUV.% Table 6- Summary of Travel Modes of Visits to LCNCA Preferred Recreation Activities Practiced by Visitors to LCNCA? The most popular activities represented by the numbers of respondents who indicated at least one day of participation in Las Cienegas are sightseeing, hiking/walking/running, and viewing birds and wildlife. If the number of visitor/days (total number of days each of the activities are practiced), RV and car camping, sightseeing, target practice, and off-highway motorcycle use account for more than 45 visitor-days each. These 5 activities make up more than half of the 4 visitor days, this survey represents. None of the respondents indicated participation in any of the following activities: pack trips, mountain or rock climbing, model airplane/rockets, orienteering, foot races, specialized sports, flying ultra light aircraft, viewing wildflowers, hunting fowl, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, javelina, fishing, and OHV-dune buggy use (See Table 7). What was the Overall Level of Visitor Satisfaction in the LCNCA? The respondents were overwhelmingly positive about their experience in Las Cienegas. Over nine ty seven percent of those visitors sampled were satisfied with their experience in the area. However, the visitor comments that were collected are an important mechanism for visitors to expres s their complaints, or negative aspects of their experience in the area. Included in Table 8 are some comments that were obtained from the survey that addresses problem situations. The comments focus on lack of signage, too much trash, access and issues surrounding grazing. 6

37 Recreation Activity Type Camping-RV Sightseeing Target practice Camping-car OHV-motorcycle Backpacking OHV-ATV Hunting-deer Hike/walk/run Hunting-small game Pleasure driving-4wd Hunting-upland birds Photography Viewing birds/wildlife Picnicking Hunting-big game Pleasure driving-passenger car Bicycling-mountain Archery Horseback riding Nature study Pleasure driving-high clearance vehicle Dog trials Gathering non-commercial products Racing-horse endurance Rock hounding/mineral collection Social Festival Total Visitor Days Spent on Activity 51 days 49 days 49 days 47 days 47 days 9 days 1 days days 8 days 6 days 1 days days 17 days 16 days 14 days 1 days 9 days 8 days 7 days 5 days 4 days 4 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day Table 7 - Number of Visitor Days Spent on Each Recreation Activity Summary of Visitor Comments Up-to-date map of the area is required Lots of evidence of over-grazing Openness, grassland and beautiful scenery are reasons for visiting Roads need maintenance Marked hiking trails Signage needed Lots of trash and clothing left behind [associated with illegal immigrant activity]. Table 8 - Visitor Comments from Survey What are the Major Problems Identified by Visitors in the LCNCA? Illegal immigrant activity and lack of Visitor Information ranked as the top two problems as identified by the visitors. Garbage dumping, while not as highly ranked as the top two, is 7

38 associated primarily with illegal activity. A number of comments from visitors identified trash left behind from illegal activity as problematic. The lack of visitor information can be addressed immediately in the management plan for the area. What Factors Do Visitors Cite as Important to the Recreational Experience? In LCNCA, the factors that visitors cite as being most important to their recreational experience are enjoying the scenery, feeling a part of the natural environment, and peace and quiet/feeling of remoteness. Getting away from motorized vehicles is also an important factor that contributes to a quality recreation experience. There is also significant agreement in the factors that are considered less important to a visitor s recreation experience. These are commonly cited reasons for visits to areas such as the LCNCA. Getting out, exploring the landscape, quiet, peacefulness and solitude are all common factors that visitors seek out and engage in. Obtaining these attributes during a visit to a place like LCNCA is imperative to plan and manage for (See Tables 1 & 1). Recreation Experience Factor Rank Enjoying the scenery 1 Feeling a part of the natural environment Peace and quiet/feeling of remoteness Getting away from motorized vehicles 4 Getting away from other people 5 Being with friends and family 6 Getting away from demands of day-to-day life 7 Releasing tension and anxiety 8 To keep in shape physically 8 Experiencing new challenges 9 Improving skills 1 Testing skills and abilities 11 Using motorized vehicles and equipment 1 Using primitive outdoor skills 1 Making a campfire 14 Using All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) 15 Taking risks 16 Getting meat for the table 17 Interacting with other people, making friends 18 Table 9 - Reasons for Visiting LCNCA Other important factors Visiting national conservations and parks Signed hiking trail (AZ Trail) Recreational development Opportunity to watch birds and wildlife - very, very important I appreciate that LCNCA NCA is open to hunting Being able to enjoy wildlife Table 1 - Other factors Cited By Visitors Important to Their Recreation Experience 8

39 Summary of Visitor Survey Peak Season through Winter Months Excellent distribution of visitors over the month with peak days being weekends Many visitors do not have any idea that this is a National Conservation Area Many visitors have never been to the National Conservation Area before so they are not repeat visitors. For a majority it is their first or second visit A majority of visitors come to the area in 4WD personal vehicles. Currently there is virtually no bus tours and very little commercial activity in the area Of those to travel to the National Conservation Area most are engaged in either hiking/walking to observe and engage in nature or spend a majority of their time driving around the roads. Hunting, shooting and OHV use are still predominant activities. Most visitors cite reasons for their visit similar to other studies that relate to experiencing nature, stress release and physical activity. Illegal Immigrant Activities and their associated impacts are identified as the major problems for management of LCNCA. The solitude side of the recreation experience is consistently identified as an important factor for visitors coming to LCNCA Lack of Information at the LCNCA was cited as a problem for the upcoming planning and management of the area. What are the Typical Travel Patterns of Visitors in LCNCA? Capturing descriptive and attitudinal data from visitors provides some beneficial information for managers who are interested in the type of activities visitors engage in, and some basic characteristics and attitudes to management prescriptions. But this information tells us very little about where, when, how long and to what degree visitors move and interact with the landscape. In this study there was an interest to not only understand the characteristics of the visitor but to acquire a more detailed set of information on the visitor use which includes traffic flow patterns and intensity of these flows overtime. Visitors were asked to draw on a map the routes they followed, the places they entered LCNCA, stopped and/or any particular destinations they may have visited. All routes reported by the visitors were entered in ArcView GIS by mode of transportation to examine what transportation and/or activity type used the routes and in particular, how often. The assumption was that if there was a concentrated amount of use from a variety of modes of transportation, the more focus these routes should receive for planning and management. If routes had negligible reported use levels and were evaluated in the route inventory as having been abandoned or cow trails, then less priority would be justified for continued use and management. The following Figures 15 through 17 illustrated the reported mode of transportation and frequency. Figure 15 illustrates all visitors that reported using car or van wd or 4WD vehicles to travel in the LCNCA. An examination of this figure clearly reveals the pattern of use by these travel modes. Not all routes in the LCNCA receive equal amount of use. The major routes entering from highway 8 or 8 reported the heaviest visitor use levels. There are many insignificant routes that receive no reported use. The 4WD vehicles traverse many of the primitive routes in the region. 9

40 In summary, from those who reported their trips to us and mapped them on the survey, it is readily apparent that trips in and out of the LCNCA are not equally distributing across all of the transportation routes. There are two preferred entrances and one preferred route that account for about 6-7% of all visitor-traveled routes in the LCNCA. This is significant considering all the routes that were inventoried and reported earlier in this report. While there are random activities occurring throughout the LCNCA, there are a number of recreation sites that have been established within easy reach of the major trip routes. 4

41 Figure 15 - Reported Trips Traveling Through LCNCA 41

42 Figure 16 - All Reported Trips by Mode of Travel Through LCNCA (thickness of travel line depicts the intensity of use) 4

43 Figure 17 - Reported Encounter levels with Others in LCNCA 4

44 How Many Visitors Come to LCNCA Annually? An estimated number of 8, to 1, visitors enter LCNCA per year. This study acknowledges that other minor entrances can provide access to LCNCA for visitors, but most do so via the two entrances monitored during the period of time this study was undertaken. The estimate number of annual visitors takes into account residents who live and work within the LCNCA boundary. Since counters were placed at strategic locations in the LCNCA, it is possible to estimate the number of ranch residents (ie. Empire Ranch) that travel in and out of the LCNCA on a daily basis and these could be subtracted from the total number of estimated visits. However, since ranch residents are utilizing the LCNCA just like other visitors, they were considered to impact the resource and other visitors just like those that visit the area. Continued monitoring over several years will provide more accurate estimates of visitor use levels. What is the Distribution of Visitors Entering and Exiting the LCNCA? In addition to the map and survey information gathered in this study, additional methods were sought to obtain estimated visitor use in LCNCA. Seven Hobo Vibration Sensors were attached to cattle grates to monitor visitor use levels (See Figure 18 for spatial location of counters installed for the entire sampling period). Sensors were placed in LCNCA at two entrance points (Highway 8 & Entrance from Highway 8) to estimate visitor use levels in the conservation area. The other five counters were placed in LCNCA to estimate visitor use levels within the interior (49pad, 49Wash, Empire, Hum and Oak tree). Table 11 shows the beginning and ending of the sampling period, the number of days the counters actually recorded data, the total number of monitoring days in the sampling period, the number of arrivals from the counters and counts/day. The actual visitor days was calculated by dividing the number of arrivals by two to more closely reflect double counting of visitors who entered and exited the conservation area in a vehicle. So rather than double count the arrivals were divided in half. Now this does not guarantee the visitors who entered the area, exited from the same location, but it does provide a more realistic picture of actual visitor use numbers. To estimate visitor use levels using counter devices there are a set of steps that need to be followed. Due to some anticipated inaccuracies of the counting devices such as visitors not directly striking the pad and not being recorded, it is important to first calculate the average inflation factor that were used to calculate the total estimated use. The average inflation factor is usually expressed as a ratio. For example if the number of observed hikers over a designated sample period is 1 and the actual recorded counts are 68, then the monitor accuracy captured, expressed as a ratio is: 1/1.47 =.68 or 68% of all users that passed by this location. Given this inflation factor and other problems related to acquiring a representative sample, to estimate the total visitor use and compute an approximate 95% confidence interval (CI) for this value the following relationships are used: T is the total estimated use; N S is the total number of days in the sampling period; n is the total days monitored; ŕ is the average ratio (inflation factor), t is the total monitor count; Var is the variance; SE is the standard error: B is bound; CI is confidence interval. The following formulas are used to calculate visitor estimates. Formulas for Calculating Visitor Use Estimates Step 1) T = (N S /n) * ( ŕ ) * ( t ) Step ) Var ( ŕ ) = SE [( ŕ )] Step ) Var (T) = (N S /n) * ( t ) * Var ( ŕ ) Step 4) B= * Step 5) CI= T + B Var (T)) 44

45 The following is an example of how to calculate visitor use estimates for Site X. If a counter was installed and 1 visitors were observed traveling across the pad over a specified sampling period. All times were recorded for these observations and the data from the counters were downloaded and compared to the observed data. The actual count from the counter was 68. A value can be computed for this comparison and expressed as a ratio such as 1/1.47 =.68 or expressed another way, 68% of all users that passed by this location were captured on the counter. Using the total number of sample days for the entire study was 75, the total number of days of actual monitoring was 55 and the standard error for the monitor is.189, using the total monitor visitor count over the monitoring period of 5 an estimate of visitor use can be calculated. Given these parameters the following calculations were made to estimate visitor use at the 95% confidence level. Step 1) (75/55) * (1.47) * (5) = 9,996 Step ) (.189) = (.57) Step ) (75/55) * (5) * (.57) = 1,659,157 Step 4) * 1,659,157 = * 188 =,576 Step 5) ,576 = 7,4, 1,57 The total estimate use for Site X was and approximately 95% confident that the true total number of visits is between 7,4 and 1,57. Number of Monitoring Days (n) Total Number of Days (Ns) Sampling Period Number of Counts/ Location Begin End Arrivals Day 49pad 4// 5/4/ Wash /4/ 5/4/ // 1/9/ Empire // 7/17/ Entrance 4// /9/ Hum /4/ 5/4/ Oak tree /4/ 7/8/ Table 11 - Mechanical Counter Pads used for Visitor Monitoring at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Actual Visitor Use (t) Sampling Period 95% Confidence Level Location Begin End Estimated Visitor Use Low High 49pad 4// 5/4/4,46 1,8,96 49Wash /4/ 5/4/4 8,1 6,4 1, 8 // 1/9/ 1,96 8,1 1,71 Empire // 7/17/ 1, ,9 Entrance 4// /9/4 1,64 1,15 17,149 Hum /4/ 5/4/4 4,6,14 5,1 Oak tree /4/ 7/8/ 5,69 4,189 7,89 Table 1 - Visitor Use and associated estimates within the 95% confidence level 45

46 Estimating Visitor Use Levels in LCNCA Visitor sampling of vehicular traffic occurred between February, and May 4, 4. Number of actual days of monitoring varied from 51 to 6, depending on the functionality of the counters. In some situations, counters were displaced, batteries had to be replaced etc. so a 1% sample could not be obtained during that time period. The data illustrated in Table 11 provides information on the location, number of days actually monitored, total number of days in the monitoring period and number of arrivals that occurred on those counters during the sampling period. The data extracted from the counter at the entrance from highway 8 reveals 958/=4754 vehicles entering LCNCA throughout the sampling period. Using the data illustrated in Table 11 visitor estimates can be calculated that take into account counter errors, missed days and can be used to accurately assess visitor use at full capacity for the period sampled. This assessment is presented in Table 1. Note in particular the low and high visitor use estimates calculated at the 95% confidence level. The sensor at 8 for example has an estimated use of 4754 for the sampling period but when adjusted for errors and used to estimate LCNCA at full capacity, estimates can range from 8,1 to 1,71. Likewise the sensor placed at the entrance of Highway 8 showing actual counts of 4, when used to estimate use at full capacity provides a slightly higher level of use that ranges between 1,15 and 17,149. It is safe to opt for the lower use estimates of 8,1 and 1,15. Overall, given the visitor estimates from the two counters leading into the conservation area, it is apparent that annual use levels in the LCNCA range between 8,1 and 1,15 visitors arriving by vehicle annually. While the mechanical devices cannot detect the differences between mountain bikes, vehicles, OHV, ranch residents or ranchers that live within the conservation area s boundary, they do account for and estimate total use along the major routes. Separating out the ranch residents from visitors would be impractical and would not reflect the degree of activity in the conservation area nor the number of encounters that would occur on a daily basis and affect a visitors experience in the area. Below are the hourly, daily and weekday patterns of use summarized for all counters. In addition a more detailed analysis of the counts from the Entrances off Highway 8 and 8. In appendix B, the remainder of the analysis was found for each of the additional counters placed in the field. Figure 19 shows a temporal distribution of visitor use throughout the season. Aside from peak holiday periods (Easter, 4 th of July) which show dramatic spikes in visitor use, there are some interesting patterns that clearly do not coincide with the season of which hunters frequent the area. Hunters reported using LCNCA in spring and fall. This may be explained by the relatively short sampling period that has occurred. Once data has been collected over an entire season this pattern may look more like that found with visitors and hunters to reported the times of the year they frequent the conservation area. Figure shows very consistent daily patterns of visitor use that would be expected in the desert southwest. Visitors are consistently arriving at 5:-6:am, peaking by noon and then subsiding between 6:-7:pm, before nightfall. 46

47 Figure 18 - The Location and Place of Mechanical Counting Devices in LCNCA 47

48 Total Daily Arrivals / /15 4/4 4/4 5/14 6/ 6/ Number of Arrivals 7/1 8/ Day of Year Figure 19 - Illustrates the patterns of use across all mechanical counters throughout the Entire sampling period. Total Hourly Arrivals Number of Arrivals Hour of Day Figure - Hourly Arrivals for All Counters Used in the Sampling Period 48

49 As is typical of the recreation use in many settings, LCNCA obtains more of its visitor use during the weekends. Figure 1 shows a clear pattern of increased use on Saturdays and Sundays with some very consistent weekday. What is clear from the counter data is that there are consistent patterns of recreation use over the season. Even more apparent is that the conservation area is receiving a relatively low degree of use. From the analysis of the visitor use data, a majority of the visitors drive along the major routes. This will be more apparent in the synthesis of the mapping of routes the typify visitor use patterns. 5 Arrivals by Weekday Number of Arrivals Mon Tue Wed 4 Thu 5 Fri 6 Sat 7 Sun. Figure 1- Weekday Arrivals in Las Cienegas National Conservation Area for All Counters Presented in this section of the report is the overall number of visitors recorded by all counters by hourly, daily and weekday. In addition a more detailed analysis of the counts from the Entrances off Highway 8 and 8. Both of these counters received the highest amount of use. In appendix B, the remainder of the analysis was found for each of the additional counters placed in the field. Arrivals at Entrance Off Highway 8 The entrances off highways 8 and 8 receive a significant amount of traffic. Given that these are entrances to the LCNCA, this would be expected. However, the numbers of visitors entering and exiting through these areas typify a majority of the visitor use patterns in LCNCA. Over 6% of those visitors that enter the LCNCA either do so through either one of these entrances. This pattern typifies the use patterns in the LCNCA. 49

50 Total Hourly Arrivals 5 Number of Arrivals Hour of Day Figure - Hourly Arrivals at the Highway 8 Entrance Monthly Arrivals by Year F M A M J J Figure - Monthly Arrivals at the Highway 8 Entrance for Sampled Period 5

51 Figures through 5 illustrate the total hourly, monthly, weekday and weekly arrivals over the sampling period. LCNCA. There is an obvious but consistent pattern of visitor use starting in February and tapering off during the summer hot periods. The hourly arrivals typify this type of daily pattern where arrivals start at 5: AM and last through until 8: PM. Arrivals by Weekday Number of Arrivals Mon Tue Wed 4 Thu 5 Fri 6 Sat 7 Sun Figure 4 - Weekday Arrivals at the Highway 8 Entrance Weekly Arrivals by Year Figure 5 - Weekly Arrivals by Year at the Highway 8 Entrance 51

52 Arrivals at Entrance Off Highway 8 Similar to the Entrance off Highway 8, the entrance off Highway 8 receives the second most use. The total hourly arrival patterns for the sampling period are consistent with those from the counters placed off Highway 8. Arrivals or departures begin at 5:am and taper off at 8: pm. This is a typical arrival/departure pattern for areas that receive a high amount of day use. Total Hourly Arrivals Number of Arrivals Hour of Day Figure 6 - Hourly Arrival Patterns of Vehicles Entering the Entrance off Highway 8 Arrivals by Weekday Number of Arrivals Sun Mon Tue 4 Wed 5 Thur 6 Fri 7 Sat Figure 7 - Weekday Arrivals of Vehicles Enter ing the Entran ce off Highway 8 5

53 Summary Counter pad data provides an extensive amount of information on numbers of visitors entering and leaving LCNCA. The counters have also been placed at strategic locations in the conservation area to measure the numbers of visitors traveling within the boundaries. All this information can be used to estimate distribution of visitors and provide arrival/departure information for the agent based simulations discussed later. At present, the counter technology cannot discern the differences between modes of transportation (ie. mountain bikes, hikers, cars, trucks, ATV s etc.). In addition, since the various counting devices were installed and utilized in this study, there are now ways to compute directionality that would improve the reliability and validity of the total counts outlined in Table 11. It can be concluded from this section of the report that approximately 8-1, visitors enter and leave the LCNCA annually. It is hard to say at this point whether that is a significant or critical number of visitors, but with this study as a baseline, future studies can continue the monitoring and evaluate such increases and determine the capacity for the area. Where Did the Recreation Groups go when visiting the LCNCA? In, a series of focus group meetings were held with local clubs and organizations that utilize LCNCA for recreation. These groups were the Hang gliders, Huachuca Hiking Club, Saguaro Brittney Club, Tucson Audubon, Orienteering, Rough Riders and the Tucson Saddle Club. The purpose of these focus group meetings were to obtain more detailed information on any special events these gro ups held annually and most importantly to have them identify where they typically go in LCNCA for their recreation outings. For each of the focus group meetings, a map was provided to the group and they were asked to mark any significant places they visit and in particular how they travel through the conservation area. Figures 9 provide a view of all the groups and their recorded use of LCNCA. Of all the recreation groups, the Tucson Orienteering club has identified large amount of spatial requirements for their activities in LCNCA. Other groups have identified more specific locations or destinations where they travel to and these tend to be much smaller. Aside from what opportunities exist for recreation at LCNCA, understanding the physical/spatial requirements for each of recreation currently using the area is important. Figure 9 illustrates the interaction of all recreation groups in LCNCA. All spatial requirements for the recreation groups were combined to assess where the commonly used areas in LCNCA. The darker the color the more of the recreation activities overlap. Most apparent from this assessment is the area that is commonly used by the hang gliders as a runway. It is also used by large groups as a campsite for the roughriders, saddle club etc. This area is well known among the recreation groups as it is at the crossroads to many of the recreation areas in LCNCA. This area is currently impacted due to heavy vehicular use. This is an area that could be extremely important in the management plan to develop some type of permanent facility for day and overnight use. 5

54 Figure 9 - Summary of Mapping Exercise with Each of the Recreation Groups (The Darker the Color the More of the Recreation Activities Overlap in the LCNCA) 54

55 Survey of Local Hunters A mail back survey was conducted during the Summer to acquire specific information from the hunting groups that frequented Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. A comprehensive list of home addresses were obtained from Arizona Game and Fish for those hunters that had applied for a hunting tag for the season in the LCNCA area. The survey was mailed to each one with instructions to fill out the map and a set of questions. The purpose of the hunter survey was to obtain information on when the hunt occurred, the number of hunters in the party, how many months in the year were used for hunting, did they camp while hunting, type of hunting activity they received a tag for, how often they visited the area, typical length of stay and most importantly on a map where they camped and hunted. The research team was particularly interested in frequency of visit, where they hunted and camped. This information was used to augment the campsite inventory carried out during the same period of time. The focus was on which campsite were used by hunting parties versus other recreation groups using the area. A total number of (n=) surveys were sent out to those hunters who had applied for a hunting tag. A total number of (n=19) complete surveys were returned. In addition (n=7) surveys were returned that did not receive a tag to hunt for the year. Overall there was a 6% return rate on the surveys. This response rate was exceptional and considered to be a valid and representative sample (See Appendix 4 for Survey). What Type of Game Do Hunters Target in LCNCA? The survey identifies several categories of game on LCNCA. They include big game, small game, upland birds, waterfowl, deer, Javelina and mountain lion. Deer and big game are the most popular for hunters, while considerable numbers hunt Javelina, small game, and upland birds (See Figure & Table 1). These categories may overlap to some degree. It would be worth looking into how hunting licenses are issued, and what types of hunting activities are permitted under these licenses. Other major activities reported by hunters are dog trials, driving all-terrain vehicles, car/truck camping, and picnicking Hunting-Big Game Hunting-Small Game Hunting- Upland Birds Hunting- Waterfowl Hunting-Deer Hunting- Desert bighorn sheep Hunting- Javelina Huntingain Mount lion es hunter respons Figure - Hunting activities reported by the survey respondents 55

56 Activity Mean of Days Hunting-Deer 6.4 Hunting-Big Game 5. Dog Trials.9 OVH-All-terrain vehicle. Camping-Car/Truck.8 Camping-Motor home/rv.1 Picnicking. Hunting-Small Game 1.4 OHV-Motorcycle 1.4 Hunting- Javelina 1. Sightseeing 1.1 Pleasure driving-four wheel drive 1.1 Hiking/Walking/Running 1. Ta ble 1 - Mean number of days of major activities (those activities practiced more than 1 day; mean >1) What Percentage of the Hunters Camped Over night in LCNCA? The ma jority of the respondents camped in the area (n=8) or 64%. Of the respondents who camped in the area, 98 nights were spent car or truck camping and 14 nights were spent in a motor h ome or RV (n=14). Most of the respondents who camped in the area spent nights in the area (See Figure 1). Only two parties spent more than 7 days at a time in the area pondent nights sum of res Motorhome/RV Car/Truck Backpacking nights Figure 1 - Number of Nights Each Type of Camping Practiced by Respondents 56

57 What are the most Popular Hunting Times of the Year in LCNCA? Hunting in Las Cienegas varies by month and by day of the week. While there are no months or days of the week without hunting activity, hunting trips are very high during certain times of the year (See Figure ). This has a lot to do with hunting seasons as defined by the Department of Game and Fish. While hunters use the area every day of the week, peak hunting days are Friday through Sunday, with nearly 85% of the respondents reported using the area on a Saturday. number of respondents January February March April May June July Au gust Septe mber Octo ber Nove mber Dece mber Figure - Hunter Use of LCNCA by Month How Frequently Do Hunters Visit LCNCA and what is the Size of the Typical Party? Although use of the area was reported for all months of the year, most respondents used the area during only one month (6%). In addition, most respondents reported using the area once a year (5.85%) with only (1%) using the area twice a year. As would be expected hunting seems to be occurring in relatively small parties of - (5.7%) or 4-5 (4.%), (See Figure ). There is always a question about group size and preferred hunting practices in many recreation settings. Do hunters who arrive alone, prefer to hunt alone or do they join other groups for the social benefits hunting has to offer? This question does have management implications as larger groups tend to congregate together at night, travel in larger groups and potentially have more impact than an individual. An analysis of the survey data suggests that respondents who arrived alone or in a small group prefer to hunt alone, while those that arrive in a large group prefer hunt as a group (See Table 1). This pattern of hunting behavior is statistically significant (Χ = 1.14; p<.1). 57

58 Hunt alone Hunt as a group Arrive alone 1 Arrive with a small group 9 1 Arrive with a large group 4 57 Table 1 Hunting Alone versus in Groups 8 7 number of respondents over 1 (blank) number of people in party Figure Typical Reported Hunting Party Size in LCNCA How Often Do Hunters come into Contact with Other Recreation Groups in LCNCA? A question that may have pertinence to the agent-based models of recreation areas is the r elationships between different user groups. A way to understand the interaction between user groups is to examine the relationship between the activities that users report and those that they see others doing. These survey data can serve as a gauge of what activities are taking place in the area. The hunters may or may not come into contact with other users in equal proportions. A linear model of hunter activities versus observed activities (See Figure 4) captures this relationship (R adj =.6771). The hunters activities have a significant relationship to the activities that they observe (t = 9., p<.1). Those activities that the model does not fit are revealed by large differences between the observed and predicted values. In other words, those activities that are very visible to hunters should have higher observed values, while activities that are less visible should have lower observed values with respect to the predicted values (See Table 1). Another interpretation is that those activities with high residuals are ones that hunters participate in more than other visitors. Hunting Big Game, Deer specifically and using ATV or OHV have the highest residuals indicating they are the most popular activities of the hunting groups surveys in LCNCA. 58

59 15 1 sum_other visitor sum_respondent Figure 4 This illustrates a Statistical fit of other Visitor Activity sightings by respondent, activities, with confidence intervals represented by the dashed lines. This model excludes unreported activities. Activity Respondent Other Visitor Predicted Y Residuals OHV-A TV OHV-M otorcycle Camping-Motor home/rv Pleasure driving-passenger car Hunting-Big Game Bicycling-Mountain Fishing Hunting-Mountain lion Sightseeing Hunting-Waterfowl Archery Hiking/Walking/Running Target Practice Hunting-Small Game Hunting-Upland Birds Pleasure driving-4wd Hunting-Deer Hunting-Javelina Table 1 Hunting Activities with large residual values (outside 95% confidence curve). 59

60 A principal components analysis shows that there are three major types of hunters. This analysis was performed on relative frequencies calculated for each row (respondent). These are identified in a scatter plot of the first two dimensions (See Figure 5), the best -dimensional representation of the dataset. These two dimensions represent 44% of the variance in the dataset. These two components differentiate three types of hunting: Deer, Javelina, and Big Game, which are the three most-practiced types of hunting. A more subtle aspect of the sample that this analysis reveals is that quite a few hunters are going after both deer and big game, which are those that have negative PC 1 and positive PC scores. However, it is not clear how the category big game differs from deer. Are deer members of the big game category? Big Game Deer Javelina hunters Figure 5 - Principal component 1 versus with respondent (row) and major hunting type (column) scores. Travel Simulation Modeling for LCNCA Understanding the spatial and temporal distribution of use is of fundamental importance to those who plan for and manage recreation use. The kind and amount of visitor use has profound effects on the quality of the natural resources, visitor experiences and facilities in recreation areas. Therefore, it is critically important to be able to monitor the flow of visitors in space and over time, and to be able to predict how distributions are likely to change in response to both management actions and factors that are not subject to managerial control. In some situations this is easily done. However, the ease of monitoring and predicting use declines as the size of the recreation area increases, the complexity of traffic flow increases, and the degree to which traffic flow is tightly controlled by management decreases. Moreover, the importance of being able to monitor and predict visitor flow is particularly pronounced in places where biophysical conditions and experiential conditions are highly sensitive to intensity of use. Increasingly, travel simulation modeling is gaining recognition as an important tool for park and wilderness planning and management. Although travel simulation models for parks and recreation have been experimented with for more than three decades, in the last decade the cost of 6

61 modeling has plummeted and capabilities have soared. Specifically, simulation models can be used to: Provide a better understanding of the baseline spatial and temporal patterns of visitor use. Help predict how distributions of visitor use are likely to change in response to both management actions and factors not subject to managerial control. Allows for testing the feasibility and effectiveness of management plan alternatives. Allow for monitoring of hard-to-measure parameters (e.g. people at one time at a certain attraction or walking on particular trails) by using easily measured indicators (e. g. number of cars entering the park or parking at a trailhead). Support the planning and management of visitor use in situations where monitoring and predicting visitor flow is difficult. Improve communication of implications of management prescriptions to the public. Help with communication of management scenario implications gives a visual explanation that can be powerful Link transportation systems and planning/design Support for decisions Helps with cost analysis Helps evaluate management actions (e.g., implementation of a shuttle system) Better understanding of problems and potential casual factors leads to better solutions Testing of management alternatives better than trial and error on the ground Need to ask whether the park is large and complex enough to warrant modeling the more space in a park, the more need for modeling but, small, site-specific sites may be good applications if use and/or impacts are complex Need validity test on the models there has been some validation of models on existing conditions, not as much on models of management scenarios moving in to artificial intelligence applications Data that is collected on visitor use is useful with or without modeling Data collection should be based on decision making needs Should we contract modeling or have in-house? Outsourcing keeps the technolog y on the cutting edge Level of appropriate public access to modeling data Modeling helps increase creativity in management scenarios without increasing risks Modeling has strong application to site-level design RBSim Multi-Agent simulation of Visitor Travel Patterns Both approaches have utility for modeling travel patterns. The prototype developed in this study to examine travel patterns at LCNCA utilizes RBSim RBSim (Recreation Behaviour Simulation) (Gimblett & Itami, 1997; Gimblett, 1998; 1998a; Gimblett et al. 1999; Itami et al., 1999; Itami et al.,, Itami and Gimblett, ; Itami, in Press) is a computer simulation tool, integrated with a Geographic Information System (GIS) that is designed as a general management evaluation tool for any landscape. This capability is achieved by providing a simple user interface that will import landscape information required for the simulation from a geographic information system. Once the geographic data is imported into RBSim, the land manager can change a number of variables. In a study in Misty Fjords National Monument in Southeast Alaska, variables included the size of vessels, hull designs, and various speeds at which they traveled. Also considered were flight patterns for airplanes or helicopters that were largely dependant on daily weather conditions. In other settings variables could include number and kind of vehicles, the number of visitors, and facilities such as the number of parking spaces, road and trail widths and many other features. 61

62 RBSim allows a land manager to explore the consequences of change to one or more variables so that the quality of visitor experience is maintained or improved. The simulation model generates statistical measures of visitor experience to document the performance of any given management scenario. Management scenarios are saved in a database so they can be reviewed and revised. In addition, the results of a simulation are stored in a database for further statistical analysis. The software provides tables from the simulation data so land managers can identify points of over crowding, bottlenecks in circulation systems, and conflicts between different user groups. Developing the Simulation Network for LCNCA Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data was used to build the travel network typology that the agents utilize in the simulation. This involved taking the existing and proposed trail networks and translating the data into a form useful in the simulation. Figure 6 illustrates the trail network used in assessing recreation use in LCNCA. The typology consists of lines and nodes that can be attributed with information necessary for the agents to travel along the network. The nodes either represent intersections of trails, destinations or trailheads. Trail speeds, type of trail, condition etc. are important attributes of the trail system that encourage or restrict movement patterns. This information is all encoded into the trail segments and agents in our simulations use this information to navigate along the network. The advantage of using simulation is that if trail conditions change or new trails are proposed, these adjustments can easily be made to the network and the baseline simulation reconstructed to illustrate the effects of these changes. This is anticipated in the future of this project as more concise trail alignments are constructed and recreation use data collected. Quantitative data on visitors entering LCNCA from two entry points was used to develop this prototype. Data collected with the diaries provided information on the travel routes that were taken and the counters information on the dates, times and frequency of visits to area. Information was not sufficient enough from the diaries to locate destinations for each of the trips. Future monitoring will have to do a more accurate assessment of destinations the visitors tend to be attracted to in LCNCA. The trip schedule in the simulation environment contains information essential for simulating any individual trip. The trips outlined in Table 14 were developed for this simulation from mechanical counter and survey data. When the simulation begins, each trip then is scheduled for a specified period of time and executes the trip in a sequential fashion. Each individual trip is launched in the simulation and traverses and navigates through the GIS represented landscape as a real trip would in a real landscape. In the prototype developed for LCNCA, agent types were constructed to represent recreation use types. For this simulation visitors arriving in OHV or vehicles in general were simulated. Each trip is assigned an entry and exit node, a network or trail system that the agents will travel on, a trip duration and an arrival/departure curve. 6

63 Figure 6 A View of the Trails Network for LCNCA Table 14 Typical Trips Acquired from Counter and Survey Data Used in the Simulation. 6

64 Arrival/Departure curves provide the departure times of each agent in the simulation. Figured 7 is an example of one of the departure curves used for Trips These departure curves were generated using a combination of entry and exit times recorded on the surveys and the counter data captured at the entrances to the LCNCA. Trips are required to have destinations and/or routes that they follow. The data for the trips was taken from the surveys and mapped responses visitors provided upon filling out the survey. Figure 7 - Departure Curve for Trips Entering LCNCA from Hwy 8 for July To test the baseline scenario, two areas were selected where counter data had been collected within t he interior of LCNCA. The counters at Hammel and Oak Tree Canyon areas (See Figure 18 for lo cation of counters) are used in this study as a benchmark. Once the baseline simulation is run th e outputs for the Hammel and Oak Tree Canyon areas are compared actual counter data to the accuracy of the baseline simulation in predicting number of visitors entering these two areas. F or purposes of this study a comparison is done using the total hourly arrivals by day and monthly arrivals by year. These measures were anticipated to be important for some of the management concerns identified in LCNCA. Future work will have to be done to collect more specific data on visitor destinations. Hummel Area The simulations were run between the months of March and July. This slice of the visitor use during the year provides an excellent representation of the seasonal patterns of use. A simulation was run using the trips outlined earlier. The outputs for total hourly and month arrivals were summarized and compared to the similar data collected in the field with the mechanical counters. Figures 7 & 8 compare the counter data (blue) with the simulated trips (red) to create baseline conditions. It is clear from Figure 7 that when analyzing total hourly arrivals that the simulation is marginally under predicting the arrivals at the Hummel area. An analysis of Figure 8 that examines the monthly comparison the simulated trips for the most part accurately coincide with the counter data and in some situations the arrival rates of simulated 64