Cinnamon Creek Land Block Recreation Plan

Transcription

1 Cinnamon Creek Land Block Recreation Plan Prepared for: State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Land Administration Cinnamon Creek Land Block ENVS 4750 Recreation Planning & Management Class Project Instructors: Dale Blahna Steve Burr Students: John Briem Steven Bullock Janalee Cole Brandt Hart David Jacobson Crissy Moho Ben Quick Michael Wasielewski July 2, 2003

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 4 Background and Problem of Cinnamon Creek Parcel... 4 Background of Region... 4 Cinnamon Creek and SITLA Background... 4 Problem of Cinnamon Creek Parcel... 5 Purpose and Goals...6 Purpose... 6 Goals and Objectives for the Plan... 6 Plan Approach... 8 Cinnamon Creek Area Visitor Survey... 8 Methods Overview... 8 Survey Specifics Subgroup Variables Methods Weakness Summary of Demographics Utah State Parks data NR 5000 data Adjacent Land Owner Survey Stakeholder Survey Biome data Access Group Results and Data Integration Recreational Uses and Intensity Use Intensity Locations where Recreation Occurs Areas Important for Recreation Important Access Areas Areas of High Recreation Value Socially Important Areas Summary Impacts of Recreational Use Familiarity with and support of possible SITLA actions Willingness to Pay Recommendations Recommended Immediate Action Sportsman s Access Roads Dispersed Campsites Signs Recommended Future Actions Sportsman s Access Roads

3 Dispersed Campsites Opportunities for Revenue Generation and Cost Reduction Revenue Generating Ideas Possible Partnerships and Organizations Monitoring Criteria Campsite Guidelines Assessment Tools Regulatory Standards Acknowledgements References Appendix A (Snowmobile Survey Forms) Appendix B (Manual for the Assessment of Backcountry Recreation Sites, Peter Williams) 2

4 List of Figures and Tables Table 1: Sampling summary and response rate Table 2: County and State of Residence Table 3: Group Characteristics Table 4: Winter Visits to Monte Cristo and Cinnamon Creek Table 5: Recreation Use in Other Seasons Table 6: Other Recreation Activities Participated in the Monte Cristo Area During Any Season Table 7: Access Locations to Cinnamon Creek Table 8: Sportsmen s Access Use Frequency in Previous 12 Months Table 9: Visits to CC in Last 12 Months Table 10: Years Coming to the Monte Cristo Area Table 11: Number of Years Coming to CC Table 12: Road Conditions Table 13: Attitude Toward Road Management Table 14: Questions Regarding SITLA Table 15: Support or Opposition to Possible Scenarios and/or Situations Table 16: Willingness to Pay Index Table 17: Willingness to Pay Index (Combined) Figure 1: Monte Cristo Parking Area Site of conducted survey... 8 Figure 2: Monte Cristo Winter Snowmobile Staging Area... 9 Figure 3: Biome Attributes (Biome Group) Figure 4: Vegetation (Biome Group) Figure 5: Hypothetical Staging Areas (Access Group) Figure 6: New Trail (Access Group) Figure 7: Dispersed Campsite Locations (Access Group) Figure 8: New Road (Access Group) Figure 9: GPS campsite locations and area of highest use Figure 10: Identified Locations were CC users recreate Figure 11: Graph of Support and Opposition to Possible Situations Figure 12: Diagram of Sportsman s Access Figure 13: Example Gate Design Figure 14: Carsonite Sign Figure 15: Photograph of Sportsman s Access Figure 16: EnvS 4750 Instructor Dale Blahna

5 Introduction Background and Problem of Cinnamon Creek Parcel Background of Region Utah s population surpassed 2.12 million during 1999 and is expected to exceed 3 million by the year The area of highest population density and growth in Utah lies along the Wasatch Front, which includes Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Weber counties. In Weber County alone, the annual rate of population change is almost 2 percent. Ogden Valley is experiencing its most rapid period of growth since settlers first came to the area. This growth is changing the valley, and threatens to put an end to the rural lifestyle that residents have enjoyed. There are three major recreation areas within 15 miles of Ogden Valley; Snowbasin, Powder Mountain, and Pineview Reservoir. Snowbasin and Powder Mountain have transitioned from small, local ski resorts to worldclass skiing venues. The 2002 Winter Olympics brought even more growth and development with subsequent growth in local property values. Due to these recent increases, boating pressures have made Pineview Reservoir one of the most crowded bodies of water in Utah. Recreation is an important part of our lifestyle. With the population growing, people will be looking for new opportunities for recreation close to home. Cinnamon Creek and SITLA Background Cinnamon Creek is an 8,000-acre land parcel less than 20 miles from Snowbasin, Powder Mountain, Pineview Reservoir and Ogden Valley. This makes it an ideal destination for outdoor recreation. This rural, largely undeveloped land block is one of Utah s most popular snowmobiling areas. Its south end lies on the Cache-Weber county 4

6 line near State Road (SR) 39. The elevation and vegetation are variable with elevations ranging from 5,800 to 7,540 feet above sea level and plant communities ranging from desert shrub to Douglas fir. The parcel is owned and managed by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). SITLA is established to manage lands granted to Utah by congress for the support of schools and other recipient institutions, under the Utah Enabling Act. Title to SITLA lands is vested in the state as trustee to be administered for the financial support of the trust beneficiaries. The trust principles impose fiduciary duties upon the state, including a duty of exclusive loyalty to, and a strict requirement to control the trust accumulation for the select benefit of, the trust beneficiaries. As trustee, SITLA must manage the lands and revenues generated from the lands in the most sensible and profitable manner possible, and not for any purpose conflicting with the best interest of the trust beneficiaries. Problem of Cinnamon Creek Parcel Unlike other SITLA parcels, Cinnamon Creek is unique because adjacent lands are privately owned. SITLA s broad philosophy creates more flexibility in recreation opportunities. They allow public access to the land by means of a Utah State Department of Wildlife Resources public access right-of-way. The area is also popular for hunting, camping, ORV use and other seasonal activities. Management remains minimal due to SITLA s overall objective to generate revenue for public schools. Problems resulting from recreation and other uses exist on the parcel and SITLA has asked us to present ideas for what might be done to address these problems while fulfilling their revenue generating mandate. 5

7 Students in Nicole McCoy s Ecosystem Management (NR 5000) class at Utah State University (USU), consulting with professionals, did an assessment and feasibility study of the area. They collected information about the parcel and about present revenue generating possibilities that SITLA may use for future planning. In conjunction with this, Dr. Dale Blahna s Wildland Recreation Planning and Management class are providing SITLA with recreation use estimates and trends, management suggestions consistent with recreation principles, and recreation-related revenue-generating possibilities. Purpose and Goals Purpose SITLA intends to maintain public access on the Cinnamon Creek parcel while improving degraded site conditions. They also want to identify revenue generating recreation options. The purpose of this report is to develop a recreation plan for the Cinnamon Creek parcel that makes recommendations for recreational use and development of this land. This plan identifies current recreation uses, indicates where these uses occur, and discusses the social and environmental impacts associated with these uses. Goals and Objectives of the Plan Listed below are the goals and objectives of this plan. Due to the timing and duration of the class, some goals and objectives are not fully addressed. Data was collected from January to April. Due to these seasonal limitations, we were unable to determine summer use intensity and impacts. Therefore, the focus will be on winter 6

8 recreation with some recommendations for future management analogies for summer recreation. Goals and Objectives 1. Maintain recreational uses while protecting the resources a. Identify existing uses and use intensity for the winter and summer months b. Identify where uses occur 2. Identify important areas for recreation a. Identify areas of high recreation value b. Identify important access areas 3. Determine possible revenue generating and cost reducing opportunities a. Identify partnerships, venders, organizations, and grants that would minimize cost and generate revenue 4. Identify and develop monitoring criteria that will aid in future management decisions a. Campsites 7

9 Plan Approach We began the Cinnamon Creek Recreation Plan by determining our purpose, goals, objectives, and the means by which we would fulfill the stated goals and objectives. Most of the data and information collected was from two sources: the Cinnamon Creek area visitor survey, and the Cinnamon Creek project from the Utah State NR 5000-Ecosystem Management class. Cinnamon Creek Area Visitor Survey Methods Overview In order to know the characteristics of those who recreate on or near the Cinnamon Creek land block, and to assess visitor attitudes relating to a number of management issues important to our planning goals, we administered a two-page intercept survey to users of the Monte Cristo winter trailhead over a two week period in mid-march. The survey was administered on-site in the form of a brief interview. The student interviewers administered the surveys, with the interview subjects answering questions and indicating travel zones on a map. Figure 1: Monte Cristo Parking Area Site of conducted survey 8

10 The survey site was divided into three areas (the North parking lot, the South parking lot, and the area before the ticket booth near the Ant Flat junction), with the area of administration noted on each survey. We tried to have at least one interviewer in each area at all times during the sampling period, although sometimes this was impossible due to lack of personnel. Also, because of minimal snow cover on the Ant Flat road throughout the sampling period, the number of people staging in that area was lower than we had hoped. Surveys were administered to one person over the age of eighteen per vehicle, with a preference for those persons judged to be group leaders. If the chosen subject declined to complete the survey, the survey was marked as such. The number of cars on the survey site at the time of arrival, the number of cars on the site at the time of departure, the number of cars missed, and the number of refusals were all noted. Figure 2: Monte Cristo Winter Snowmobile Staging Area 9

11 Surveys were administered for ten afternoons, from March 7th through March 23rd. The sampling period was from1-5 pm (give or take ½ hour depending on travel time). Each day of the week was sampled at least once, with Friday being represented three times and Saturday twice. We completed 123 surveys and received five refusals, for an overall response rate of 96 percent. Table 1: Sampling summary and response rate Potential Sample Size¹ 238 Completed Survey 123 Refused 5 % of Possible Vehicles Surveyed 50.6% Response Rate 96.0% ¹Potential sample size includes cars that were missed during peak times. Survey Specifics The survey consisted of four sections (See Appendix A- Survey Form). The first of these (questions 1-6) asked the respondents to provide demographic information. Group size, recreational activities in area, and how often they visited the area both annually and total were requested. A map of the Monte Cristo area, divided into five zones, was provided for respondents to indicate their travel route for the day they were surveyed. The second section (question 7) asked respondents whether they participated in one or more of twelve separate activities in the Monte Cristo area. The activities were both summer and winter pursuits. If respondents answered yes to an activity, they were then shown the map again and asked to indicate in which of the five zones the activity 10

12 occurred. Those respondents indicating visitation to zone 1 (the Cinnamon Creek parcel) for any activity were referred to question 8, while those not indicating visitation to zone 1 skipped question 8 and were referred to question 9. Question 8 was designed specifically for Cinnamon Creek users and consisted of several components. A separate map of the Cinnamon Creek parcel was provided for respondents to specify where each activity in which they participated took place. Respondents were also asked for their annual and total visitation to Cinnamon Creek. They were then asked whether or not they use the Sportsman s Access, and if yes, then how often they had used it during the last year. A general access question was then asked, followed by a question asking respondents to assess the quality of roads on the parcel and to indicate what they thought should be done with the roads. The last section consisted of questions for everyone. First, respondents were asked to indicate their knowledge of SITLA or school trust lands, and their knowledge of ownership of the Cinnamon Creek parcel. Next, they were asked to provide opinions on a number of recreation and development issues related to the parcel. The last question asked respondents to indicate their willingness to pay for use or for improvements on the parcel. Subgroup Variables These variables were used to conduct subgroup analysis to understand distinctions between visitor types. Subgroup variables included zone of use (with particular importance being placed upon differences between users of Cinnamon Creek and all other users), number of years visiting the area (with emphasis placed on differences between long time users and those whose began using the area recently), season of use 11

13 (winter users vs. summer users) and intensity of use (number of visits in the last twelve months). Method Weaknesses The time of year that the survey was administered presents a mixed bag. Surveys were administered for only ten days, and a total of only 123 surveys were completed. Because of the homogeneity of visitor activity type, and the number of users who recreate in the area numerous times over the course of the winter, a fairly representative sample of winter users was obtained. However, because the only users represented in the sample are winter users, and because the vast majority of these users are snowmobilers, an accurate measure of summer use is impossible to arrive at from this survey. Even rough estimates of summer use from this data are limited by recognition of bias inherent in surveying only winter users participating in motorized recreation. A complete picture of summer use on the Cinnamon Creek parcel is likely more complex than is represented in our sample. Summary of Demographics A majority (70%) of Cinnamon Creek users, and half of all survey respondents, were from Weber County. Less than half of those using Cinnamon Creek were from other counties. Half of those who did not use Cinnamon Creek were from other counties. Most of the recreationists that came to the Monte Cristo area for winter activities were coming from Weber and Davis counties (84.5%). Ninety-six percent of those using the Monte Cristo area were from Utah. 12

14 Table 2: County and State of Residence CC users Non-users Overall n % n % n % Weber % % % Davis % % % County Salt Lake 3 6.7% 4 5.1% 7 5.7% Box Elder 1 2.2% 2 2.6% 3 2.4% Cache 1 2.2% 1 1.3% 2 1.6% Other % 5 6.5% 7 5.6% Utah % % % State Florida 1 2.2% 1 1.3% 2 1.6% Texas 1 2.2% 1 1.3% 2 1.6% Wyoming 0 0.0% 1 1.3% 1 0.8% 1 Other category includes counties from outside Utah. The average age of survey respondents was 41, and the overwhelming majority of respondents were male. Group size ranged from 1 to 14, with an average of 4.4 per group. The average number of people per vehicle was 2.8, which, coupled with the larger average group size, meant many groups came in multiple vehicles. Annual visitation ranged from once per year to 100 times per year, with the average number of visits per year hovering at just over 14. The average number of years survey respondents had been coming to the area was also 14. Table 3: Group Characteristics CC users Non-users Overall Characteristics mean median mean median mean median Number in group Number per vehicle Times used in past 12 months Utah State Parks data The snowmobile survey site, located at the winter road closure on Highway 39, is a parking area managed by the Utah State Division of Parks and Recreation. Willard Bay 13

15 State Park operates a fee collection booth at the entrance of the winter staging area. We contacted Ronald Bringhurst, the Park Manager of Willard Bay State Park, who provided information on fees, season passes, monthly revenue totals, past year revenue totals and compliance with fees. All of this information was extremely important in extrapolating the number of visits to the Monte Cristo area and to the Cinnamon Creek area. NR 5000 data The project objectives of the NR 5000 class were threefold. First, the class created a data bank for SITLA consisting of easily accessible existing data from the Cinnamon Creek area. Second, an issue assessment was completed for each of six topic areas; current and potential vehicular access, biome health, adjacent landowners, interests of major stakeholders, regional context, and disposition options. Students in the class were each assigned to participate in a group related one of these six topics. Each group had a representative on the team that created the Cinnamon Creek Recreation Plan. Third, assessment models pertaining to each of these topic areas were generated and presented to SITLA. For the Cinnamon Creek Recreation Plan, the topic areas containing the most relevant information are current and potential vehicular access, adjacent landowners, stakeholders and biome health. Summaries of pertinent information from the groups assigned to these topics are listed below. Adjacent Land Owner Survey The NR 5000 Adjacent Landowner Group conducted a telephone interview with 13 of the 15 landowners immediately adjacent to the Cinnamon Creek land block. The 14

16 two landowners that were not fully surveyed had sold their land within the month before the scheduled interviews. Significant results gleaned from the interviews are: Sixty-two percent of landowners would like to see the land remain in its current state. Many adjacent landowners identified trespassing as a problem when asked an open-ended question about concerns. Landowners, who owned their land for less than five years believed SITLA, or any state land, cannot be developed, sold or otherwise changed. Again, this was not asked specifically, but was the common answer to an openended question asking what the landowner thought was a benefit of owning property next to the Cinnamon Creek parcel. Ninety-one percent of adjacent landowners were against increasing access to Cinnamon Creek. They felt developments would bring more visitors and result in more conflicts. Seventy-seven percent of landowners said they have no relationship with SITLA. Fifty-five percent of landowners used SITLA land, while 43 percent owned land for recreation purposes. These results were taken into consideration when the recommendations contained within this plan were derived. Building a relationship with adjacent landowners over boundary/trespass issues could combat two of these interview results. Cost sharing of labor and signage costs could also be a positive benefit for SITLA. 15

17 For the full results of these interviews, and adjacent landowner contact information, see the NR 5000 written report in the reference section. Stakeholder Survey The Stakeholder Group in the NR Ecosystem Management class conducted a survey to identify interests and issues associated with various individuals and groups that would have a stake in the future of Cinnamon Creek. A total of 23 surveys were completed among these various stakeholder types: local community interests, permittee, recreationists, water users and wildlife interests. In addition to these surveys, 27 surveys were conducted to assess local opinion. A total of 19 themes were identified among the respondents. Forty-eight percent of stakeholders surveyed identified these top five themes as major concerns: keep it the same (no action), negative impacts caused by ORV use, lack of management/monitoring, remain open to the public (keep it public domain), increased development for traditional recreation (i.e. trails and camp sites). The complete results and graphs of the stakeholder and local opinion surveys can be found in the stakeholder report of the complete report conducted by the NR 5000 class in the reference section. Biome data Biome components analyzed were wildlife and watershed characteristics, and forest and rangeland health. Due to seasonal constraints (snow pack) and the lack of any previous ecological research done in the area, biome health and characteristics information may be incomplete. Through personal accounts of people familiar with the area, four separate field trips to the area, and analysis of both habitat potential models and 16

18 research completed in places of similar ecological makeup, a fairly clear picture of the land s health has emerged. The Cinnamon Creek land parcel sits roughly between 6000 and 8000 feet in elevation. The western half of its 8000 acres is cut by the Cinnamon Creek drainage, while the East Fork of the River drains the east side. Nowhere on the parcel is the relief dramatic, with the exception of the deep canyon of Cinnamon Creek that eats its way through the northwestern corner of the parcel. Otherwise, the land consists of broad valleys and moderate slopes. Figure 3: Biome Attributes (Biome Group) 17

19 Figure 4: Vegetation (Biome Group) Vegetation on the parcel consists primarily of sagebrush, assorted grasses and forbs on the flats and extreme south facing slopes and aspen in large stands where aspect and elevation permit. The canyon of Cinnamon Creek also harbors a few dense stands of Douglas fir and true fir. Willows and several varieties of dogwood are prevalent along riparian areas. No plant surveys have ever taken place on the parcel, so the specific types and densities of forbs and grasses present are not known. The parcel is home to many species of wildlife especially big game, with deer, elk and moose utilizing its edges, meadows and riparian areas for summer range. The northwestern corner of the parcel is critical habitat for moose, and nearly the entire parcel 18

20 is moose winter range. Ruffed grouse and blue grouse are likely year round residents, and even the elusive sage grouse is occasionally seen near the parcel s eastern boundary. Black bear are also occasionally seen on the parcel, and mountain lions are hunted with success in the vicinity of the parcel s northwest corner. A gray wolf has been seen along Ant Flat Road near the parcel s eastern boundary last summer. Although at present there is no reliable data on the quality of water originating on or passing through the parcel, owners of water shares in Porcupine Reservoir where water from Cinnamon Creek ultimately ends up report they are happy with the quality of water coming from the Cinnamon Creek parcel. The biggest threat to future water quality appears to be stream siltation caused by soil erosion from irresponsible O.H.V. use. All in all, the parcel appears to be in good shape. Access Group The NR 5000 Access Group identified two important sources of access to Cinnamon Creek: current access for recreation and future access for development. Current recreation access issues include staging areas, trails, developed and undeveloped campin g, vendors or event promoters, and recreation conflict. Future development issues associated with recreation include lot dispersal patterns and a new road for future development in the Southern end of the parcel. Recreation Staging areas: The Access Team identified three potential locations for summer recreation staging areas, two of which are on SITLA land (see Figure 1). The two locations on SITLA land have between 0 and 15 percent slope and are located along existing roads. The staging area located in the SE corner of section 4 (T 8N R 3E) would 19

21 be the best site if no development occurs within the section. The upper staging area in section 32 (T 9N R 3E) would be best if section 4 was developed. This would allow for recreation use without it occurring in the developed part of the parcel. The third staging area option would be to use the state parking lot that is also used for the winter staging area located along side Highway 39. Figure 5: Hypothetical Staging Areas (Access Group) 20

22 Trails: The access group sees no real destination points for foot trails but has identified the need for a new road or trail to make a loop or if needed increased access for development purposes (see Figure 2). The road or trail proposed in figure 2 would connect the road in section 4 (T 8N R 3E) to the road in section 8 (T 8N R 3E). This would allow for easier access to the southern end of the property and create a loop for recreation. If the property were developed, this would best serve as a road so owners could access their property more easily. If no development occurred it would be best as a trail for OHV use. Figure 6: New Trail (Access Group) 21

23 Campsites: The Access Team has identified two feasible sites for developed campgrounds. The first is in the lower southeast corner of section 4 (T 8N R 3E) (see Figure 3). This area is already populated with dispersed sites and would need minimal amounts of road repair for access. This site is also on flat ground and located away from water and drainages. The other site is located in section 31 (T 9N R 3E). This area seems to be a popular destination for hunting and other recreation and is also located on flat ground away from water and drainages. If there were a developed campground at this or any other location within the parcel, significant road repair and improvements would be needed. The Access Team doesn t feel that a developed campsite will be profitable because there are already developed campsites along highway 39 above and below Ant Flat road. The Cinnamon Creek parcel is also a destination for those seeking a dispersed campsite setting, which is evident from visitor intercept surveys. Figure 7: Dispersed Campsite Locations (Access Group) 22

24 Development Lot Dispersal. The Access Team has determined that, due to the road placement, slope and current zoning of the parcel, lot dispersal would be best in cluster formation. This type of development would allow for continued recreation and allow for the most amount of development, while disturbing the least amount of land. Figure 8: New Road (Access Group) New Road: If development was to occur in the southern portion of the parcel, the Access Team has identified a need for a new road (see Figure 4). This road is needed because the current southern access easement does not allow use for any other party except SITLA. The new road would be placed along the Northern border of section 16 (T 8N R 3E). 23

25 Results and Data Integration The data for the following charts and text were obtained by analyzing survey results. Included are: where visitors are from, what activities they participate in throughout the year, and questions regarding Cinnamon Creek. These results are based on winter users responses only and do not reflect demographics and attitudes of recreationists from all seasons. Many charts are divided into those that use Cinnamon Creek and those that do not use Cinnamon Creek to give more insight into the typical Cinnamon Creek user. Recreational Uses and Intensity Use Intensity In order to arrive at an estimate of the total winter use for the Monte Cristo trailhead/staging area, Roland Bringhurst from the state parks division of the Utah Department of Natural Resources was contacted. He provided us with monthly dollar figures for Monte Cristo season parking passes and daily passes for the winter season that includes December through March (see Table 4). The dollar figures were then converted into numbers of passes sold by dividing the total amount collected by the price of individual passes ($30.00 for a season pass, $3.00 for a daily pass). In order to convert the number of season passes sold into visitor use numbers, the number of season passes sold (205) was multiplied by the median number of yearly visits to the Monte Cristo area indicated by survey respondents (8). In gathering yearly visitation totals, the survey made no distinction between summer use and winter use. In order to correct for what likely would have been a high estimate because of this, the median, which was much lower than the mean (14.1), was used for calculations. The 24

26 estimated total number of car visits on season passes (1640) was then spread across the winter season according to the percentage of daily passes sold each month (December-19 percent, January-32 percent, February-29 percent, March-20 percent) and added to the monthly daily pass totals to give us the total number of paid cars using the Monte Cristo trailhead each month during the winter season. In order to account for non-compliance (cars not paying, cars parked below the ticket booth, cars arriving after ticket booth was closed) 25 percent was added to the monthly totals. Donald Bringhurst of the Division of Parks and Recreation provided the 25 percent non-compliance rate. Monthly totals were then multiplied by the mean number of people per vehicle as indicated by survey respondents (2.8) to give us an estimate of the monthly visitation at the Monte Cristo trailhead for the winter season. Using this set of methods, these are the estimated numbers of winter visits to the Monte Cristo winter trailhead. Table 4: Winter Visits to Monte Cristo and Cinnamon Creek Month Number of Visits to Monte Cristo 1 Percent Number of Visits to CC December 4,046 19% 1,254 January 6,955 32% 2,112 February 6,360 29% 1,914 March 4,424 20% 1,320 Total 21, % 6,600 1 Monte Cristo Visitor Numbers extrapolated from Utah State Park data, based on dollars collected and average group size. 2 USDA Forest Service projections of recreation growth 25

27 Of the 123 respondents to our survey, 30.3% indicated they use the Cinnamon Creek parcel, which, if extrapolated onto the 21,785 total Monte Cristo winter users, means that there are an estimated 6,600 visits to Cinnamon Creek during the peak winter months. With 6,600 visits during peak winter months (December through March), additional winter shoulder season visits along with summer and fall visitation can be added to estimate yearly Cinnamon Creek visitation. We estimate the number of visits to Cinnamon Creek parcel during the entire year is 10,000 to 15,000 visits. This is an estimate, as no actual count has been taken. In order to arrive at an estimate of non-winter visitation, further data collection is needed. Snowmobiling was the main activity survey respondents participated in on the day they were interviewed (98.4 percent). Those that went snowmobiling said that, camping, OHV use, hunting, and trapping are the most popular activities at the Monte Cristo area during other seasons (see Table 5). The most popular activities on the Cinnamon Creek parcel are mobile activities such as snowmobiling, OHV use, hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking. Those indicating use of the Cinnamon Creek parcel for these activities were far more likely to b e passing throug h Cinnamon Creek on their way to other destinations than they were to recreate exclusively on the parcel. This is important for management purposes, as it demonstrates Cinnamon Creek s importance as a corridor for these activities, connecting other recreation areas such as Powder Mountain and Hardware Ranch, rather than serving as a destination area. Hunting and camping occur on the Cinnamon Creek parcel and are far more likely to be site specific than are other activities. 26

28 Sixty-four percent of the 122 survey responses said they recreate in the area in other seasons. More Cinnamon Creek users (75.6 percent) visit the area in other seasons compared to non-cinnamon Creek users (57.1 percent). Table 5: Recreation Use in Other Seasons 1 CC use in other CC Users Non-users Combined season 2 Use in Other Seasons 75.6% (34) 57.1% (44) 63.9% (78) 57.8% (26) Do not use in other seasons 24.4% (11) 42.9% (33) 36.1% (44) 42.4% (19) 1 Other seasons of use determined by respondents indicating participation in camping, OHV use, hunting or trapping, fishing, hiking, and horseback riding. 2 CC use in other season are those that indicated use of. Use in Other Season respondents are those that indicated use of CC but in other seasons whereas Do Not Use in Other Seasons are winter users. OHV use, camping, and hunting are popular non-winter activities in the Monte Cristo region. The possibility of catering to these uses while reducing further degradation on Cinnamon Creek is intriguing. Because there are already numerous campsites in the area both developed and dispersed any scenario under which Cinnamon Creek competes with the modern camping facilities along SR 39 for visitor dollars would have to include experience elements that don t exist at these facilities. Creativity will be required, and as SITLA s recreation budget is small, the list of vendors provided in the recommendations section will be a good resource if developed camping opportunities are to be explored. 27

29 Table 6: Other Recreation Activities Participated in the Monte Cristo Area During Any Season Activities Percent (n) Percent using CC 1 Snowmobiling 98.4% (121) 30.8% (37) Camping 46.7% (57) 17.9% (10) OHV 38.5% (47) 46.8% (22) Hunting /trapping 36.9% (45) 24.4% (11) Sight-seeing 23.0% (28) 28.6% ( 8) Fishing 21.3% (26) 20.0% (5) Hiking 15.6% (19) 21.1% (4) Horseback riding 11.5% (14) 50.0% (7) X-ski/snowshoe 8.2% (10) 20.0% (2) Mountain biking 6.6% (8) 50.0% (4) Other 5.7% (7) 14.3% (1) 1 Cinnamon Creek percentages are calculated from number of respondents that participate in the activity at Cinnamon Creek divided by number who indicated that activity overall. As mentioned before, snowmobiling and OHV riding are by far the most popular activities occurring on the Cinnamon Creek parcel. If it can be assumed that hunting, trapping, camping, and sightseeing occurring on Cinnamon Creek also involve the use of motorized vehicles. The majority of recreational opportunities sought on Cinnamon Creek during any season are motorized. For purposes of management and decisionmaking, this means that within the limits of acceptable biophysical impacts, SITLA is well advised to keep the preferences of motorized recreationists in mind. In the case of motorized recreationists on Cinnamon Creek, these preferences include maintaining access by keeping existing roads open and minimizing the extent of road improvements. 28

30 Locations where Recreation Occurs Campsite locations on the Cinnamon Creek parcel were located using GPS technology by SITLA, and are included in the follo wing map which depicts the locations of GPS campsites and areas of highest recreation use on th e Cinnamon Creek parcel. Recreation occurring on the parcel is concentrated around or near the Sportsman s Access. Figure 9: GPS campsite locations and area of highest use Our survey requested visitors to mark the locations where they participate in recreation on the Cinnamon Creek parcel. Each symbol on this map represents one respondent who participates in the identified recreation activity. It is evident from those 29

31 surveyed that the northern end of the parcel is most used for non-winter recreation and that the Southwestern part of the parcel is used for the majority of winter recreation. Figure 10: Identified Locations were CC users recreate Both the GPS campsite locations and the responses of those surveyed indicate that the northern part of the parcel is most used for non-winter recreation. Winter recreation in the southern part of the parcel was found not to be a destination, but to serve as a travel corridor for snowmobiles traveling toward Powder Mountain. The high amount of use near the Sportsman s Access could indicate that there is a high amount of place attachment for visitors to that area. Many years of use, and high numbers of visits per year may be an important indicator of place attachment. However, the Sportsman s 30

32 Access is the only non-winter public access to Cinnamon Creek, and the high amount of use in that area may only indicate that visitors camp near an access. If the access was located elsewhere it may be expected that recreation use near the new access would increase. Areas Important for Recreation Important Access Areas Nearly 57 percent of Cinnamon creek users reported accessing the parcel through the Sportsman s Access, while 38 percent also enter the parcel from the south side. This means that over 80 percent of users access the parcel from the Ant Flat Road to the east. Cinnamon Creek visitors utilize the north and western substantially less. Although surveys indicated than many recreationists enter Cinnamon Creek by way of the Sportsman s Access, there were no means for survey respondents to identify the seasons in which they were using the different access points. If there were, a likely scenario would be for those respondents indicating entry to Cinnamon Creek through the Sportsman s Access to be summer visitors and those indicating entry at other access points to be snowmobilers. This may be because snowmobilers are not dependent on roads for access, that adjacent owners turn a blind eye to winter trespass compared to summertime, and other points of access become more difficult to maneuver in other seasons. Table 7: Access Locations to Cinnamon Creek Locations Where CC is Percent and Number Accessed 1 of Users Sportsman s Access 56.8% (21) South Side 37.8% (14) Southwest Side 18.9% (7) West Side 16.2% (6) North Side 8.1% (3) 1 Percentages are greater than 100% because eleven of the 37 respondents indicated that they used more than one access location. 31

33 Recreationists using the Sportsman s Access report passing through the entrance about four times a year, meaning they are repeat visitors and are likely very familiar with the area. Of the 39 who responded, 21 (53.8 percent) indicated they had used Sportsmen s Access and 16 (76.2 percent) indicated they had used it one or more times during the previous 12 months. Management consciousness of a high degree of place attachment among these users becomes important in the decision-making process surrounding actions that will affect them. Table 8: Sportsmen s Access Use Frequency in Previous 12 Months 1 Times Used Percent (n) % (5) % (5) 5 or 37.5% (6) more Mean 4.0 Median Of the 45 respondents who said they use the Cinnamon Creek area, 6 either did not know or were not asked if they used Sportsmen s Access. Of the 39 who responded, 21 (53.8%) indicated they had used Sportsmen s Access and 16 (76.2%) indicated they had used it one or more times during the previous 12 months. 32

34 Areas of High Recreation Value The average number of times visitors reported using Cinnamon Creek in the last twelve months was The median was three visits. The average number was elevated because two respondents reported visiting 100 times in the last twelve months. Thirty-seven percent of those that indicated use of Cinnamon Creek in any season actually used the area the day they were interviewed. Nearly 28 percent of Cinnamon Creek users visited at least six times per year, meaning that the intensity of use especially for repeat visitors is high. This is another reminder to the agency that place attachment is an important Table 9: Visits to CC in Last 12 Months 1 Number of visits Percent (n =36) % (8) % (8) % (10) 6-10 CC that 13.9% (5) % (3) > % (2) Used day 37.8% (17 out of 45) 1 Question was asked of respondents who had ever recreated in Cinnamon Creek (n=45). 2 Two survey respondents indicated that they had visited CC 100 times in the previous 12 months. consideration at Cinnamon Creek. Socially Important Areas Sixty-eight percent of survey respondents reported they had been coming to the Monte Cristo area for recreation purposes for more than five years. On the average, people had been coming to the area for just over 14 years. Five people indicated that they had been using the area for more than 40 years. Table 10: Years Coming to the Monte Cristo Area Number Percent of Years (n=122) % (39) % (33) % (19) % (18) > % (13) Mean 14.1 Median

35 Though the sample size was small, almost fifty-five percent of Cinnamon Creek users surveyed reported recreating on the parcel for more than five years. Three people indicated that they had been coming for more than 30 years. On the average, Cinnamon Creek users had been coming to the parcel for over 13 years, another reminder of the role of place attachment. Table 11: Number of Years Coming to CC Years Percent (n =33) % (15) % (10) > % (8) Mean 13.3 Median 9.0 Summary The Cinnamon Creek area receives substantial use in winter months as well as in other seasons. Despite weaknesses in the survey instrument, and despit e the time it was implemented, the results indicated that a majority of winter recreationists also visit in other months. Of the 45 identified Cinnamon Creek users, 26 (57.8 percent) recreate there in other seasons while 19 (42.2 percent) are there only in the winter. Cinnamon Creek users are unique in that they visit the Monte Cristo area more frequently, more are from Weber County compared to other users (69 percent and 50 percent respectively), indicating they are local, and are more familiar with the area in general. Impacts of Recreational Use More people (11) indicated the road conditions at Cinnamon Creek were a 4 or 5 (worst end of the scale) than those who indicated 3 (neutral) and 1 or 2 (Best). 40 percent gave a Table 12: Road Conditions Conditions Perce nt (n) 2 1 Best 8.0% (2) % (2) 40.0% (10) % ( 9) 5 Worst 8.0% (2) Mean Median Road conditions and mean measured on a five-point scale where 1 is Best and 5 is Worst. 2 Parenthesized is the number of responses to that category. 25 of the 45 CC users responded to this question. 34

36 neutral rating with only 16 percent indicated that the roads were in good to best condition. The main reason for a high neutral rating was that many had no idea what the roads were like because of snow cover. Those Cinnamon Creek users who felt the roads were not in the best condition may be open to management actions, although these users were in the minority at 30 percent of survey respondents. The majority (54.5 percent) wanted Table 13: Attitude Toward Road Management Action Percent (n=33) Improved 30.3% (10) Left Alone 54.5% (18) Seasonal Closures 6.1% (2) Other 9.1% (3) roads at Cinnamon Creek left alone. Almost onethird (30.3 percent) indicated that there should be some improvements. No one indicated that the roads should be closed, while a few favored seasonal closures. Seasonal closures may be met with resistance due to the perception that it will bring more visitors as well as cut off access. Familiarity with and support of possible SITLA actions Of those people using Cinnamon Creek, about three-quarters (72.1 percent) have heard of SITLA, trust lands, or school lands in the past, but only one-third (32.6 percent) knew SITLA owned 8000 acres nearby. Fewer non-users of Cinnamon Creek have not heard of SITLA, trust lands, or school lands (44.9 percent), and very few people knew SITLA owned 8000 acres of land nearby ( 9.0 percent). Overall, 54.5 percent of those interviewed have heard of SITLA, trust lands, or school lands, and 17.4 percent knew SITLA owned 8000 acres nearby. The low level of recognition of Cinnamon Creek land ownership indicated the need for an information campaign by SITLA to bring to the public s attention, not only 35

37 the role of SITLA in providing recreation opportunities on Cinnamon Creek and other land parcels, but also SITLA s function in providing financial assistance for Utah s schools. By increasing recreationists awareness of SITLA s mandate to provide funding for Utah schools, SITLA could also pay for recreation management on its lands or generate money for the trust through a fee program, where users pay a fee for recreating on SITLA managed properties. Table 14: Questions Regarding SITLA Non-CC users CC users (n=42) (n=78) Combined (n=121) Yes No Yes No Yes No Heard of SITLA before 72.1% 27.9% 44.9% 55.1% 54.5% 45.5% (31) (12) (35) (43) (66) (55) Know of Cinnamon Creek block 32.6% (14) 60.5% (26) 9.0% (7) 87.2% (68) 17.4% (21) 77.7% (94) 1 Percents in the know of Cinnamon Creek land block do not equal 100%. Six respondents (3 from each subset) indicated that maybe they were aware of SITLA owning 8000 acres nearby. Over 90 percent of users and non-users of Cinnamon Creek supported maintaining current access. About three-quarters supported expanding access. Approximately half of all users and non-users supported improving roads, developing campgrounds, and expanding hunting opportunities. One-half were opposed to selling the land for conservation purposes. Between 77.4 percent and 90.2 percent of all users were opposed to limiting access, selling one-fourth the parcel, selling half the parcel, or selling the entire parcel. Cinnamon Creek users in general were especially concerned about maintaining access and were opposed to selling the parcel for development, but had 36

38 mixed feelings about improving roads, developing campgrounds, and expanding hunting opportunities. Table 15: Support or Opposition to Possible Scenarios and/or Situations Possible Scenario and/or Situation Maintain Access Expand Access CC users Non-users Overall Mean 1 Support 2 Oppose 3 Mean Support Oppose Mean Support Oppose % 0.0% % 1.4% % 0.9% % 14.6% % 8.6% % 10.8% Limit Access % 89.5% % 78.3% % 82.2% Improve Roads Develop Campgrounds Expand Hunting % 28.9% % 22.7 % % 25.0% % 40.0% % 24.7% % 30.1% % 20.5% % 22.1% % 21.5% Sell ¼ % 82.9% % 74.3% % 77.4% Sell ½ % 82.9% % 85.3% % 84.5% Sell Al l % 90.2% % 89.3% % 89.7% Conser vation % 60.0% % 47.9% % 52.2% Land Swap % 52.5% % 49.3% % 50.5% 1 Mean scores calculated as where 1 is strongly support, 2 is support, 3 is neutral, 4 is oppose, 5 is strongly oppose. 2 Strongly support and support were combined. 3 Strongly oppose and oppose were combined. All percents do not equal 100%, because neutral was omitted. 37

39 Figure 11: Graph of Support and Opposition to Possible Situations 93% 79% Support and Opposition to Possible Situations 90% 85% 82% 77% % Support or Oppose 45% 52% 54% 52% 5 1 % Support Oppose L an d Sw a p Con serva tion Sell All Se ll 1/2 S ell 1/4 L imi t Acce ss Exp and H untin g De velop Camp grou nds Im p rove Ro ad s Exp and A ccess Maintain Acce ss Willingness to Pay Of those that use Cinnamon Creek, half would not be willing to pay any money for increased access. Almost 62 percent of Cinnamon Creek users were not willing to pay for improved roads, and 64 percent were not willing to pay for campgrounds. Most non- were willing to pay $1-5 for increased access, road improvements and users campgrounds, but monies collected for these actions may need to be invested in the parcel for a fee collection program to be successful. 38

40 Table 16: Willingness to Pay Index CC users Non-users Willingness to Pay $0 $1-5 $6-10 >$10 Mean 1 $0 $1-5 $6-10 >$10 Mean 1 Increased Access Improved Roads 50.0% 31.0% 11.9% 7.1% % 39.3% 23.2% 5.4% % 7.1% 7.1% % 37.0% 20.4% 1.9% 1.8 Campgrounds 64.3% 14.3% 16.7% 4.8% % 33.3% 29.6% 7.4% Mean score calculated on a scale where 1 is $0, 2 is $1-$5, 3 is $6-$10, and 4 is >$10. Table 17: Willingness to Pay Index (Combined) Combined Willingness to Pay $0 $1-5 $6-10 >$10 Mean 1 Increased Access 39.8% 35.7% 18.4% 6.1% 1.9 Improved Roads 50.0% 31.3% 14.6% 4.2% 1.7 Campgrounds 44.8% 25.0% 24.0% 6.3% Mean score calculated on a scale where 1 is $0, 2 is $1-$5, 3 is $6-$10, and 4 is >$10. 39

41 Recommendations Two types of recommendations are made in this plan recommendations for immediate actions and recommendations for future actions. Immediate action recommendations are actions that address immediate issues, concerns, and resource degradation. These actions will not generate revenue, but will protect the current and future value of the Cinnamon Creek land block. They may even increase the value of the parcel in the future. Recommended future actions include possibilities for revenue generation and possibilities for cost cutting. Recommended Immediate Action The Sportsman s Access, signing, and dispersed campsites should be the immediate priority of SITLA management to maintain land value and decrease land degradation of the Cinnamon Creek land block. The following recommended actions would help to achieve this. They are important to maintain and enhance the value of the Trust Land, and to prevent further resource and land degradation. Sportsman s Access Figure 12: Diagram of Sportsman s Access Action: Install a gate for seasonal closure with an educational & partnership sign explaining reason for closure, alternatives, etc., while creating a legal winter access. Sportsman s Access Gate Fence Rocks Ant Flats Road 40

42 Reasoning & Implementation: The gate could be closed at about the same time as the Monte Cristo Road (S.R. 39) in the fall or after hunting season. It could be opened when conditions permit in the spring. This gate should reduce impact to road surfaces during the wet spring season. Driving on wet roads in spring was identified by adjacent landowners, stakeholders, and by SITLA as a concern. By placing snowmobile barrier rocks, winter access is ensured with minimal logistical difficulty meaning snowmobiles would have access, and nobody would have to open and close the gate. Placing the barrier rocks away from the gate could potentially mitigate temptations of trespass by vehicle users. Costs for the gate purchase and installation could be shared by SITLA and the DWR. To reduce operational costs for opening and closing the gate, a partnership could be established via a local landowner such as T.H. Cates. Figure 13: Example Gate Design Complete with information sign explaining reason for closure and an alternative recreation site. 41

43 Action: Rebuild fence on the south side of the Sportsman s Access road. Reasoning & Implementation: By fixing the fence, a relationship with the adjacent landowner could be improved. A better fence would also help confine the road traffic to its intended path, potentially reducing erosion. This could be a shared responsibility/cost of the landowner, the DWR, and/or SITLA. This is an action that could be achieved through a partnership such as community service. Roads Figure 14: Carsonite Sign Action: Designate roads with partnership organization(s) that are open to motorized travel. Reasoning & Implementation: Designating roads for OHV use would help maintain current road conditions and help mitigate future roads and trails from being created. This would help maintain the health and natural beauty of the parcel for future use or development. Roads should be designated on the ground by installing carsonite posts and showing route maps on the information board. By partnering with organizations with which visitors can identify or with which they are affiliated, vandalism and trespass issues may decline, especially if the organization s logo is displayed on the signs. 42

44 Action: Inventory and prioritize problem areas on roads and determine the best ways to fix (reroute, use culverts, fill, closure w/rocks or posts). Reasoning & Implementation: By identifying trouble spots on roads, the deployment of partnerships will be more efficient. Furthermore, monitoring of these spots is made possible with the inventory. Monitoring partnerships could be formed with school groups or the Ogden Nature Center. Dispersed Campsites Action: Inventory and designate preferred sites and possibly install fire grates to concentrate visitor use. Reasoning & Implementation: Survey data suggests that most Cinnamon Creek campers are seeking a dispersed campsite setting. Designating campsites and installing fire grates may concentrate impacts and could reduce the creation of new sites while preserving the dispersed camping experience. Sites could be designated with carsonite posts. An explanation of the designated site policy and markers should be explained on the information board. Designating campsites and installing fire grates could be a project for a natural resource student at Utah State University or for SITLA. Fire grate installation and maintenance would make a great Eagle Scout project. 43

45 Action: Close sites that do not meet campsite criteria. (i.e. too close to water, potential for erosion, etc.) Reasoning & Implementation: Closing campsites displaces the visitor and can lead to the creation of new sites. Determining site closures could be a possible project for a natural resource student at Utah State University and SITLA. Signs Action: Install an information kiosk where the Sportsman s Access enters SITLA property that explains road and campsite designation information with some SITLA background. Reasoning & Implementation: A sign at the entrance of the property would help visitors acquire information about the rules and regulations of SITLA land. It would also to be a good place to give some history about the land and its role of generating revenue for public schools. A way to obtain such a sign would be to partnership with the interpretive class at Utah State University. This sign is necessary if rules and regulations will be enforced on campsite and road use. By partnering with organizations with which visitors identify, or with which they are affiliated, possible vandalism to the sign might be mitigated, especially if the organizations logo is displayed on the signs. Action: Determine who is responsible for signing property boundaries at access points leaving the parcel and going onto private land. Reasoning & Implementation: One of the major concerns of adjacent landowners and stakeholders was trespassing by recreation users onto their land. We recommend that Carsonite posts be labeled with SITLA Boundary at all 44

46 access points leaving the parcel. Partnerships with adjacent landowners could be formed to determine the need for gates/signs in an effort to reduce trespassing. By working with the adjacent landowners on boundary/trespass issues, relationships could be formed. Adjacent landowners could help sign their property. Recommended Future Actions Sportsman s Access Figure 15: Photograph of Sportsman s Access Action: Investigate realignment of the steep portion of the road by adding a minor switchback (to the north) within the right-of-way. Sportsman s Access Road - Area for realignment consideration. Reasoning & Implementation: This alignment may at one time have already existed. This action will help to reduce erosion and will improve access to the lower part of the parcel. The county road grader on Ant Flats road could do the realignment. Another possibility is a partnership with the military, which could donate the maintenance cost and time as training hours. 45

47 Action: Investigate the feasibility of installing and maintaining erosion control features (water bars, water dips) on parcel roads specifically the Sportsman s Access. Reasoning & Implementation: Drainage features on roads can help reduce erosion and maintenance costs. Possible partnerships to implement this action may include people in the dedicated hunters program, local OHV groups that use the parcel, and any of the previously mentioned organizations. Roads Action: Develop partnerships to begin fixing previously identified and prioritized problem spots. These partnerships could be formed with the military, local OHV groups, and hunters who use the area. Reasoning & Implementation: These partnerships could lead to greater awareness of responsible behavior when recreating on the Cinnamon Creek land block. Partnerships will minimize costs and increase the value of the parcel. Dispersed Campsites Action: Continued monitoring of dispersed campsites to ensure that campsite criteria are being met (for parcel value and biome health) and to monitor new site formation. Reasoning & Implementation: Monitoring campsites will help ensure that biome health is maintained and that land degradation is being kept to a minimum. Monitoring data will also help support closures and help determine what the general use trends are. 46

48 Opportunities for Revenue Generation and Cost Reduction Revenue Generating Ideas Fee Collection. The collection of recreation fees in the Cinnamon Creek parcel would likely not be feasible. The cost to gather fees would likely exceed the value. In the survey we asked a willingness to pay question (See Table 15 and 16). We asked respondents how much they were willing to pay for increased access, for improved roads, and for campgrounds. A small majority was not willing to pay for any of these services. However, this survey primarily represented snowmobile users who travel through the parcel on their way to other snowmobile destinations such as the area near Powder Mountain Ski Area. They may differ from those who frequent the parcel during other seasons. Administering a fee program during the winter would be ineffective because visitors are not confined to roads and enter the parcel from many different locations. Snowmobile users are charged a fee to park, and if they were also asked to pay for access to Cinnamon Creek, the end result could be conflict. An on-site survey of summer visitors could reveal different results. Summer visitors may have more place attachment than winter users, and might be more willing to pay a fee. Recreationists are more likely to pay and support a fee system if the money generated from such a system is put back in to managing the same land. Volunteer payment deposit or drop boxes, while relatively inexpensive, are generally ineffective for fee collection. In a remote area like Cinnamon Creek, payment of fees is difficult to enforce and deposit boxes could also become likely targets for vandalism. 47

49 Possible Partnerships and Organizations The need for partnerships is inevitable in management. Many partnerships help to keep up signs, roads, vegetation, and even enforcement. There is a need in several areas for maintenance on this parcel. Funding is a problem for management. Partnerships can aid in cost cutting by helping with enforcement, regulations, research, and monitoring environmental conditions. Hunting and Recreational Groups 1. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation The mission of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is committed to conserving, restoring and enhancing natural habitats; fostering cooperation among federal, state and private organizations and individuals in wildlife management and habitat conservation; educating its members and the public about habitat conservation, the value of hunting, hunting ethics and wildlife management. 2. Local Hunting groups These groups can directly partner in with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the other regional hunters. Some possible groups to contact are: Utah State Rifle & Pistol Association This is the official NRA affiliated state association. The association makes safety and shooting sport related information available to Utah citizens and promotes range development to ensure safe places to shoot. The association sponsors junior shooters to enable them to attend the national matches at 48

50 Camp Perry every year. This group does not engage in lobbying or political action. Box Elder Wildlife Federation P.O. Box 192, Brigham City, UT The Box Elder Wildlife Federation promotes hunting and fishing opportunities and operates ranges in Mantua and Tremonton. Pheasants Forever- The Habitat Organization Pheasants Forever is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of pheasant and other wildlife populations in North America through habitat improvement, land management, public awareness, and education. Such efforts benefit landowners and wildlife alike. Pheasants Forever's unique system of county chapters allows all of funds raised by chapters to remain at the chapter level for local habitat projects. Trout Unlimited Trout Unlimited s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America s trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. 49

51 3. Dedicated Hunter Program This is a program that is administered by the Division of Wildlife Resources and is meant to help hunters get first-hand experience at managing wildlife. One of the main requirements in this program is that the members must participate in a minimum of eight hours of wildlife conservation service projects each year during their two-year enrollment period. The Dedicated hunter program provides a great opportunity for SITLA and the DWR to have many service hands for projects related to this parcel and its wildlife. 4. RV, ATV and OHV user groups Through class interviews and the data produced in NR 5000, we have found several individuals that use Cinnamon Creek, are interested in its future, and are willing to pay a fee for good management. Some of these interviewees are affiliated with recreation groups and clubs. Information may be made available to these groups to encoura ge them to form partnerships with the SITLA management team helping with patrols and restoration projects. 5. Blue Ribbon Coalition The Blue Ribbon Coalition may provide assistance with the maintenance of roads and obtaining the cooperation of recreationists. During the proposed sensitive road area closure, they could help foster public acceptance and provide information on other access points or alternate areas. Loggers, miners, and cattlemen work with us to share and preserve our precious natural heritage. We campaign to replace "user 50

52 conflict" with "user cooperation". All recreationists must learn to share trails and facilities. All must learn acceptance and good manners. Environment and Nature Based Groups 1. Tread Lightly/Leave No Trace Partner Projects provide opportunities for sponsors to clearly and actively show their concern for the environment, particularly with respect to the venue in which their products are used. The Tread Lightly organization believes that education, restoration, and research can have great influence on generations of recreationists. By practicing Tread Lightly techniques we can learn to enjoy the outdoors responsibly. If we increase public awareness and encourage responsible outdoor practices, the great outdoors will be accessible, open and well preserved for years to come. Travel and recreate with minimum impact Respect the environment and the rights of others Educate yourself--plan and prepare before you go Allow for future use of the outdoors--leave it better than you found it Discover the rewards of responsible recreation Much of the misuse of land comes from negligence. By partnering with Tread Lightly, management could request signs and message/information boards to help promote responsible recreational habits of travel. 51

53 2. Ogden Nature Center This partner can t offer funding, but they can adopt and monitor lands of interest. Their mission is to unite people with nature in mutually enriching experiences and to nurture appreciation and concern for the environment. Contact information: Ogden Nature Center 966 W. 12th St. Ogden, UT 84404, Wasatch Audubon Society, Ogden This is an association of people who share an interest in birds, all natural things, and Utah's varied habitat. The Wasatch Audubon society already participates in many projects and works with several nature centers. The Ogden Nature Center and the Ogden chapter of the Wasatch Audubon Society likely already have ties with one another. 4. Utah school project facility If the money from SITLA land is returned to the schools for projects and funding, then the children and teachers should have the opportunity to see where the money is coming from first hand. There are multiple possibilities for a cooperative effort here. Just like adopt a highway, a grade or a classroom could have the opportunity to adopt a percentage of the parcel for a school purpose. Biology, geology, science, and history classes could all participate in this opportunity. The Ogden area would have the best opportunity to use and study the land. Several grade levels could take advantage of this. SITLA money goes towards all Utah schools. This includes all levels, from kindergarten all the way to the college. Just as we are becoming more familiar with the land, younger students could have a great learning opportunity here. 52

54 Many learning and educational units could take place on this parcel. Having a bond between SITLA and Utah schools could be a great opportunity for both parties. Others 1. Military Training Seek partnership for heavy equipment needs. Active and reserve military units can receive training hours by participating in several types of land improvement projects. The land parcel would not be used as a war-training zone, but could be used to aid the military in training while improving the maintenance of the SITLA parcel. Engineering units could use Cinnamon Creek and earn valuable equipment operation training. 2. Prison Inmates/community hours People are often required to participate in projects to complete community service hours. Many times the community service hours are spent doing highway clean up. If parole officers are aware of the opportunities at the Cinnamon Creek parcel, plans could be made for community service projects to include campground and water clean up, fire fighting and prevention, and fence and signage repair. 3. Eagle Scout Projects With the adjacent church land, a partnership with this interest group could dissipate land boundary problems. It has been discovered through the findings of this class and NR 5000 that the boundary between the church property and the SITLA property is not marked. Many activities are taking place on both sides of the boundary line. The church could use some portions of the parcel if they are willing to do upkeep, management projects, and monitoring. 53

55 4. Grants Government and non-government organizations often offer grants for land improvement, management, and trail building. Organizations interests vary, but Cin namon Creek may have qualities that appeal to many of them. Federal grants are often offered. There are many grants that are match grants, meaning that the government or organization is willing to match whatever the applicant is able to produce. There could even be educational grants available for the land. If the SITLA parcel was to increase revenue for schools by using a grant, then the grant might be a valuable asset. 5. Water R ight Holders Partnering with the downstream water right holders to install water culverts and to work together to keep water healthy is a possible option. 6. Local landowners, new property owner s associations The need for SITLA to establish a relationship with adjacent landowners has already been addressed in this document. If SITLA decides to sell parts of the parcel for development, further contacts would need to be made with developers, landowners, and users. These groups could be very useful partners in management of the parcel because they are next to the parcel and are able to access and monitor the land as needed. They would probably be willing to help out because the Cinnamon Creek parcel is their backyard. Vendors The access group has identified a few vendor and promoters that might be interested in using the parcel for events. These events would help to generate revenue. 54

56 Several of these groups use land throughout the state to hold various events and to promote their activity. The SITLA parcel could sell a permit or lease a section of the land for these groups to use. It might be possible to work with these groups to help generate revenue for the parcel. 1. BORE Bonneville Off-Road Enterprises (motor cycle) 341 W N. Sunset, UT George Caine Hm. (801) (801) Several of the races sponsored by this organization are held in Nevada. These races could generate revenue. 2. UROC (truck, rock climbing) E. Bristlecone Delta, UT UROC, the world s largest rock crawling organization, has committed to donate thousands of dollars to various non-profit organizations in support of keeping trials open. Monitoring Criteria Campsite Guidelines While there is no consensus among agencies or even within agencies on how to best manage dispersed camping on public land, there are several sources for guidance to minimize the impacts of this activity without having to restrict or eliminate access. In 55

57 managing recreation impacts, there are two elements that must be present assessment tools and regulatory standards. Assessment Tools Peter William s Manual for the Assessment of Backcountry Recreation Sites addresses assessment tools. Williams defines a backcountry campsite as: an area other than a trail that has been disturbed by people recreating, as might result from either overnight camping or daytime activities. The disturbed area is neither too steep nor too small for camping. The campsite is noticeable because its vegetation, surface litter, or soils have been changed compared to conditions on similar, undisturbed, and adjacent areas. A visible boundary must exist between the campsite and adjacent areas. Although with the present snow cover at Cinnamon Creek it is impossible to locate campsites, much less to assess their impacts, Mike Sumner has mapped a number of dispersed campsites on the parcel that can be properly assessed and documented when weather permits. Even if SITLA decides that not all of the indicators and site classes outlined in William s manual are important for the management objectives of the Cinnamon Creek parcel, at the very least a baseline can be established using those that are relevant to monitor site conditions in the future. The most important guidelines and indicators from Peter William s manual are listed below. The complete manual is located in Appendix B. 56

58 Documenting your methods for finding campsites is important for ensuring comparability between what you find and what another person may find during future campsite assessment projects. Only with consistent methods can you assume that the information gathered is consistent. For these reasons, each surveyor should keep careful notes while searching for and assessing sites. Explaining results in unnecessarily difficult when trying to compare conditions assessed at different times of the year. Because the purpose of assessing campsites is to identify changes occurring over time and due to camping, you want to avoid what is called confounding information that may hide or exaggerate those changes. Consistent timing of assessments will reduce the effect of information that could possibly confound itself with the information you want. Classify surrounding roads and trails. Use a classification system that will fit the needs and characteristics of your site, as well as be comparable with similar studies. Using a universal system such as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) would keep information consistent. Classification could consist of: Major, Minor, Primitive, and None (no trail/road established). Condition indicator information helps allow statistical analysis to distinguish between campsites that have similar or dissimilar characteristics. BE CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE! Campsite Condition Class: Select the condition class that most closely describes the campsite. This would be a similar method as assessing the existing roads and trails. It would be broken down into five classes describing the individual characteristics of each campsite. Site Identification: This includes a number of important characteristics in order to be sure that the campsite is accurately depicted and represented. Location characteristics (i.e., roads, water, elevation, topographic location, canopy cover). Identification would also include vegetation characteristics (i.e., grass/sedge cover, ground surface, soil exposure, tree damage, or root exposure). Other indicators might include (i.e., fire sites, human waste, visible litter, number of satellite sites, total campground area, and any comments or recommendations). Regulatory Standards In looking for guidance in defining campsite regulations appropriate to Cinnamon Creek, the most logical starting points are the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Although most of the regulations adopted by either agency are site specific, 57

59 there appear to be some threads that run through a variety of management plans in both agencies from which generalizations can be made. 1. The first of these is the maximum length of stay of fourteen days. 2. The second is that campsites and any washing and bathing associated with camping should occur no closer than 100 feet from any water source (streams, springs, lakes, stock-ponds), and if at all possible no closer than 200 feet. 3. The third is that human waste should be disposed of in holes at least eight inches deep. Similar to regulations found on both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management sites, but very special in that they are not rules passed down by the federal government, are those guidelines illustrated by the Tread Lightly organization in its guide for responsible camping, a publication tailored to motorized recreationists. Since the great majority of Cinnamon Creek users participate in some form of motorized recreation on site, it is recommended that SITLA adopts the specific camping principles set forth in the Tread Lightly guidelines for responsible camping. Listed below are selected sets of guidelines as they appear in the Tread Lightly s Tips for Responsible Campin g. The following guidelines are most suitable for camping regulations on the Cinnamon Creek land parcel. Travel and recreate with minimum impact. *While traveling to your favorite camping spot, stay on roads and trails to reduce impacts. *Cutting switchbacks and taking shortcuts can destroy vegetation and cause erosion. Respect the environment and the rights of others. *Camping supplies in natural colors blend with the natural surroundings and are less intrusive to other camper s experience. 58

60 *Whenever possible, use existing campsites. Camp on durable surfaces and place tents on a non-vegetated area. Do not dig trenches around tents. *Camp at least 200 feet from water. *For cooking, use a camp stove. They are always preferable to a campfire in terms of impacts on the land. *Observe all fire restrictions. For campfires, use only fallen timber. Gather firewood well away from your camp. Do not cut standing trees. *Let your fire burn down to a fine ash. Ensure your fire is completely extinguished. *Do not wash in streams and lakes. Scatter wash water so that it filters through the soil. *In areas without toilets, bury your waste. Human waste should be disposed of in a shallow hole (6-8 deep) at least 200 feet from water sources, campsites or trails. Cover and disguise the hole with natural materials. Use toilet paper sparingly. Dispose of it in the hole or pack it out. Allow for future use of the outdoors by leaving it better than you found it. *Take all your garbage out with you. *Leave your campsite better than you found it or as if you were never there. *Leave natural surroundings as you found them. *Naturalize the area by placing fallen logs, rocks, etc. where you found them. 59

61 Acknowledgements For the success of this project we would like to thank and recognize: *Dr. Dale Blahna for long hours of dedicated work, suggestion, revision, guidance, and expertise in the EnvS 4750 course. *Dr. Nicole McCoy for the dedication in the NR 5000 course and for the use of her research truck. *Dr. Steve Burr for the assisted guidance in the project *Doug Reiter for recommendations for analysis of survey results, use of SPSS, and use of Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism facilities *Roland Bringhurst for Utah State Parks statistics. * The Quinney Computer Lab *School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA)- Mike Sumner for entrusting the EnvS 4750 class to carry out their project * True Rubal (Vice President for Research) for her prompt response for Institutional Review board (IRB) survey certification. Figure 16: EnvS 4750 Instructor Dale Blahna To better understand the typical Cinnamon Creek visitor, instructor Dale Ultra-Extreme Blahna hones his snowmobiling skills. 60