Middle Fork American River Project Recreation Resources Technical Working Group Meeting

Middle Fork American River Middle Fork American River ProjectProject

Recreation ResourcesRecreation ResourcesTechnical Working Group Technical Working Group

MeetingMeeting

October 5, 2009October 5, 2009

2

Recreation Technical Study Report Recreation Technical Study Report Status and Schedule Status and Schedule

3

TSR Status and ScheduleTSR Status and Schedule

REC 1 – Recreation Use and Facilities

In progress - Draft to be distributed in November.

REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Surveys

Draft distributed on September 10, 2009.

Comments due on November 9, 2009.

REC 3 – Reservoir Recreation Opportunities

In progress - Draft to be distributed in October.

4

TSR Status and ScheduleTSR Status and Schedule

REC 4 – Stream-based Recreation Opportunities

Draft distributed on July 24, 2009.

Comments due on September 22, 2009.

Response to comments on draft report in progress.

REC 5 – Visual Quality Assessment

Draft distributed on March 27, 2009.

Comments due on May 26, 2009.

Report was finalized on August 20, 2009.

5

REC 4 – Stream-Based Recreation REC 4 – Stream-Based Recreation Opportunities TSR StatusOpportunities TSR Status

6

REC 4 – TSR StatusREC 4 – TSR Status

Draft Report Distributed on July 24, 3009 with comments due on September 22, 2009.

Comments provided by four parties:

Foothills Water Network

Horseshoe Bar Fish and Game Preserve

Patricia Gibbs

Bill Carnazzo

Forest Service comments are pending.

7

REC 4 – TSR StatusREC 4 – TSR Status

PCWA plan for response to comments:

All comments will be addressed in a response-to-comments table.

Distribute response-to-comments table to Recreation TWG for review.

Discuss responses with Recreation TWG.

Revise report in accordance with response-to-comments table.

8

Overview of REC 2 – Recreation Overview of REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Survey TSRVisitor Survey TSR

9

REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Survey TSRREC 2 – Recreation Visitor Survey TSR

Schedule

Draft TSR was distributed on September 10, 2009.

60-day review period

Comments are due on November 9, 2009.

10


Content

Handout #1 – Table of Contents

11


Study Objectives

Conduct a General Visitor Survey Collect data to describe:

Current recreation activities User characteristics

Utilize data to evaluate: Use patterns Visitor preferences Demand for opportunities Demand for new or improved developed recreation facilities

Conduct an Angler Survey at French Meadows and Hell Hole Reservoirs.

12


Study Area

All developed Project recreation facilities.

Select dispersed concentrated use areas (DCUAs) identified in consultation with stakeholders.

Five sites located in ASRA. Indian Bar Rafter Access (also a Project recreation facility) Ruck-a-Chucky Campground Mammoth Bar Confluence Area Birdsall/Oregon Bar Access Areas

13


Study Implementation

General Visitor Survey was separated into two distinct survey efforts: Form A – Designed to collect a range of demographic and

activity-specific information. Form B – Designed to collect information about visitation

patterns, spending, travel destinations and routes.

Reservoir Angler Survey Conducted as a component of the General Visitor Survey

(Form A)

14


Study Implementation

Form A Consisted of 7 Sections: Section A-1: Background Information Section Section A-2: Camping at Developed Sites Section A-3: Day Use at Developed Sites Section A-4: Day Use or Camping in Undeveloped Areas Section A-5: Day Use along a Stream/River Section A-6: Reservoir Recreation Section A-7: Fishing

15


Reporting

Methods and overall results are presented in the REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Survey TSR. Results presented in the REC 2 - TSR focus on

characterizing visitor demographics, experiences, and preferences by area.

Some survey results will be documented in other technical study reports, as appropriate.

16


Reporting

Handout #2 – REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Survey TSP Study Objectives, Related Study Elements, and Reports.

17

REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Survey TSRREC 2 – Recreation Visitor Survey TSRStudy Objectives

Conduct General Visitor SurveyConduct Angler Survey at French Meadows and Hell Hole Reservoirs

Section A-6

ReservoirRecreation

Section A-7

Fishing

Section A-1

General Background Information

Section A-2

Camping at Developed

Sites

Section A-3

Day Use atDeveloped

Sites

Section A-4

Day Use orCamping in

Undeveloped Areas

Section A-5

Day Usealong a

Stream/River

Results will be documented in

REC 3 – Reservoir Recreation

Opportunities TSR.

(organized by reservoir)

Results are documented in

REC 4 – Stream-based

RecreationOpportunities

TSR. (organized by bypass and

peaking reaches)

Site-specific results will be documented in

REC 1 – Recreation Use

andFacilities Assessment

TSR.

(organized byProject recreation facility)

Results are documented in REC 2 – Recreation Visitor Surveys TSR(organized by area).

Form A

General Visitor SurveyReservoir Angler Survey

Form B

Road and Dispersed Use Interview

18


Form A - Methods

Surveys were conducted in 2008, from Memorial Day weekend (May 24th) through Labor Day weekend (September 1st).

Surveys were administered in accordance with the schedule and protocols established in consultation with the Recreation TWG.

Any schedule or protocol adjustments were communicated to the Recreation TWG in meetings and by e-mail, and are documented in the report.

19


Form A - Results

A total of 968 people participated in the Form A surveys. Hell Hole Reservoir Area – 255 French Meadows Reservoir Area – 316 Long Canyon Area – 51 Duncan Creek Diversion Area – 5 Ralston Afterbay Area – 58

Includes Indian Bar Rafter Access ASRA Area – 283

Excludes Indian Bar Rafter Access

Overall participation rate was better then expected (62%).

20


Form A - Results

All survey data was entered into SPSS, a database and statistical analysis software package.

Survey data was organized into six geographic areas for analysis: Hell Hole Reservoir Area French Meadows Reservoir Area Long Canyon Area Duncan Creek Diversion Area Ralston Afterbay Area ASRA Area

21


Form A - Results

Survey results are presented in tables and summarized in the text, by area, and by survey section. Example results table Example text

22


Form B - Methods

Surveys were conducted in June, July, and August, 2008.

Surveys were administered in accordance with the protocols established in consultation with the Recreation TWG.

Conducted in an interview format. Survey technician utilized reference maps to help

respondents identify their travel routes.

Objective was to collect a total of 100 surveys throughout the study area. Form B was not administered in ASRA, per the study plan.

23


Form B - Results

A total of 110 people completed Form B. Hell Hole Reservoir Area – 32 French Meadows Reservoir Area – 48 Long Canyon Area – 0 Duncan Creek Diversion Area – 3 Ralston Afterbay Area – 27

Includes Indian Bar Rafter Access

24


Form B - Results

All survey data was entered into SPSS.

Survey data were organized into four areas for analysis: Hell Hole Reservoir Area French Meadows Reservoir Area Duncan Creek Diversion Area Ralston Afterbay Area

25


Form B - Results

Results presented in the REC 2 - TSR focus on: Visitation patterns (timing, frequency) Road use Areas visited during trip Spending

Data collected through this survey effort will also be used in the LAND 1 – Transportation System TSR.

26


Form B - Results

Survey results are presented in tables and summarized in the text, by area, and by survey section. Example results table Example text

27


Form B – Example Results

Hell Hole Reservoir Area Number of Years Recreating in Area – average of 17.3 years Frequency of Visits – average of 4.6 times per year Timing of Visits

January – April: 0% May – September: 100% October – December: 0%

Road Use Most of the survey participants (84%) accessed the area from

Foresthill, utilizing Mosquito Ridge Road (FR 96) Remainder (16%) accessed the area from Georgetown, utilizing Eleven

Pines Road (FR 2) Spending (n = 26, average per survey participant)

Auburn - $33.08 Foresthill - $20.77 Georgetown - $12.31

28



French Meadows Reservoir Area Number of Years Recreating in Area – average of 17.3 years Frequency of Visits – average of 3.4 times per year Timing of Visits

January – April: 0% May – September: 100% October – December: 0%

Road Use All of the survey participants accessed the area from Foresthill

utilizing Mosquito Ridge Road (FR 96) Spending (average per survey participant, n=42)

Auburn - $64.93 Foresthill - $14.29 Georgetown - $0

29



Ralston Afterbay Area Number of Years Recreating in Area – average of 14.1 years Frequency of Visits – average of 5.2 times per year Timing of Visits

January – April: 7.4% May – September: 100% October – December: 3.7%

Road Use All of the survey participants accessed the area from Foresthill utilizing

Mosquito Ridge Road (FR 96) and Blacksmith Flat Road (FR 23)

Spending (average per survey participant, n=25) Auburn - $36.12 Foresthill - $14.20 Georgetown - $0

30



Most people stay within the area they visited. Hell Hole Reservoir Area (n = 32)

All respondents stayed in the Hell Hole Reservoir Area.

French Meadows Reservoir Area (n = 48) One person went to Hell Hole Boat Ramp. One person went to the North Fork of the American River. One person went to Sugar Pine Lake.

Duncan Creek Diversion Area (n = 3) One person went to an area north of Talbot Campground.

Ralston Afterbay Area (n = 27) One person went to Big Trees. One person (a boater) went to Ruck-a-Chucky Campground. One person went to Folsom Lake.

31


Reservoir Angler Survey - Methods

Conducted as a component of the General Visitor Survey (Section A-7)

Any survey participant who identified “fishing” as one of the activities they participated in during their visit was asked to complete Section A-7.

Focused on the following topics: Fishing effort Fishing location Fishing gear Fish species kept, caught, and released Fishing experience Overall satisfaction

Responses were also used to determine catch per unit effort.

32


Reservoir Angler Survey - Methods A total of 213 people completed Section A-7 of the survey form.

Of these, 170 surveys were analyzed. Hell Hole Reservoir Area – 101 French Meadows Area – 63 Ralston Afterbay Area – 6

The remainder were not analyzed for the following reasons: Respondent identified both Hell Hole and French Meadows

Reservoirs (10) Respondent identified both a reservoir and a river/stream (16) Respondent identified a river/stream (16) but:

did not specify which river or stream they fished; the stream was not a bypass or peaking reach; or not enough responses on any one stream.

Too few responses to analyze.

33


Reservoir Angler Survey - Methods

All survey data was entered into SPSS.

Data were organized by reservoir for analysis. Hell Hole Reservoir French Meadows Reservoir Ralston Afterbay

34


Reservoir Angler Survey - Results

Survey results are presented in tables and summarized in the text, by reservoir, and by survey section. Example results table Example text

35


Reservoir Angler Survey – Example Results

Hell Hole Reservoir Area Most anglers (79%) fish from a boat Anglers reported catching a total of 451 fish.

Kokanee (52%) Brown Trout (22%) Rainbow Trout (16%) Lake Trout/Mackinaw (10%)

Catch per unit effort = 0.6 fish/hour Fishing Experience

43% of the respondents said the number of fish caught was acceptable. 52% of the respondents said that the size of fish caught was

acceptable. 73% of the respondents said the variety of fish species was acceptable.

Most anglers (77%) said they were either very satisfied or satisfied with their overall fishing experience.

36



French Meadows Reservoir Area Anglers fish from both a boat and shore. Anglers reported catching a total of 192 fish.

Rainbow Trout (84%) Brown Trout (6%) Lake Trout/Mackinaw (4%) “Not sure” (6%)


47% of the respondents said the number of fish caught was acceptable 47% of the respondents said that the size of fish caught was acceptable 51% of the respondents said the variety of fish species was acceptable

Most people (75%) said they were either very satisfied or satisfied with their overall fishing experience.

37



Ralston Afterbay Area Discussion relies on a limited number of surveys (n=6). Anglers fish from both a boat and shore. Anglers reported catching a total of 12 fish.

Rainbow Trout (11 fish) Brown Trout (one fish)


75% of the respondents said the number of fish caught was acceptable. 60% of the respondents said that the size of fish caught was

acceptable. 75% of the respondents said the variety of fish species was acceptable.

Most anglers (83%) said they were either very satisfied or satisfied with their overall fishing experience.

38

Development of Recreation-Related Development of Recreation-Related Management PlansManagement Plans

39

Collaboration Topic ScheduleCollaboration Topic ScheduleQ1 Q2

2009 2010Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

• Instream Flow Releases• Aquatic Monitoring Plans• Entrainment/ Passage Measures

• Sediment Management Plan

• Transportation System Management Plan

• Fire Plan• Public Safety Plan• Emergency Action Plan

• Historic PropertiesManagement Plan

• Recreation Plan

• Visual Resources Plan

• Vegetation & Integrated Pest Mgt Plan• Bald Eagle Mgt Plan

DraftLicense

Application

• FERC Non-Jurisdictional Agreements

• Water Quality Measures• Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plan

• S-S Wildlife Protection Measures

• Administrative Provisions

40

Next StepsNext Steps

41

Next StepsNext Steps

Next Recreation TWG meeting scheduled for November 3, 2009.

Proposed meeting topics: Discuss REC 3 – Reservoir Recreation Opportunities TSR Discuss whitewater boating studies on bypass reaches

Logistics Participants Review study form Reporting

Discuss Visual Management Plan Objectives Content Potential Measures

Documents

Middle Fork American River Project Recreation Resources Technical Working Group Meeting