RECREATION USE AT ELECTRA LAKE - tacoma-ames.comtacoma-ames.com/tacoma/study_reports/RecUseEL-071128.pdf · Tacoma Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 12589 RECREATION USE AT ELECTRA LAKE

Tacoma Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 12589

RECREATION USE AT ELECTRA LAKE

Public Service Company of Colorado

OCTOBER 2007

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No. ACRONYM LIST ....................................................................................................AL-1 1.0 Introduction and Background ..........................................................................1 2.0 Description of Issue .........................................................................................1

2.1 Study Purpose and Objectives....................................................................................2 2.1.1 Methodology................................................................................................2 2.1.2 Results..........................................................................................................5 2.1.3 Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................78

APPENDICES APPENDIX A - SURVEY INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX B - LIST OF ALL SURVEY DATES APPENDIX C - SURVEY SCRIPT GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOL APPENDIX D - LOCATION OF VISITOR’S HOMETOWNS APPENDIX E - VISITOR RESIDENCE LOCATIONS APPENDIX F - WEEKEND DAY VERSUS WEEKDAY USE AT ELECTRA LAKE APPENDIX G - ESC EXPENSE AND REVENUE STATEMENT FOR RECREATION AT

ELECTRA LAKE

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page No. Figure 2-1 Location of visitors’ hometowns. ..........................................................................10 Figure 2-2 Location of ESC member’s primary residence. .....................................................15 Figure 2-3 ESC member activity log responses. .....................................................................17 Figure 2-4 Monthly activity variation by visitors....................................................................29 Figure 2-5 Monthly activity variation by members and guests. ..............................................30 Figure 2-6 Comparison of sightseeing participation by user type...........................................31 Figure 2-7 Comparison of canoeing/kayaking participation by user type...............................31 Figure 2-8 Comparison of hiking participation by user type...................................................32 Figure 2-9 Comparison of nature viewing participation by user type. ....................................32 Figure 2-10 Comparison of relaxing participation by user type................................................33 Figure 2-11 Comparison of pleasure boating participation by user type. .................................33 Figure 2-12 Comparison of shore fishing participation by user type. .......................................34 Figure 2-13 Comparison of boat fishing participation by user type..........................................34 Figure 2-14 Comparison of water skiing/towing participation by user type.............................35 Figure 2-15 Comparison of all activities participation by user type. ........................................35 Figure 2-16 Total percentage of various users during the 2006 season at Electra Lake. ..........37 Figure 2-17 Peak water surface recreation use (July 2, 2006) morning vessel counts..............41 Figure 2-18 Peak water surface recreation use (September 4, 2006) afternoon vessel

counts. ....................................................................................................................42 Figure 2-19 Season water surface recreation use all vessel counts. ..........................................43 Figure 2-20 Importance - performance visitor evaluation of amenities at Electra Lake...........62 Figure 2-21 Importance-performance ESC member evaluation of amenities at Electra

Lake........................................................................................................................65

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No. Table 2-1 Recreation use sites..................................................................................................2 Table 2-2 Summary of survey days..........................................................................................4 Table 2-3 Summary of recreation survey observation days. ....................................................5 Table 2-4 ESC member guest and public visitor RD 2005 and 2006. .....................................5 Table 2-5 Number of completed surveys and response rate. ...................................................6 Table 2-6 Electra Lake visitors: type of group........................................................................7 Table 2-7 Electra Lake visitors: group size.............................................................................7 Table 2-8 Electra Lake visitation characteristics of visitors. ...................................................8 Table 2-9 Electra Lake visitor gender of groups......................................................................9 Table 2-10 Socio-demographic characteristics of visitors to Electra Lake (n=44)..................11 Table 2-11 Socio-demographic characteristics of ESC members. ...........................................12 Table 2-12 ESC member property and resident characteristics. ..............................................13 Table 2-13 Number of people and types of recreation vehicles at Electra Lake residences.

................................................................................................................................16 Table 2-14 Property characteristics of ESC members at Electra Lake. ...................................16 Table 2-15 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during May. ..............18 Table 2-16 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during May. ................19 Table 2-17 ESC member volunteer hours for May. .................................................................19 Table 2-18 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during June. ..............20 Table 2-19 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during June. ................20 Table 2-20 ESC member volunteer hours for June. .................................................................21 Table 2-21 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during July................21 Table 2-22 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during July..................22 Table 2-23 Members volunteer hours during July. ..................................................................22 Table 2-24 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during August. ..........23 Table 2-25 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during August.............23 Table 2-26 Member volunteer hours during August. ...............................................................24 Table 2-27 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during September. ....24 Table 2-28 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during September. ......25 Table 2-29 ESC member volunteer activity hours during September. ....................................25 Table 2-30 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during October..........26 Table 2-31 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during October. ..........26 Table 2-32 Member volunteer hours in October. .....................................................................27 Table 2-33 Recreation activity participation by type of user for the 2006 season...................27 Table 2-34 Recreation participation comparison by user within activity type. .......................28 Table 2-35 Member volunteer hours for 2006. ........................................................................28 Table 2-36 Monthly variation of activity participation by visitors. .........................................29 Table 2-37 Monthly variation of activity participation by members and guests. ....................30 Table 2-38 Summary of gate activity by different types of groups at a monthly and a

yearly. ....................................................................................................................36

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page No.

iv

Table 2-39 Summary of gate activity by different types of groups at a monthly/yearly basis. ......................................................................................................................36

Table 2-40 Fish kept by visitors and members and guests at a yearly basis (within group comparison)............................................................................................................38

Table 2-41 Comparison of fish kept by visitors and members and guests...............................39 Table 2-42 Visitors who participated in fishing at Electra Lake. ............................................39 Table 2-43 ESC members who participated in fishing at Electra Lake. ..................................40 Table 2-44 Reported activity by visitors at Electra Lake.........................................................44 Table 2-45 Tacoma area recreation visitation. .........................................................................44 Table 2-46 Primary destination of visitors to Electra Lake. ....................................................45 Table 2-47 Visitor rating of overall experience evaluation in primary activity at Electra

Lake........................................................................................................................46 Table 2-48 Experience ratings by primary activity based on percentage of total

participation. ..........................................................................................................46 Table 2-49 Visitor evaluation of water level at Electra Lake. .................................................47 Table 2-50 Perceptions of crowding at Electra Lake among visitors. .....................................49 Table 2-51 Overall summer evaluation of visitors’ perception of crowding at Electra

Lake........................................................................................................................49 Table 2-52 Overall summer evaluation of ESC members’ perception of crowding at

Electra Lake. ..........................................................................................................51 Table 2-53 Visitors’ perceptions of density tolerance at Electra Lake. ...................................52 Table 2-54 Visitors’ distance between groups and tolerance by percentage. ..........................52 Table 2-55 ESC members’ perceptions of density tolerance at Electra Lake. .........................53 Table 2-56 ESC members distance between groups and tolerance by percentage. .................54 Table 2-57 Visitors’ acceptability rating for a variety of items at Electra Lake......................54 Table 2-58 Visitors’ rating of recreation trips to Electra Lake. ...............................................55 Table 2-59 ESC members’ rating of recreation trips to Electra Lake. .....................................56 Table 2-60 Visitor acceptability rating for a variety of items at Electra Lake.........................56 Table 2-61 ESC members’ acceptability rating for a variety of items at Electra Lake............57 Table 2-62 Visitors’ perception of availability of information at Electra Lake.......................57 Table 2-63 ESC members’ perception of availability of information at Electra Lake. ...........58 Table 2-64 Recreation experience settings of visitors to Electra Lake. ...................................58 Table 2-65 Recreation experience settings of ESC members at Electra Lake. ........................59 Table 2-66 Visitors’ perceptions of facility development at Electra Lake. .............................60 Table 2-67 ESC members’ perceptions of facility development at Electra Lake. ...................60 Table 2-68 Visitors’ evaluation of the importance of various facilities and amenities at

Electra Lake. ..........................................................................................................63 Table 2-69 Visitors’ satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Electra Lake. ......................63 Table 2-70 ESC members’ evaluation of the importance of various facilities and

amenities at Electra Lake. ......................................................................................66 Table 2-71 ESC members’ satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Electra Lake.............66

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page No.

v

Table 2-72 Visitor perceptions of problems at Electra Lake. ..................................................68 Table 2-73 ESC member perceptions of problems at Electra Lake. ........................................69 Table 2-74 Number of trespass incidences reported by residents at Electra Lake...................69 Table 2-75 Residents’ opinion of trespass incidences at Electra Lake. ...................................70 Table 2-76 Visitor perception of safety at Electra Lake. .........................................................70 Table 2-77 ESC members’ perception of safety at Electra Lake. ............................................71 Table 2-78 Visitor level of support for management actions at Electra Lake..........................71 Table 2-79 ESC member level of support for management actions at Electra Lake. ..............72 Table 2-80 Visitors’ evaluation of fees at Electra Lake...........................................................73 Table 2-81 ESC members’ evaluation of fees at Electra Lake.................................................74 Table 2-82 Evaluation of visitor experience over the years.....................................................75 Table 2-83 Evaluation of ESC members’ experience over the years.......................................77

AL-1

Acronym List Federal/State Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Colorado Department of Natural Resources (CDNR) Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Colorado Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Management

(CDEM) Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) Colorado Division of Water Quality (CDWQ) Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (CSHPO) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) National Park Service (NPS) National Weather Service (NWS) U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Other Entities Electra Sporting Club (ESC) Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) Documents 401 Water Quality Certificate (401 WQC) American Disabilities Act Accessible Guidelines (ADAAG) Colorado State Water Quality Standard (COWQS) Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Environmental Assessment (EA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Notice of Intent (NOI) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) Programmatic Agreement (PA) Scoping Document (SD) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

Acronym List

AL-2

Laws/Regulations Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Federal Power Act (FPA) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Terminology Cubic feet per second (cfs) Degrees Celsius (C) Degrees Fahrenheit (F) Dissolved oxygen (DO) Feet (ft) Gallons per day (gpd) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Gigawatt Hour (GWh) Global Positioning System (GPS) Grams (g) Horsepower (hp) International Symbol of Accessibility (IAS) Kilogram (kg) Kilowatt (kW) Kilowatt-hour (kWh) Mean Sea Level (msl) Megawatt (MW) Megawatt-hours (MWh) Micrograms per liter (µg/L) Milligrams per liter (mg/L) Millimeter (mm) Million gallons per day (mgd) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) Ounces (oz.) Outdoor Recreation Access Route (ORAR) Outstanding Remarkable Value (ORV) Parts per billion (ppb) Parts per million (ppm) Pounds (lbs.) Power Factor (p.f.)

Acronym List

AL-3

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Project Inflow Design Flood (IDF) Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species (RTE) Ready for Environmental Analysis (REA) Resource Work Groups (RWG) Revolutions per Minute (rpm) Rights-of-way (ROW) Stakeholders (federal and state resource agencies, NGOs, and other interested parties) Volts (V) Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)

Recreational Use at Electra Lake

1

1.0 Introduction and Background Public Service Co. of Colorado (PSCo) owns and operates the Tacoma Hydroelectric Project on Cascade Creek and the Animas River in southwestern Colorado. PSCo is using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to obtain a new operating license for its 100-year-old Project. As part of that process, PSCo is undertaking resource studies in accordance with study plans developed with stakeholders and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in its Study Plan Determination dated March 24, 2006.1

2.0 Description of Issue Electra Lake is known for the quality of the fishing experience that it offers. A concern was raised by stakeholders that increased public access, or even the current level of public access, may seriously diminish this experience. Public recreation activities at Electra Lake primarily consist of boating and fishing. This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between the amount of public use and the potential that at higher levels of public use the quality of the recreation experience is adversely impacted. A related issue evaluated within this study is the overall effect of the day use fee structure on public use levels and the appropriate fee structure for public use. The study was done in accordance with a study plan approved by FERC in its Study Plan Determination dated March 24, 2006.2

It is generally acknowledged that fishing at Electra Lake is a unique recreation experience because of the aesthetic character of the lake and because the lake produces a high catch rate of medium and large brook, brown, and rainbow trout. According to the Electra Lake Recreation and Land Management Plan (2000), approximately 80 percent of the public fishing is from the shoreline of the Lake, which is accessible by footpath from the Westinghouse, Nunn, and Edison parking areas. The management plan also indicates that the remaining 20 percent of the public use is from boating activities for fishing, pleasure boating, and water skiing. Other activities include hiking, wildlife viewing, and educational excursions for botanical, geological, and historical field trips which occur at the Project. With continued economic and residential growth in the vicinity of the Project, future demand for this experience is likely to increase. The sustainability of the quality of the fishing experience is therefore a primary concern. Current day-use fees are $7/day with a limit of four fish. Current public use is limited to 50 persons per day on a first-come, first-serve basis. The potential effect of current and increased public demand on the fishing experience at Electra Lake and appropriateness of the present fee structures were evaluated by this study.

1 This report includes the investigations required by Recreation RWG Issue Assessment No. 5. 2 Please refer to the study plan entitled Issue Assessment No. 5 - Maintaining a Quality Recreation Experience in

Electra Lake; Assessing Day Use Fee Structure.


2

2.1 Study Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study is to define the preferences, attitudes, and characteristics of the Project’s primary recreation user groups. Information from a survey of users provided an understanding of the preferences of various project recreation user groups and Electra Sporting Club (ESC) members. The survey also described recreation user preferences for various types of recreation opportunities, the level of acceptability of experiential impacts, and support for existing and alternative recreation management options. Specific objectives are to: ■ describe recreation visitors and their trip characteristics by project recreation resource area and

type of user (i.e., anglers, boaters, canoe/kayakers, water skiers, etc.); ■ describe recreation visitor and ESC member activities and their recreation use levels at the

Project; ■ describe user and ESC member preferences for the various recreation types and facilities and

their tolerances for various conditions at recreation resource areas; ■ identify recreation conflicts, crowding, or personal safety issues within each of the Project’s

recreation resource areas; ■ describe user and ESC member attitudes toward management actions that might be used to

improve experiences or address current or potential future problems; ■ describe visitor and ESC member perceptions of a quality recreation experience at Electra

Lake; and, ■ evaluate current fee structure and potential future fee structures related to effects on recreation

use. Recreation developments and sites at Electra Lake are listed in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1 Recreation use sites.

Recreation Resource Area Study Sites Electra Lake Reservoir shoreline

a. Nunn Recreation Area Parking Area Electra Lake surface via boat Picnic Area Boat ramp Floating dock b. Westinghouse Parking and Picnic Area Picnic area Parking area Shoreline Fishing access area c. Edison Parking and Picnic Area Picnic area Parking area Shoreline Fishing access area

Aspaas Lake Reservoir shoreline Forebay Lake Reservoir shoreline

2.1.1 Methodology PSCo utilized five sources of recreation use information: (1) an on-site visitor survey (public and member guest); (2) a follow-up visitor mail-back survey; (3) an ESC member survey; (4) recreational user spot counts; and 5) recreational use entrance gate records. The on-site and mail


3

surveys served to collect information on the topics listed below and information needed for carrying capacity and recreation demand studies3. Survey topics included: ■ acceptability of boat launch facilities; ■ other recreation resources in the area visited on the same trip; ■ preferences and attitudes towards the existing and potential future developed facilities and

services (including interpretive and education facilities); ■ acceptability of shoreline access and opportunities; ■ satisfaction and relative importance of specific trip attributes; ■ personal safety concerns; ■ crowding and conflict; ■ changed recreational use patterns; ■ place attachment; ■ angler recreation behavior and preferences; ■ attitudes and/or preferences related to the quality of the Electra Lake sport fishery; ■ access fees; and ■ potential barriers to recreation. Study Area Control Entrance to Electra Lake is controlled by one entrance gate for all vehicles accessing the lake and shoreline residences. As such, the visitor surveys and use counts were conducted at the entrance gate, supplemented by field observations in each of the recreation sites designated in Table 2-1. In addition to visitors to Electra Lake, ESC members were also surveyed. On-site and Mail Survey Questionnaires Two survey approaches—on-site/mail-back visitor survey and direct mail ESC member use survey—were utilized in the study to reflect the different ways that Project recreation users could be reached. The on-site/mail-back visitor surveys incorporated a systematic stratified sampling method. The sample method was stratified by type of day (weekdays, non-holiday weekends, holiday weekends) and the time of day (mornings from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; afternoons from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and evenings from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) during summer/fall months (May to October). The direct mail survey targeted members of the ESC. The follow-up mailback visitor and ESC member mail survey processes were conducted in accordance with standard mail survey methodology (Dillman, 2000), which included the use of a mail survey packet. This packet included a self-addressed, stamped envelope; instructions and cover letter; and mail survey. Each survey was numbered for tracking purposes, with a reminder follow-up postcard sent approximately one week after the respondents were surveyed, and a second letter and survey sent to the respondent two weeks and three weeks respectively after the follow-up postcard, depending on response.

3 For a review of all survey instruments, see Appendix A - Survey Instruments.


4

A direct mail recreation use survey was sent to all members of the ESC, residing part-time or full-time at the lake. Names and addresses for members were obtained by PSCo in cooperation with the ESC. Completed mail surveys provide information on user characteristics, recreational activities, Project visitation, concerns, and overall recreational experiences. Recreation researchers trained surveyors on: (a) techniques for randomly choosing groups at a site, participants within groups, or individuals at a site; (b) introduction strategies; (c) how to record feedback; and (d) how to track refusals. Respondents 18 years or older were asked to complete the on-site survey. The questions on the on-site survey focused primarily on respondents’ feelings about current resource conditions. Respondents were also asked to complete a multi-page, mail-back survey. If they agreed, they were handed a survey packet containing instructions on completing the survey, an incentive notice (i.e., drawing for a $100 gift certificate), and a self-addressed stamped envelope addressed to PSCo in Durango, Colorado. Thirty-four days were randomly selected at the beginning of the summer. In addition, three days were added to address peak times before and after holiday weekends, which included each major holiday (Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day) for a total of 37 survey days total from Memorial Day through October 31, 2006 (Table 2-2). Table 2-2 Summary of survey days.

Type of Day Frequency Percent Weekday 14 38% Weekend 15 40% Holiday 8 21% Total 37

Recreation Visitor Use Field Observations and ESC Entrance Gate Records To understand visitor use estimates, two approaches were used: (1) field observation; and (2) ESC entrance gate visitor records. Field observations were used to identify the location of various recreation activities taking place on a randomly selected day and time, weather conditions, and to identify various shoreline access use, etc. The observation days were stratified by location (the resource areas listed in Table 2-1, type of day (weekday, weekend, and holiday weekend), time of day (a.m., Mid-Day, p.m.), and time of year (spring, summer, fall, winter) during recreation seasons. However, because recreation use for the public visitor and member guest is primarily controlled at the entrance gate each day by the ESC, a system was in place to identify the number and types of recreation users each day from May through October. Therefore, the daily entrance gate records were utilized to determine overall use levels throughout the season at Electra Lake. Surveyors were instructed to count the number of vehicles, trailers, boats, people, day groups, and the types of activities in which users were engaged. Observations were used to primarily get a sense of density of users on a given day. In total, spot counts conducted by boat and land took place over 46 days, beginning May 24 and ending December 13. Table 2-3 depicts the variation in type of day (i.e., week day, weekend day, or holiday) and number of days across the recreation use observation period. For a complete list of all survey dates, see Appendix B.


5

Table 2-3 Summary of recreation survey observation days.

Type of Day Frequency Percent Weekday 17 36% Weekend 21 46% Holiday 8 17%

Total 46 2.1.2 Results Visitor Socio-demographics and Visitation Characteristics A stratified systematic sampling strategy was chosen for this study. To ensure that diversity in types of recreation users and variation in type of days visited, sampling was conducted at the entrance gate from May 24 through December 13, months that together account for the majority of use. The on-site visitor survey administered at the entrance gate where recreation visitors checked-in and exited each day included a short, two-page on-site survey instrument that collected information about current resource conditions (i.e., users’ feelings towards current use levels), and visitors’ mailing address. Visitors were asked to take a multi-page, mail-back survey instrument, which addressed other aspects of their recreation experience listed previously. Only individuals or members of a group who were 18 years or older were asked to complete a survey. The survey script guidelines and protocol are located in Appendix C. During May to October 2005, PSCo worked with the ESC to identify a standard data collection method for visitor and member recreation use at the Entrance Gate to Electra Lake. Visitation figures from 2005 formed the basis for determining the survey sample size and proportion of member guest visitation and public visitation. Based on the 2005 entrance gate records, 10,266 visitor recreation-days (RD) occurred at the lake, not including members and their families; in 2006 visitation was slightly higher (10,789) (Table 2-4). Table 2-4 ESC member guest and public visitor RD 2005 and 2006.

Visitor and Guests 2005 Visitor and Guests 2006 Month Public Visitor ESC Guest Total Public Visitor ESC Guest Total

May (Memorial Day) 310 192 502 487 297 784 May 22-28 127 121 May 29-4 360 176

June 1,326 1,179 2,505 1,284 1,132 2,416 June 05-11 284 295 June 12-18 364 250 June 19-25 331 309 June 26-02 305 278

July 1,300 1,533 2,833 1,751 1,733 3,484 July 02-09 388 525 July 10-16 356 338 July 17-23 328 299 July 24-30 311 297 July 31-06 368 274


6

Visitor and Guests 2005 Visitor and Guests 2006 Month Public Visitor ESC Guest Total Public Visitor ESC Guest Total

August 1,065 1,422 2,487 954 1,172 2,126 August 07-13 280 419 August 14-20 174 240 August 21-27 191 357 August 28-03 309 156

September 531 739 1,270 519 572 1,091 September 04-10 146 132 September 11-17 82 198 September 18-24 113 91 September 25-01 178 151

October 311 358 669 299 589 888 October 02-08 94 171 October 09-15 69 79 October 16-22 61 192 October 23-29 55 130 October 30-05 20 17

Total 4,843 5,423 10,266 5,294 5,495 10,789 The study proposed a sample size within a 95 percent confidence interval of +5. A sample of 292 on-site questionnaires was obtained from visitors (public and member guests) between May and October, 2006. Obtaining a sample of 293 completed questionnaires allows us to be 95 percent confident that our estimates will had a sampling error no more than +5.66, assuming conservatively that our sample population was relatively varied on the issues presented in the questionnaire. This means that 19 out of 20 times—or 95 percent of the time, the population value is within 5.66 percent of the estimate, in either direction. Of the 326 contacts made with visitors to Electra Lake, 230 refused to complete the mail back survey (Part II). Of those that did agree to complete Part II of the visitor survey (n=96), 47 percent actually sent the mail survey, for a total of 45 completed Part II questionnaires (Table 2-5). Table 2-5 Number of completed surveys and response rate.

Survey Completed Confidence Interval1

Total Distributed

Response Rate Refusal

Visitor On-site 292 ±5.66 310 93.9% 16 Visitor Mail-back 45 ±14.58 96 47.0% 230 ESC Member Mail 80 ±4.72 98 82.0% NA

1 The confidence interval is based on a 95-percent confidence level. Of those completing an on-site survey, 81 percent were public visitors and 19 percent were guests of ESC members. According to gate counts for 2006, the ratio between visitors and member guests is about 50/50, with public visitors 49 percent of the overall visitation and member guests 51 percent of the total visitation. Based on the relatively low response by member guests, PSCo amended the study plan and analyzed all recreation visitors to Electra Lake as one group when analyzing questions regarding management issues and preferences within Part II of the Mailback questionnaire. Analysis regarding activity participation was conducted by types of groups, as recorded at the gate (i.e., visitors, and members and guests). Further, it was observed on several occasions that member guests attended events outside the visitor hours for things such as visiting friends and family, attending weddings, attending other occasions that occurred when the gate was closed and survey


7

staff was not present. These types of occurrences add to the overall visitor numbers that are not directly related to specific recreation use. Direct Mail ESC Member Survey The direct mail survey was conducted in accordance with standard mail survey methodology (Dillman 2000), which included the use of a mail survey packet. This packet included a self-addressed, stamped envelope; instructions and cover letter; and mail survey form. PSCo, via the ESC newsletter, sent a letter introducing the survey effort to each ESC member. Approximately one week following the letter of introduction, the mail survey packet was sent. Each survey was numbered for tracking purposes, with a reminder follow-up postcard sent approximately one week after the first mailing, a second letter and survey two weeks and three weeks respectively, depending on response. The number of refusals was recorded. In addition, PSCo offered an incentive to assist with the return of completed survey forms for both direct mail and mail-back surveys (e.g., opportunity in a drawing to Home Depot). The response rate for ESC members was very high, 82 percent. The confidence interval at a 95 percent confidence level is +4.72. This means that 19 out of 20 times—or 95 percent of the time, the population value is within 4.72 percent of the estimate, in either direction. Of the 98 contacts made to visitors to Electra Lake, 18 did not respond to the mail back survey (see Table 2-5). Visitor Travel Characteristics Generally, visitors to Electra Lake travel with family (50 percent) and friends (19.9 percent), followed by a mix of family and friends (15.7 percent) (Table 2-6). Table 2-6 Electra Lake visitors: type of group.

Characteristic: Type of Group % of Respondents Number of Respondents Alone 5.5 16 Family 50 143 Multiple Families 8.4 24 Family and Friends 15.7 45 Friends 19.9 57 Organized Groups .3 1

Groups visiting Electra Lake generally travel with at least one other person, with a majority traveling with 2 to 4 persons (73.8 percent) (Table 2-7). The average group size of visitors to Electra Lake was 3.29 persons per group, with an overall range of 1 to 12 persons. Table 2-7 Electra Lake visitors: group size.

Group Size % of Respondents Number of Respondents Traveling Alone 7.4 21 2-4 73.8 208 5-7 14.2 40 8-10 3.5 10 11 or more 1.1 3


8

Over the past 10 years, on average, visitors came to Electra Lake nearly 17 times (Table 2-8). The number of visits ranged from 1 to 280, with predominate groups visiting 1 time only (30 percent); 21 times and more (20 percent); 2 to 5 days (19 percent); 6 to 10 days (15 percent); 11 to 20 days, combined (15 percent). Table 2-8 Electra Lake visitation characteristics of visitors.

Average Range 16.9 1-280 How many times have you visited Electra Lake in the past 10 years? % n

1 time only 29.7 85 2-5 days 19.2 55

6-10 days 15.4 44 11-15 days 8.7 25 16-20 days 6.6 19

21 and more 20.3 58 Average Range

5.24 1-100 How many times do you expect to visit Electra Lake this year? % n

1 time only 26.9 74 2-5 days 49.5 136

6-10 days 14.9 41 11-15 days 3.6 10 16-20 days 2.9 8

21 and higher 2.2 6 Average Range

11.61 1-203 On average, how many times per year do you visit Electra Lake? % n

1 time only 9.1 4 2-5 days 54.5 24

6-10 days 18.2 8 11-15 days 6.8 3 16-20 days 4.5 2

21 and higher 6.8 3 Average Range

5.12 1-12 How long are you planning on staying at Electra Lake (Hours)? (n=231) % n

1-2 hours 12.1 28 3-4 hours 30.3 70 5-6 hours 37.7 87 7-8 hours 14.7 34

9-10 hours 3.9 9 11-12 hours 1.3 3

How long are you planning on staying at Electra Lake (Days)? (n=51) % n 1-2 days 49 25 3-4 days 15.7 8

4 days or more 35.3 18 In addition, most visitors expected to visit Electra Lake on average approximately 5 times during 2006, with a range anywhere from 1 to 100 times. A majority of visitors were somewhere between 2 to 5 days (49.5 percent), 1 time only (26.9 percent), and 6 to 10 days (nearly 15 percent). Similarly, visitors were asked how many times per year, on average do they visit Electra Lake. The majority of visitors were between 2 to 5 days per year (54.5 percent), 6 to 10 days (18 percent), and 10 days or


9

more (18 percent). Nearly 82 percent of respondents (n=282), identified their stay in hourly terms, as opposed to days (Table 2-8). Socio-Demographic Information Visitors Socio-demographics The socio-demographics of respondents to the Tacoma on-site survey included: gender make up within the group, group make-up, and location of their permanent residence by zip code. Part II or the mail-back survey contained questions related to ethnicity, education, employment, household income, and residence. Of the groups traveling to Electra Lake, approximately 30 percent had at least one female and one male present. Nearly 40 percent reported no females within their group, whereas only 10 percent did not have males. Overall, groups reported a higher ratio of males to females with two or more in a group (Table 2-9). Table 2-9 Electra Lake visitor gender of groups.

# of Visitors % of Respondents Number of Respondents % of Respondents Number of

Respondents Females Males

0 38.9 112 3.5 10 1 31.3 90 29.2 84 2 16.7 48 35.1 101 3 7.3 21 17.4 50 4 2.8 8 8.3 24 5 2.1 6 3.1 9 6 .7 2 1.7 5 7 .3 1 1.0 3

8 or more 0 0 .6 2 The details of visitors and their home town and state can be found in Appendix D, Location of Visitors’ Hometowns. The majority of visitor respondents (nearly 47 percent) reside within 0 to 50 miles of Electra Lake, and specific in and near Durango (Figure 2-1). There is, however, a high percentage (nearly 26 percent, or 65 respondents) who traveled greater than 300 miles. The majority of respondents visiting within 250 miles of the Project are from Colorado and New Mexico, with only one exception, with one person from Utah (Appendix E).


10

Figure 2-1 Location of visitors’ hometowns.


11

Visitor Mail-Back Survey - Socio-Demographics The socio-demographics of visitors to Electra Lake were addressed on Part II of the visitor survey and included gender, age, education, household income, employment status, ethnicity, and whether a member of the group had a disability. Due to the low overall response to Part II or the follow-up mail survey, the socio-demographic results may not be representative of the visitor population at Electra Lake. The sample of respondents to the mail-back survey was dominated by males (72.7 percent). The average age of respondents was 50.25 years old with a wide distribution ranging from 23 to 85 years of age. The largest age group represented was 51 to 60 years of age (34.1 percent), followed by 41 to 50 years (27.3 percent). Approximately two-thirds (64 percent) of the sample reported an annual household income of $50,000 and above. Respondents were not very diverse overall. With respect to ethnicity, respondents were primarily of Caucasian (not of Hispanic origin) (79.5 percent). The remaining respondents’ ethnicity was reported as Hispanic (18.2 percent), with only one other group reported as “other”, Italian American. Approximately 14 percent of respondents to the mail back visitor survey (n=6) reported that a member of the group had a disability or impairment (Table 2-10). Table 2-10 Socio-demographic characteristics of visitors to Electra Lake (n=44).

Socio-demographic Characteristic % of Total Respondents Number of Total Respondents Gender

Female 27.3 12 Male 72.7 32

Age 23-30 11.4 5 31-40 9.1 4 41-50 27.3 12 51-60 34.1 15 61-70 13.6 6

>71 4.5 2 Education

≤ High School 2.3 1 High School Graduate 11.4 5

Some College or Vocational 31.8 14 College Graduate 31.8 14

Some Graduate work 4.5 2 Masters, Doctorate, or Professional 18.2 8

Household Income < $10,000 11.4 5

$10,000 - $29,999 11.4 5 $30,000 - $49,999 13.6 6 $50,000 - $69,999 20.5 9 $70,000 - $89,999 6.8 3

$90,000 - $109,999 13.6 6 $110,000 – 149,999 11.4 5

≥ $150,000 11.4 5 Prefer not to say 11.4 5


12

Socio-demographic Characteristic % of Total Respondents Number of Total Respondents Employment

Employed Full time 72.1 31 Employed Part time 4.7 2

Retired, Work Part Time 11.6 3 Retired, Do Not Work 2.3 5

Other: Student, Work Full Time 2.3 1 Other: Disabled, Not Working 2.3 1

Ethnicity Hispanic 18.2 8

Caucasian 79.5 35 Other: Italian-American 2.3 1

Disability in group Yes 14 6 No 86 37

A majority reported having some college or higher education (over 86 percent) and household incomes of $50,000 or greater (nearly 55 percent). A majority (76 percent) also reported working full time or part time, followed by 12 percent reporting retired and not working. Socio-Demographic and Resident Information - ESC Members The socio-demographics of ESC members included the following items: gender, ethnicity, education, employment, and household income, type and location of residence. A summary of the results are shown in Table 2-11. Table 2-11 Socio-demographic characteristics of ESC members.

Characteristic % of Total Respondents Number of Respondents Gender

Female 20.3 16 Male 79.7 63

Age 36-40 1.3 1 41-50 16.7 13 51-60 25.6 20 61-70 30.8 24

>71 25.6 20 Non-respondents 2.5 2

Ethnicity Native Am./Alaskan Native 1.3 1

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.0 0 African-American 0.0 0

Hispanic 2.5 2 Caucasian 94.9 75

Education ≤ High School 0.0 0

High School Graduate 3.8 3 Some College or Vocational 15.2 12

College Graduate 32.9 26 Some Graduate work 5.1 4

Masters, Doctorate, or Professional 41.8 33


13

Characteristic % of Total Respondents Number of Respondents Household Income

< $10,000 0.0 0 $10,000 - $29,999 1.3 1 $30,000 - $49,999 1.3 1 $50,000 - $69,999 5.2 4 $70,000 - $89,999 11.7 9

$90,000 - $109,999 11.7 9 $110,000 - 149,999 15.6 12

≥ $150,000 20.8 16 Employment

Full time 43.0 34 Part time 1.3 1

Retired, work full time 3.8 3 Retired, work part time 11.4 9

Retired, do not work 32.9 26 Homemaker 6.3 5

ESC members responding to the recreation questionnaire were predominantly male (80 percent), over the age of 36 years, and Caucasian. The average age of respondents was 63, with a majority over the age of 51. Respondents are well educated, with over 90 percent indicating some college or higher level of education. Respondents were relatively split between full-time (43 percent) and some form of retired status (i.e., retired, employed part-time (11.4), retired, not working (32.9 percent)). ESC members are primarily seasonal/part-time residents (86.3 percent), with a majority visiting on average 35 days per year (Table 2-12). The average stay per visit is two days, with a wide range from 1 to 210 days per visit per year. The average number of years members owned/leased their cabin was nearly 25 years, with a range from 1 to 88 years. The majority (91 percent) identified their property as being within the Tacoma Project Boundary. Table 2-12 ESC member property and resident characteristics.

Type of property % N Permanent Residence 11.3 9 Part-Time Seasonal Residence 86.3 69 Members who do not had cabins/building cabins 2.5 2

Part-time Residents Average Range

35 1-320 On average, how many days per year do you visit Electra Lake? % n 1-5 days 20.3 13

6-10 days 10.9 7 11-15 days 10.9 7 16-20 days 12.5 8 21-25 days 6.3 4 26-30 days 10.9 7 31-35 days 1.6 1 36-40 days 4.7 3 41-45 days 1.6 1

46 days or greater 20.3 13


14

Part-time Residents Average Range 2 1-210 On average, how many days would you stay per visit? % n

1-5 days 65.2 45 6-10 days 10.1 7

11-15 days 1.4 1 16-20 days 1.4 1 21-25 days 1.4 1 26-30 days 1.4 1 31-35 days 1.4 1 36-40 days 1.4 1 41-45 days 1.4 1

46 days or greater 17.4 12 24.9 1-88 How many years had you owned/leased your cabin at Electra Lake? % n

1-5 years 11.7 9 6-10 years 18.2 14

11-15 years 7.8 6 16-20 years 9.1 7 21-25 years 9.1 7 26-30 years 7.8 6 31-35 years 7.8 6 36-40 years 10.4 8 41-45 years 7.8 6

46 years or more 10.4 8 Residence located in Tacoma Project Boundary % n

Yes 91.0 71 No 6.4 1

Not Sure 2.6 6 Over 76 percent of ESC members had their primary residence within 0 to 50 miles from Electra Lake. Over 91 percent of all respondents were from Colorado and New Mexico, with a small percentage (5 percent) of permanent residents spread over Arizona, California, Maryland, Texas and Utah (Figure 2-2). Results of the survey reveal that a residents’ group generally consists of two persons, however group size can be as large as 20 people (Table 2-13). Residents own a range of recreational craft, including powerboats, canoes and kayaks, and trailers, of which most of residents have one, ranging from zero to six.


15

Figure 2-2 Location of ESC member’s primary residence.


16

Table 2-13 Number of people and types of recreation vehicles at Electra Lake residences.

# In Group Today Mode Range # People 2 1-20 # Large Powerboats 1 0-2 # Small Powerboats 1 0-6 # Trailers 1 0-6 # Canoes/kayaks 1 0-6 # Other non-motorized boats 0 0-3 # Fishing tubes 0 0-3

ESC Members were asked to share the characteristics of their property at Electra Lake (Table 2-14). The majority of ESC members have trail access from their house to the water (84.8 percent) and a boat dock along the shoreline (87.2 percent). Other characteristics shared by many member properties include “a deck or landscaped patio area visible from water” (58.2 percent), “an unobstructed view from house to the water” (74.7 percent), and “vegetation or topography that forms a visual barrier between the house and the water” (53.2 percent). ESC members reported not having a fence or gate blocking access to their properties from the water. Other particular property characteristics included “No trespassing signs visible from the water” (1.3 percent), “cultivated landscaping and/or lawn between the house and the water” (6,4 percent), and “a fence around part of the property” (2.6 percent). Table 2-14 Property characteristics of ESC members at Electra Lake.

Characteristic % n Trail access from your house to the water 84.8 67 A deck or landscaped patio area visible from the water 58.2 46 Chairs, picnic tables, or other development next to the water 21.8 17 An unobstructed view from your house to the water 63.3 50 Your house is visible from the water 74.7 59 “No trespassing” signs visible from the water 1.3 1 Cultivated landscaping and/or lawn between your house and the water 6.4 5 Vegetation or topography that forms a visual barrier between your house and the water 53.2 42 A fence around all of your property 0.0 0 A fence around part of your property 2.6 2 A fence or gate blocking access to your property from the water 0.0 0 Steep banks that prevent easy access to your property from the water 17.9 14 A boat dock along the shoreline 87.2 68 A deck along the shoreline 10.3 8

Recreation Use and Activity Engagement by Visitors, ESC Members, and Guests To estimate recreation use at Electra Lake (water surfaces of the lake, shoreline use, and informal area use) the survey team utilized the standardized gate (public use) and member (private use) counts during May to October 2006. This process was tested and refined during May to October 2005, and was ready to initiate during the study period in 2006. ESC Members self-reported their use over the course of the season, May through October. (Note: Recreation use is termed estimate due to the self reporting aspect of data collection for members and their guests.)


17

This visitor, ESC guest, and ESC Member recreation use estimation process included the gate attendant keeping track of public visitors and member guests with a standardized log sheet. The ESC Gate staff logged for each group/visitor the date, activity, fish catch and release, and group size and residence or origin for each group. ESC Members were also asked to participate in the study by completing a recreation use log, which recorded the date, their activity, and fish catch and release. ESC members’ response in completing the activity log was 71 percent for the peak portion of the season, June through August (Figure 2-3). Figure 2-3 ESC member activity log responses.

ESC Member Responses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MayWk4

JunWk1

JunWk3

JulWk1

JulWk3

JulWk 5

AugWk2

AugWk4

SeptWk2

SeptWk4

OctWk2

OctWk4

Month and Week

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Electra Lake Gate Activity Summary Gate Operations The ESC allocates permits for various recreation activities during a given day. Currently, a total of 50 fishing permits are admitted per day and 14 motorboats. Permits are not allocated by shore fishing or motor boat lake fishing, but by angling versus non-angling, etc. The gate is opened at 7:00 a.m. and by 5:30 p.m., people are no longer allowed entry, with the gate operations officially closing at 7:00 p.m. Based on observations at the gate, people arriving with a boat at 2:00 p.m. are discouraged to enter. A visitor, who wishes to stay for dinner at the ESC dining facility, must take their boat off the lake and have it parked outside the gate before re-entering for dinner. This rule also applies to those with non-motorized craft such as kayaks and canoes. The following is a summary produced by the ESC gate staff of how many people were turned away at the gate due to maximum use as per the guidelines stated above:


18

May: None. June: 02-10 visitors

03-10 visitors 04-10 visitors 18-27 visitors (Father’s Day weekend) Total: 57

July: 01-18 visitors

02-2 visitors 04-6 visitors 05-8 visitors Total: 34

August-October: None

Based on the turn-away days recorded, it appears that the holiday and special weekends (historically opening weekend) are the busiest times during the season. May Activity Participation Summary In general the three most frequent activities engaged in at Electra Lake for the 2006 season were Shore Fishing (25.2 percent), Boat Fishing (20.5 percent), and Nature Viewing (22.0 percent); the three least activities engaged in were Water Skiing/Towing (0 percent), Relaxing (0.4 percent), and Sightseeing (3.3 percent). For visitors to Electra Lake, the three activities most engaged in were Shore Fishing (53.1 percent), Boat Fishing (26.4 percent), and Sightseeing (10.3 percent), with no participation in Pleasure Boating and Water Skiing/Towing. For members & guests, the three most engaged activities are Nature Viewing (31.5 percent), Hiking (18.1 percent), and Boat Fishing (17.7 percent), and did not identify participation in Sightseeing, Relaxing, and Water Skiing/Towing (Table 2-15). Table 2-15 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during May.

Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Activity % n % n % N

Sightseeing 10.3 45 0 0 3.3 45 Canoe/Kayaking 5.2 23 3.7 34 4.2 57 Hiking 1.4 6 18.1 165 12.7 171 Nature Viewing 2.3 10 31.5 287 22.0 297 Relaxing 1.4 6 0 0 0.4 6 Pleasure Boating 0 0 17.2 157 11.6 157 Shore Fishing 53.1 233 11.7 107 25.2 340 Boat Fishing 26.4 116 17.7 161 20.5 277 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100 439 100 911 100 1,350


19

In a comparison of the participation in each activity between visitors and members and guests (Table 2-16), members and guests (during the month of May) had more participation recreation activity at Electra Lake, accounting for a 67.5 percent of total activity participation use. Specifically, members and guests were more prevalent in Hiking (96.5 percent), Nature Viewing (96.6 percent), and Pleasure Boating (100 percent), while visitors were more prevalent in activities such as Sightseeing (100 percent) and Relaxing (100 percent). Visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing (68.5 percent) than members and guests. Members and guests had more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (59.6 percent) and Boat Fishing (58.1 percent) than visitors. The average response rate of members for the month of May was 69 percent. Therefore, estimation of actual total participation of members and guests is relatively conservative. Table 2-16 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during May.

Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Activity % n % n % n

Sightseeing 100 45 0 0 100 45 Canoe/Kayaking 40.4 23 59.6 34 100 57 Hiking 3.5 6 96.5 165 100 171 Nature Viewing 3.4 10 96.6 287 100 297 Relaxing 100 6 0 0 100 6 Pleasure Boating 0 0 100 157 100 157 Shore Fishing 68.5 233 31.5 107 100 340 Boat Fishing 41.9 116 58.1 161 100 277 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 0 0 100 0

Total 32.5 439 67.5 911 100 1,350 ESC members also identified spending a total of 234 hours in volunteer activity in May, which included Shore Line Management (23.9 percent), Weed (Noxious) Management (23.9 percent), Fire Mitigation (48.3 percent), and ESC Committee Work (3.8 percent) (Table 2-17). Table 2-17 ESC member volunteer hours for May.

Member Type of Volunteer Activity % n

Shore Line Management 23.9 56* Weed (Noxious) Management 23.9 56 Fire Mitigation 48.3 113 ESC Committee Work 3.8 9 Relicensing Work 0 0

Total 100 234 Note * the frequency represents the hours of volunteer activity. June Activity Participation Summary Overall, the three most popular activities at Electra Lake during June were Shore Fishing (19.4 percent), Nature Viewing (18.6 percent), and Boat Fishing (17.2 percent); the three activities engaged in the least overall included Relaxing (0.4 percent), Water Skiing/Towing (3.3 percent), and Sightseeing (3.8 percent) (Table 2-18). For visitors, the three most activities engaged in during June were Shore Fishing (46.6 percent), Boat Fishing (29.8 percent), and Sightseeing (14.0 percent). For members and guests, the three most popular activities are Nature Viewing (25.6 percent), Pleasure


20

Boating (22.2 percent), and Hiking (18.0 percent); there was no mention of participation in Sightseeing and Relaxing. Table 2-18 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during June.


Sightseeing 14.0 129 0 0 3.8 129 Canoe/Kayaking 6.7 62 7.9 195 7.6 257 Hiking 0.9 8 18.0 444 13.4 452 Nature Viewing 0 0 25.6 629 18.6 629 Relaxing 1.6 15 0 0 0.4 15 Pleasure Boating 0.3 3 22.2 546 16.2 549 Shore Fishing 46.6 429 9.3 228 19.4 657 Boat Fishing 29.8 274 12.4 306 17.2 580 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 4.6 112 3.3 112

Total 100 920 100 2,460 100 3,380 Comparing members and guests to visitors, members and guests had more participation in recreation activities at Electra Lake overall, accounting for 72.8 percent of total activity participation. Specifically, members and guests identified Hiking (98.2 percent), Nature Viewing (100 percent), Pleasure Boating (99.5 percent), and Water Skiing/Towing (100 percent) as their most frequented activities, while visitors identified Sightseeing (100 percent) and Relaxing (100 percent) as their most frequented activities Table 2-19). Members and guests had more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (75.9 percent) and slightly more participation in Boat Fishing (52.8 percent) overall. Visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing (65.3 percent). The average response rate by members in June was 71.5 percent. Therefore, estimation of actual total participation of members and guests in various activities is conservative. Table 2-19 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during June.


Sightseeing 100 129 0 0 100 129 Canoe/Kayaking 24.1 62 75.9 195 100 257 Hiking 1.8 8 98.2 444 100 452 Nature Viewing 0 0 100 629 100 629 Relaxing 100 15 0 0 100 15 Pleasure Boating 0.5 3 99.5 546 100 549 Shore Fishing 65.3 429 34.7 228 100 657 Boat Fishing 47.2 274 52.8 306 100 580 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 100 112 100 112

Total 27.2 920 72.8 2460 100 3,380 Members spent a total of 220 hours in volunteer activities during June, which included Shore Line Management (15.5 percent), Weed (Noxious) Management (17.7 percent), Fire Mitigation (40 percent), ESC Committee Work (6.8 percent), and Relicensing Work (20.0 percent) (Table 2-20).


21

Table 2-20 ESC member volunteer hours for June. Member Type of Volunteer Activity

% n Shore Line Management 15.5 34 Weed (Noxious) Management 17.7 39 Fire Mitigation 40.0 88 ESC Committee Work 6.8 15 Relicensing Work 20.0 44

Total 100 220 Note * the frequency represents the hours of volunteer activity. July Activity Participation Summary Overall, the top three activities engaged in by all recreationists to Electra Lake were Nature Viewing (21.8 percent), Shore Fishing (20.0 percent), and Pleasure Boating (14.9 percent); the three activities least engaged in were Relaxing (0.8 percent), Water Skiing/Towing (3.7 percent), and Sightseeing (4.7 percent) (Table 2-21). For visitors, the three activities most engaged in were Shore Fishing (50.1 percent), Boat Fishing (15.9 percent), and Sightseeing (19.7 percent), the three activities least engaged activities were Water Skiing/Towing (0 percent), Nature Viewing (1.2 percent), and Pleasure Boating (1.2 percent). For members and guests, the activities most engaged in were Nature Viewing (28.3 percent), Pleasure Boating (19.2 percent), and Hiking (18.6 percent), with no documented participation in Sightseeing and Relaxing. Table 2-21 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during July.


Sightseeing 19.7 312 0 0 4.7 312 Canoe/Kayaking 6.4 101 5.3 266 5.6 367 Hiking 2.3 36 18.6 933 14.7 969 Nature Viewing 1.2 19 28.3 1,418 21.8 1,437 Relaxing 3.2 50 0 0 0.8 50 Pleasure Boating 1.2 19 19.2 963 14.9 982 Shore Fishing 50.1 792 10.5 524 20.0 1,316 Boat Fishing 15.9 251 13.2 664 13.9 915 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 4.9 244 3.7 244

Total 100 1,580 100 5,012 100 6,592 When comparing participation levels in each activity between visitors and members and guests, members and guests had more participation in recreation activities at Electra Lake during July (Table 2-22). These two user groups accounted for 76 percent of all activity participation. Specifically, members and guests had the highest participation in Hiking (96.3 percent), Nature Viewing (98.7 percent), Pleasure Boating (98.1 percent), and Water Skiing/Towing (100 percent), while visitors were most prevalent in Sightseeing (100 percent) and Relaxing (100 percent). Members and guests had more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (72.5 percent) and Boat Fishing (72.6 percent) than visitors; whereas, visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing (60.2 percent) than did members and guest. The average response rate of members in July was 68.5 percent. Therefore, the estimation of actual total participation of members and guests is conservative.


22

Table 2-22 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during July. Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Activity

% n % n % n Sightseeing 100 312 0 0 100 312 Canoe/Kayaking 27.5 101 72.5 266 100 367 Hiking 3.7 36 96.3 933 100 969 Nature Viewing 1.3 19 98.7 1,418 100 1,437 Relaxing 100 50 0 0 100 50 Pleasure Boating 1.9 19 98.1 963 100 982 Shore Fishing 60.2 792 39.8 524 100 1,316 Boat Fishing 27.4 251 72.6 664 100 915 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 100 244 100 244

Total 24.0 1,580 76.0 5,012 100 6,592 Members spent a total of 178 hours in volunteer activities during July, which included Shore Line Management (19.1 percent), Weed (Noxious) Management (38.2 percent), Fire Mitigation (25.3 percent), ESC Committee Work (7.3 percent), and Relicensing Work (10.1 percent) (Table 2-23). Table 2-23 Members volunteer hours during July.


Shore Line Management 19.1 34 Weed (Noxious) Management 38.2 68 Fire Mitigation 25.3 45 ESC Committee Work 7.3 13 Relicensing Work 10.1 18

Total 100 178 Note * the frequency represents the hours of volunteer activity. August Activity Summary Overall, recreationists during August most frequently engaged in Nature Viewing (23.4 percent), Pleasure Boating (15.7 percent), and Shore Fishing (15.6 percent); the activities engaged in the least were reported as Relaxing (0.8 percent), Water Skiing/Towing (3.9 percent), and Sightseeing (5.1 percent) (Table 2-24). For visitors, the three activities engaged in the most were Shore Fishing (40.8 percent), Boat Fishing (22.4 percent), and Sightseeing (21.5 percent); the three activities engaged in the least were Water Skiing/Towing (0 percent), Hiking (0.7 percent), and Nature Viewing (1.1 percent). For members and guests, the activities engaged in the most were Nature Viewing (30.5 percent), Pleasure Boating (19.5 percent), and Hiking (17.9 percent), with no report of participation in Sightseeing and Relaxing.


23

Table 2-24 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during August. Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Activity

% n % n % n Sightseeing 21.5 177 0 0 5.1 177 Canoe/Kayaking 6.8 56 6.8 178 6.8 234 Hiking 0.7 6 17.9 469 13.8 475 Nature Viewing 1.1 9 30.5 800 23.4 809 Relaxing 3.2 26 0 0 0.8 26 Pleasure Boating 3.5 29 19.5 513 15.7 542 Shore Fishing 40.8 336 7.7 201 15.6 537 Boat Fishing 22.4 184 12.6 332 15.0 516 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 5.1 134 3.9 134

Total 100 823 100 2,627 100 3,450 When comparing the participation in each activity between visitors and members and guests, members and guests overall had more participation in recreation activities than visitors, accounting for 76.1 percent of total activity participation (Table 2-25). Specifically, members and guests participated more in Hiking (98.7 percent), Nature Viewing (98.9 percent), Pleasure Boating (94.6 percent), and Water Skiing/Towing (100 percent), while visitors participated more in Sightseeing (100 percent) and Relaxing (100 percent). Members and guests also had more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (76.1 percent) and Boat Fishing (64.3 percent) than visitors. Visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing (62.6 percent) than members and guests. The average response rate of members in August is 66.3 percent. Therefore, estimation of actual total participation of members and guests is conservative. Table 2-25 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during August.


Sightseeing 100 177 0 0 100 177 Canoe/Kayaking 23.9 56 76.1 178 100 234 Hiking 1.3 6 98.7 469 100 475 Nature Viewing 1.1 9 98.9 800 100 809 Relaxing 100 26 0 0 100 26 Pleasure Boating 5.4 29 94.6 513 100 542 Shore Fishing 62.6 336 37.4 201 100 537 Boat Fishing 35.7 184 64.3 332 100 516 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 100 134 100 134

Total 23.9 823 76.1 2,627 100 3,450 Members spent a total of 200 hours in volunteer activities during August, which included Shore Line Management (33.0 percent), Weed (Noxious) Management (20.5 percent), Fire Mitigation (28.5 percent), ESC Committee Work (9.5 percent), and Relicensing Work (8.5 percent) (Table 2-26).


24

Table 2-26 Member volunteer hours during August. Member Type of Volunteer Activity

% n Shore Line Management 33.0 66 Weed (Noxious) Management 20.5 41 Fire Mitigation 28.5 57 ESC Committee Work 9.5 19 Relicensing Work 8.5 17

Total 100 200 Note * the frequency represents the hours of volunteer activity. September Activity Participation Summary In general, the three activities engaged in the most during September were Nature Viewing (26.7 percent), Boat Fishing (17.5 percent), and Shore Fishing (15.1 percent); the three activities least engaged in were Water Skiing/Towing (0.2 percent), Relaxing (1.0 percent), and Sightseeing (6.0 percent) (Table 2-27). For visitors, the three activities most engaged in were Shore Fishing (32.4 percent), Boat Fishing (28.8 percent), and Sightseeing (20.2 percent); the three activities least engaged in were Water Skiing/Towing (0 percent), Hiking (1.9 percent), and Nature Viewing (2.3 percent). For members and guests, the three activities most engaged in were Nature Viewing (36.9 percent), Hiking (18.4 percent), and Pleasure Boating (17.7 percent), with no reported participation in Sightseeing and Relaxing. Table 2-27 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during September.


Sightseeing 20.2 96 0 0 6.0 96 Canoe/Kayaking 8.4 40 5.9 67 6.7 107 Hiking 1.9 9 18.4 209 13.5 218 Nature Viewing 2.3 11 36.9 419 26.7 430 Relaxing 3.4 16 0 0 1.0 16 Pleasure Boating 2.5 12 17.7 201 13.2 213 Shore Fishing 32.4 154 7.8 89 15.1 243 Boat Fishing 28.8 137 12.8 145 17.5 282 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 0.4 4 0.2 4

Total 100 475 100 1,134 100 1,609 Comparing activity participation between visitors and members and guests during September, members and guests had more participation recreation activities at Electra Lake than did visitors, accounting for 70.5 percent of total activity participation (Table 2-28). Specifically, members and guests were most prevalent in Hiking (95.9 percent), Nature Viewing (97.4 percent), Pleasure Boating (94.4 percent), and Water Skiing/Towing (100 percent), while visitors engaged most in Sightseeing (100 percent) and Relaxing (100 percent). In addition, members and guests had more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (62.6 percent) and slightly more participation in Boat Fishing (51.4 percent) than did visitors. Visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing (63.4 percent) than did members and guests. The average response rate of members in September was 56.5 percent. Therefore, the estimation of actual total participation of members and guests is conservative.


25

Table 2-28 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during September. Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Activity

% n % n % n Sightseeing 100 96 0 0 100 96 Canoe/Kayaking 37.4 40 62.6 67 100 107 Hiking 4.1 9 95.9 209 100 218 Nature Viewing 2.6 11 97.4 419 100 430 Relaxing 100 16 0 0 100 16 Pleasure Boating 5.6 12 94.4 201 100 213 Shore Fishing 63.4 154 36.6 89 100 243 Boat Fishing 48.6 137 51.4 145 100 282 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 100 4 100 4

Total 29.5 475 70.5 1,134 100 1,609 Members spent a total of 214 hours in volunteer activities during September, which included Shore Line Management (10.7 percent), Weed (Noxious) Management (10.7 percent), Fire Mitigation (60.3 percent), ESC Committee Work (12.1 percent), and Relicensing Work (6.5 percent) (Table 2-29). Table 2-29 ESC member volunteer activity hours during September.



Total 100 214 Note * the frequency represents the hours of volunteer activity. October Activity Participation Summary For the month of October, the three activities most engaged in at Electra Lake were Nature Viewing (32.1 percent), Shore Fishing (20.4 percent), and Hiking (19.4 percent); the three activities least engaged in were Canoeing/Kayaking (4.2 percent), with no participation reported for Relaxing and Water Skiing/Towing (Table 2-30). For visitors, the three activities most engaged in were Shore Fishing (44.8 percent), Boat Fishing (21.6 percent), and Sightseeing (11.2 percent), with no participation in Relaxing and Water Skiing/Towing. For members and guests, the three activities most engaged in were Nature Viewing (45.7 percent), Hiking (27.0 percent), and Pleasure Boating (11.2 percent), with no participation in Sightseeing and Relaxing.


26

Table 2-30 Comparison of activity participation amongst type of user during October. Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Activity

% n % n % n Sightseeing 11.2 30 0 0 4.3 30 Canoe/Kayaking 3.4 9 4.7 20 4.2 29 Hiking 7.1 19 27.0 116 19.4 135 Nature Viewing 10.4 28 45.7 196 32.1 224 Relaxing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pleasure Boating 1.5 4 11.2 48 7.5 52 Shore Fishing 44.8 120 5.1 22 20.4 142 Boat Fishing 21.6 58 6.3 27 12.2 85 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100 268 100 429 100 697 A comparison in the participation in each activity between visitors and members and guests for October, demonstrates that members and guests had more participation in the recreation activities at Electra Lake, accounting for 61.5 percent of total activity participation (Table 2-31). Specifically, members and guests were most prevalent in Hiking (85.9 percent), Nature Viewing (87.5 percent), Pleasure Boating (92.3 percent), while visitors were more participatory in Sightseeing (100 percent) and Shore Fishing (84.5 percent). Members and guests had more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (69.0 percent) than visitors and visitors had more participation in Boat Fishing (68.2 percent) than members and guests. The average response rate for members in October was 40.1 percent. Therefore, the estimation of actual total participation of members and guests is conservative. Table 2-31 Comparison of activity participation within each activity during October.


Sightseeing 100 30 0 0 100 30 Canoe/Kayaking 31.0 9 69.0 20 100 29 Hiking 14.1 19 85.9 116 100 135 Nature Viewing 12.5 28 87.5 196 100 224 Relaxing 0 0 0 0 100 0 Pleasure Boating 7.7 4 92.3 48 100 52 Shore Fishing 84.5 120 15.5 22 100 142 Boat Fishing 68.2 58 31.8 27 100 85 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 0 0 100 0

Total 38.5 268 61.5 429 100 697 Members spent a total of 53 hours in volunteer activities during October, which included Shore Line Management (9.4 percent), Weed (Noxious) Management (11.3 percent), Fire Mitigation (41.5 percent), and ESC Committee Work (37.7 percent) (Table 2-32).


27

Table 2-32 Member volunteer hours in October. Member Type of Volunteer Activity

% n Shore Line Management 9.4 5 Weed (Noxious) Management 11.3 6 Fire Mitigation 41.5 22 ESC Committee Work 37.7 20 Relicensing Work 0 6

Total 100 53 Note * the frequency represents the hours of volunteer activity. Electra Lake 2006 Recreation Season Activity Summary During the 2006 recreation season (May-October), the three activities most engaged in overall were Nature Viewing (22.4 percent), Shore Fishing (18.9 percent), and Boat Fishing (15.5 percent); the three activities least engaged in were Relaxing (0.7 percent), Water Skiing/Towing (2.9 percent), and Sightseeing (4.6 percent) (Table 2-33). For visitors, the three activities most engaged in were Shore Fishing (45.8 percent), Boat Fishing (22.6 percent), and Sightseeing (17.5 percent); the three least activities engaged in Pleasure Boating (1.5 percent), Nature Viewing (1.7 percent), with no Water Skiing/Towing activity recorded. For members and guests, the three activities most engaged in were Nature Viewing (29.8 percent), Pleasure Boating (19.3 percent), and Hiking (18.6 percent), with no reported participation in Sightseeing and Relaxing. Table 2-33 Recreation activity participation by type of user for the 2006 season.


Sightseeing 17.5 789 0 0 4.6 789 Canoe/Kayaking 6.5 291 6.0 760 6.2 1,051 Hiking 1.9 84 18.6 2,336 14.2 2,420 Nature Viewing 1.7 77 29.8 3,749 22.4 3,826 Relaxing 2.5 113 0 0 0.7 113 Pleasure Boating 1.5 67 19.3 2,428 14.6 2,495 Shore Fishing 45.8 2,064 9.3 1,171 18.9 3,235 Boat Fishing 22.6 1,020 13.0 1,635 15.5 2,655 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 3.9 494 2.9 494

Total 100 4,505 100 12,573 100 17,078 When comparing the overall participation levels for the 2006 season between visitors and members and guests, members and guests had overall more frequency of participation in recreation activities than visitors (Table 2-34). Members and guests accounted for 73.6 percent of total activity participation. Specifically, members and guests had the most participation in Hiking (96.5 percent), Nature Viewing (98.0 percent), Pleasure Boating (97.3 percent), and Water Skiing/Towing (100 percent), while visitors were most prevalent in Sightseeing (100 percent) and Relaxing (100 percent). Members and guests reported more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (72.3 percent) and Boat Fishing (61.6 percent) than visitors. And, Visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing (63.8 percent) than members and guests. The average response rate of members from May to October was 60.7 percent. Therefore, the estimation of actual total participation of members and guests is conservative.


28

Table 2-34 Recreation participation comparison by user within activity type. Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Activity

% n % n % n Sightseeing 100 789 0 0 4.6 789 Canoe/Kayaking 27.7 291 72.3 760 6.1 1,051 Hiking 3.5 84 96.5 2,336 14.1 2,420 Nature Viewing 2.0 77 98.0 3,749 22.4 3,826 Relaxing 100 113 0 0 .6 113 Pleasure Boating 2.7 67 97.3 2,428 14.6 2,495 Shore Fishing 63.8 2,064 36.2 1,171 18.9 3,235 Boat Fishing 38.4 1,020 61.6 1,635 15.5 2,655 Water Skiing/Towing 0 0 100 494 2.8 494

Total 26.4 4,505 73.6 12,573 17,078 Members spent a total of 10,99 hours in volunteer activities from May to October, which included Shore Line Management (19.8 percent), Weed (Noxious) Management (21.2 percent), Fire Mitigation (41.3 percent), ESC Committee Work (9.3 percent), and Relicensing Work (8.5 percent) (Table 2-35). Table 2-35 Member volunteer hours for 2006.



Total 100 1,099 Note * the frequency represents the hours of volunteer activity. Monthly Variation in Activity Participation by Visitors Figure 2-4 and Table 2-36 demonstrate that the monthly variation in activity participation by visitors generally fits a normal distribution: visitors’ participation increases from May, and reaches its peak during July; and then continues to decrease through October. Hiking and Nature Viewing were the two exceptions. These activities had high participation in both July and October. The peak participation in Pleasure Boating activities happened in August, which alters the distribution overall slightly.


29

Figure 2-4 Monthly activity variation by visitors.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

SS C/K H NV R PB SF BF ST Total

Type of Activity

Indi

vidu

al MayJunJulAugSeptOct

Table 2-36 Monthly variation of activity participation by visitors.

Type of Activity Month SS C/K H NV R PB SF BF ST Total

May 45* 23 6 10 6 0 233 116 0 439 Jun 129 62 8 0 15 3 429 274 0 920 Jul 312 101 36 19 50 19 792 251 0 1,580 Aug 177 56 6 9 26 29 336 184 0 823 Sept 96 40 9 11 16 12 154 137 0 475 Oct 30 9 19 28 0 4 120 58 0 268

Note * the frequency represents the number of participants. Monthly Variation in Activity Participation by Members and Guests Figure 2-5 and Table 2-37 demonstrate that the monthly variation in activity participation by members and guests generally fits a normal distribution as well: participation increases from May, and reaches its peak in July, and then continues to decline through October. Compared to the monthly variation of visitors, members and guests had a more stable seasonal participation pattern across different types of activities.


30

Figure 2-5 Monthly activity variation by members and guests.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

SS C/K H NV R PB SF BF ST Total

Type of Activity

Indi

vidu

al

MayJunJulAugSeptOct

Table 2-37 Monthly variation of activity participation by members and guests.

Type of Activity Monrh SS C/K H NV R PB SF BF ST Total

May 0* 34 165 287 0 157 107 161 0 911 Jun 0 195 444 629 0 546 228 306 112 2,460 Jul 0 266 933 1,418 0 963 524 664 244 5,012 Aug 0 178 469 800 0 513 201 332 134 2,627 Sept 0 67 209 419 0 201 89 145 4 1,134 Oct 0 20 116 196 0 48 22 27 0 429

Note * the frequency represents the number of participants. Monthly Variation of Participation Ratios between Visitors and Members and Guests Figures 2-6 through 2-15 demonstrate that overall visitors maintained stable activity participation domination in Sightseeing and Relaxing activities, while members and guests had stable participation domination in Hiking, Nature Viewing, Pleasure Boating, and Water Skiing/Towing. Members and guests had more reported participation in Canoeing/Kayaking than visitors, while visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing than members and guests. The participation ratio of Boat Fishing between visitors and members and guests appears to fluctuate substantially: members and guests had more participation in May, July and August; while visitors had more participation during October; members and guests and visitors had similar levels of participation during June and September.


31

Figure 2-6 Comparison of sightseeing participation by user type.

Sightseeing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct

Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n

Visitors Members & Guests

Figure 2-7 Comparison of canoeing/kayaking participation by user type.

Canoeing/Kayaking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n



32

Figure 2-8 Comparison of hiking participation by user type.

Hiking

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n


Figure 2-9 Comparison of nature viewing participation by user type.

Nature Viewing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n



33

Figure 2-10 Comparison of relaxing participation by user type.

Relaxing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n


Figure 2-11 Comparison of pleasure boating participation by user type.

Pleasure Boating

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n



34

Figure 2-12 Comparison of shore fishing participation by user type.

Shore Fishing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n


Figure 2-13 Comparison of boat fishing participation by user type.

Boat Fishing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n



35

Figure 2-14 Comparison of water skiing/towing participation by user type.

Water Skiing/Towing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n


Figure 2-15 Comparison of all activities participation by user type.

All Activities

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Month

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

alPa

rtici

patio

n


Gate Activity Summary of Types of User Groups Based on the summary of gate activity by different users (Tables 2-38 and 2-39 and Figure 2-16), two groups, members and family (46.2 percent) and members guests (20.2 percent) were the dominant user groups at Electra Lake. The three groups identified as the least amount of visitation


36

included “Other”, “Free Groups”, and “Free Kids”, which respectively accounted for 0.5, 0.7, and 1.4 percent of the total number of the users. The combined group statistics show that members and guests accounted for 66.3 percent of the total number of users; and, visitors accounted for 24.0 percent of the total number of users. This is similar to the results identified in the recreation activity summary. Table 2-38 Summary of gate activity by different types of groups at a monthly and a

yearly. Type of Group May June July August September October Season

Members & Family 725 (44.6%)*

2510 (45.7%)

3974 (45.2%)

2626 (47.0%)

1720 (49.9%)

1021 (44.4%)

12,576 (46.2%)

Members Guests 297 (18.3%)

1132 (20.6%)

1733 (19.7%)

1172 (21.0%)

572 (16.6%)

589 (25.6%)

5,495 (20.2%)

Visitor Paid Fishing 349 (21.5%)

703 (12.8%)

1043 (11.9%)

520 (9.3%)

291 (8.4%)

178 (7.7%)

3,084 (11.3%)

Free Kids 46 (2.8%)

70 (1.3%)

146 (1.7%)

64 (1.1%)

28 (0.8%)

15 (0.7%)

369 (1.4%)

Free Groups (55+ etc) 2 (0.1%)

48 (0.9%)

25 (0.3%)

69 (1.2%)

27 (0.8%)

21 (0.9%)

192 (0.7%)

Day Use Permits 90 (5.5%)

218 (4.0%)

537 (6.1%)

301 (5.4%)

173 (5.0%)

85 (3.7%)

1,404 (5.2%)

Restaurant 0 (0%)

240 (4.4%)

594 (6.8%)

405 (7.3%)

247 (7.2%)

0 (0%)

1,486 (5.5%)

Other 0 (0%)

43 (0.8%)

96 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

139 (0.5%)

Workers 117 (7.2%)

525 (9.6%)

645 (7.3%)

425 (7.6%)

388 (11.3%)

393 (17.1%)

2,493 (9.2%)

Total 1,626 (100%)

5,489 (100%)

8,793 (100%)

5,582 (100%)

3,446 (100%)

2,302 (100%)

27,238 (100%)

Table 2-39 Summary of gate activity by different types of groups at a monthly/yearly

basis. Members & Guests Visitors Other Workers Total

MONTH % n % n % n % n % n May 62.9 1,022* 30.0 487 0 0 7.2 117 100 1,626 Jun 66.4 3,642 23.3 1279 0.8 43 9.6 525 100 5,489 Jul 64.9 5,707 26.7 2345 1.1 96 7.3 645 100 8,793 Aug 68.0 3,798 24.3 1359 0 0 7.6 425 100 5,582 Sept 66.5 2,292 22.2 766 0 0 11.3 388 100 3,446 Oct 69.9 1,610 13.0 299 0 0 17.1 393 100 2,302 Year 66.3 18,071 24.0 6535 0.5 139 9.2 2,493 100 27,238

Note * the frequency represents the number of participants.


37

Figure 2-16 Total percentage of various users during the 2006 season at Electra Lake.

Members & Family47%

Members Guests20%

Visitor Paid Fishing11%

Day Use Permits5%

Other1%

Workers9%

Restaurant5%

Free Groups (55+ etc.)1%

Free Kids1%

Weekend versus Weekday Use at Electra Lake Electra Lake visitor use was also evaluated on the basis of weekend versus weekday use. As shown in the evaluation of weekend versus weekday use (see Appendix F), the average participation during weekends was greater than participation during weekdays with the exception of the holiday week, July 1. After excluding the first week in July, the largest difference between average participation during a weekend day and weekday ranged from 0.6 (first week of September) to 48.7 (fourth week in August). Independent sample t-test shows that the average participation during weekends is significantly larger than that during weekdays (p<.01). The average participation during a weekday, when calculated for the entire season, ranged from 4.8 to 56 individuals (see Figure F-1 in Appendix F). The mean of the average participation during weekdays for the entire whole season was 23.33, with a standard deviation of 14.39. The average participation during the weekdays increased from May and reached the highest level during the first week of July. After this time, use generally decreased until the end of October/end of season. The average participation during a weekend day during the entire season ranged from 12 to 73.5 individuals (see Figure F-2 in Appendix F). The average participation during a weekend day for the entire season was 44.54, with a standard deviation of 20.58. As shown by Figure F-2 in Appendix F, the average participation during a weekend day fluctuated significantly across different weeks during the season. Participation began with a gradual increase from opening day in May, and reaches its highest level during the third week of July. Then participation tends to decrease until the first week of September until the fourth week of September. After that, it decreases through the last


38

week of the season. Overall, the fourth week of August experienced an abnormal increase of participation. The average participation during a weekday during the season ranged from 5.55 to 40.60 individuals. The overall average participation during weekday for the entire season was 25.50, with a standard deviation of 14.41. The average participation during weekdays decreased from May to June, and then increased until July. After July, use declined to the end of the season. The average participation during a weekend day during the season ranged from 17.63 to 62.13 individuals. The average use during a weekend day for entire season was 45.14, with a standard deviation of 19. The average participation during weekends increased slightly from May to June, and then decreased to the end of the season. The greatest difference of the average use levels for weekends and weekdays ranged from 12.08 (October) to 29.23 (June) (see Figure F-4 in Appendix F). May was atypical due to the holiday weekend with just over an average of 40 users. July was the other high weekday average due to the July 4 holiday falling during weekdays (see Figure F-5 in Appendix F). Average weekend use peaks during June, gradually declining over the course of the season. Gate Activity Record of Fish Kept Rainbow trout were the fish kept most by all the users (81.4 percent), followed by brook (12.3 percent), cutthroat and German brown accounted for a small proportion, 3.7 and 2.5 percent, respectively, of the total fish kept. Visitors and members and guests had similar proportion as far as the types of fish kept overall (Table 2-40). Table 2-40 Fish kept by visitors and members and guests at a yearly basis (within group

comparison). Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Fish

% n % n % n Rainbow 85.8 4,014 72.7 1,725 81.4 5,739 Brook 10.3 480 16.4 390 12.3 870 Cutthroat 2.4 112 6.4 152 3.7 264 German Brown 1.54 71 4.5 106 2.5 1,77

Total 100 4,677 100 2,373 100 7,050 Note * the frequency represents the number of fish Overall, visitors nearly had double the amount of fish kept compared to members and guests with respect to the total number of fish kept overall. Specifically, visitors kept much more Rainbows than members and guests (69.9 percent vs. 30.1 percent), and kept similar number of brook, cutthroat, and German brown trout (see Table 2-41).


39

Table 2-41 Comparison of fish kept by visitors and members and guests. Visitor Member & Guest All Users Type of Fish

% n % n % n Rainbow 69.9 4,014 30.1 1,725 100 5,739 Brook 55.2 480 44.8 390 100 870 Cutthroat 42.4 112 57.6 152 100 264 German Brown 40.1 71 59.9 106 100 177

Total 66.3 4,677 33.7 2,373 100 7,050 Note * the frequency represents the number of fish Angler Response Visitor Response to Specific Angling Questions To further understand visitors angling behavior, anglers were asked specific questions about their fishing behavior at Electra Lake (Table 2-42). These questions were asked on the mail-back survey, of which 45 visitors responded. Therefore, while the information can provide some indication of angling behavior and preferences, it does not necessarily represent the population of visitors who fish at Electra Lake. Table 2-42 Visitors who participated in fishing at Electra Lake.

Characteristic % n Visitors who fished 93.3 42 # Hours fished (average) 5.8 hours Time Start and Stop Fish: Mode

Time Start 7:00 a.m. Time Stop 12:00 p.m.

Target Species (Top Three): All Trout Species 58.3 21

Rainbow Trout 13.8 5 Brown Trout 5.6 2

# Fish caught per hour (mode) 2 fish/hour Preferred type of fishing:

Boat 48.8 20 Tube 2.4 1

Shore 48.8 20 Preferred type of tackle:

Bait 56.1 23 Spinners 36.6 15

Fly 7.3 3 Overall evaluation of fishing at Electra Lake (average) (Evaluation was based on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).

3.6

Results of the angling questions indicate that 93.3 percent of respondents fished at Electra Lake (n=42), and fished an average of nearly six hours. Those that fished generally started at 7:00 a.m. and finished by 12:00 p.m. The majority of anglers fished for all trout species (58 percent), with a small number of visitor fishing specifically for rainbow (13.8 percent) or brown trout species (5.6 percent). Respondents most frequently reported that they caught two fish per hour (mode), fished via boat or shore, with a majority using bait tackle (56 percent) followed by spinners (36.6 percent), and fly (7.3 percent).


40

When asked to rate their overall fishing experience at Electra Lake, responses were between good to very good (average score of 3.6). ESC Member Response to Specific Angling Questions To further understand ESC Members angling behavior, Members were asked specific questions about their fishing behavior at Electra Lake (Table 2-43). Table 2-43 ESC members who participated in fishing at Electra Lake.

Characteristic % n Residents who fished 82.5 66 # Hours fished (average) 2.1 hours Target Species (Top Three):

All Trout Species 18.5 15 Rainbow Trout 20.0 16

Brown Trout 27.5 22 # Fish caught per hour (mode) 2 fish/hour Preferred type of fishing:

Boat 75.8 47 Tube 1.6 1

Shore 17.7 11 Preferred type of tackle:

Bait 11.1 7 Spinners 349 22

Fly 46.0 29 Evaluation of Fishing (average)1 3.5 = “good” to “very good”

1 Fishing rated on a scale from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent. Results of the angling questions indicate that 82.5 percent of respondents fished at Electra Lake (n=66), and fished an average of two hours. The majority of anglers fished for brown trout species (27.5 percent), with the rest split between all species (19 percent) and rainbow species (20 percent). Respondents most frequently reported catching two fish per hour (mode), fished primarily via boat (76 percent), with a majority using fly tackle (46 percent) followed by spinners (34.9 percent), and bait (11.1 percent). Most residents (75.8 percent) prefer boat fishing, followed by shore fishing (17.7 percent), with very little participation (1.6 percent) tube fishing. When asked to rate their overall fishing experience at Electra Lake, respondents reported between good to very good (average score of 3.5). Boating Use on Electra Lake To understand how people utilize the various portions of the lake, boat counts were conducted two times a day during the peak season (May through October). Figures 2-17 through 2-19 demonstrate peak vessel counts. Figure 2-17 is the peak a.m. vessel count which occurred on July 2, 2006, with a total of 25 boats on the lake (19 motorized and 6 non-motorized). Figure 2-18 depicts


41

Figure 2-17 Peak water surface recreation use (July 2, 2006) morning vessel counts.


42

Figure 2-18 Peak water surface recreation use (September 4, 2006) afternoon vessel counts.


43

Figure 2-19 Season water surface recreation use all vessel counts.


44

the peak p.m. vessel count, which occurred on September 4, 2007, with a total of 31 boats on the lake (14 motorized and 17 non-motorized). Figure 2-19 is an overview of all summer use on Electra Lake, which included a total of 336 motorized boats, 91 non-motorized boats. Visitors Typical Visits to Electra Lake As part of the mail-back survey, visitors were asked to identify activities they participated in during a typical visit to Electra Lake (Table 2-44). In general, visitor activity data kept as individuals enter Electra Lake more accurately represent total season activity participation at Electra Lake. However, when comparing visitor reports (albeit a small response), there are some consistencies between data sets, “shore-based fishing”, “boat/tube-based fishing,” as two of the most prevalent activities at Electra Lake. Visitors also reported “relaxing” within the top three. “Mountain biking”, “water skiing” and “swimming” were the three types of activities visitors participated in least: respectively, 2.2, 2.2, and 4.4 percent of all the visitors responding to this survey. Table 2-44 Reported activity by visitors at Electra Lake.

Recreation Activity n % Boating for pleasure 6 13.3 Water skiing 1 2.2 Boat/tube-based fishing 24 53.3 Shore-based fishing 30 66.7 Swimming 2 4.4 Driving for Pleasure 7 15.6 Relaxing 20 44.4 Hiking/Walking 9 20.0 Mountain Biking 1 2.2 Non-motorized Boating 6 13.3 Picnicking 12 27.3

Visitors Overall Trip Behavior Visitors were asked what places they visited on their current trip and what places they had visited on previous trips in the Tacoma Project Area (Table 2-45). As expected Electra Lake generally and associated areas within the Electra Lake area were identified most by visitors overall. Very few respondents actually visit Aspaas Lake or Forebay Lake either during their current visit or in past visits. Table 2-45 Tacoma area recreation visitation.

Current Trip

Previous Trip

Both Current and Previous Trips Recreation Area Visitation

% n % n % n Places Visited at Electra Lake

Electra Lake (n=48; 79% of respondents) 73 38 na na na na Nunn Recreation Area (n=56; 19% of respondents) 46.4 26 25 14 28.6 16

Westinghouse Area (n=82; 28% of respondents) 37.8 31 30.5 25 31.7 26 Edison Area (n=57; 19% of respondents) 33.3 31 42.1 25 24.6 26 Aspaas Lake (n=34; 12% of respondents) 8.8 3 73.5 25 17.6 6

Forebay Lake (n=47; 16% of respondents) 2.1 1 89.4 42 8.5 4


45

Current Trip

Previous Trip

Both Current and Previous Trips Recreation Area Visitation

% n % n % n Other Areas in the Vicinity:

Animas River (n=150; 51% of respondents) 14 21 62.7 94 23.3 35 Durango Mountain Resort (n=121; 41% of respondents) 13.2 16 68.6 83 18.2 22 Mesa Verde National Park(n=105; 35% of respondents) 8.6 9 83.8 88 2.7 8

San Juan National Forest(n=131; 48% of respondents) 15.3 9 62.6 88 22.1 8 “Other” Places Listed:

Rainbow Lakes >1 1 Haviland Lake >1 1

Ames Plant >1 1 Other areas visited during trips to Electra Lake included the Animas River (14 percent), Durango Mountain Resort (13.2 percent), Mesa Verde National Park, and the San Juan National Forest. A few individuals mentioned some ‘other’ area sites such as Haviland Lakes, the Ames Plant, and Rainbow Lake. Primary Destination of Visitors to Electra Lake The majority of visitors to Electra Lake identified their primary destination as places within Electra Lake (72.5 percent, Table 2-46). The two most visited areas within the area, aside from the Lake itself, were the Nunn and Westinghouse areas, followed by Edison, Aspaas, and Forebay areas. Table 2-46 Primary destination of visitors to Electra Lake.

Location % n Electra Lake Locations: 72.5 119

Electra Lake (general) 30.5 50 Nunn / Mearns Parking 16 26

Westinghouse 16 26 Edison 7.3 12

Aspaas Lake 2.4 4 Forebay Lake >1 1

Other Locations: 27 45 Animas River 6.7 11

Durango Mountain Resort 4.8 8 Mesa Verde National Park 1.2 2

San Juan National Forest 7.9 13 Cascade Village 3 5

Durango 2.4 4 Weminuche Wilderness, Florida Mesa 1.2 2

Total: 164 1.1.1.5.3 Overall Experience Evaluation of Visitors’ Primary Activity Visitors to Electra Lake have a very good experience in a wide range of activities at Electra Lake (Table 2-47). Among all of their primary activities, “swimming” receives highest average rating (6=perfect), while “mountain biking” and “picnicking” receive the lowest rating (4=very good). However, the samples for “swimming”, “mountain biking”, “picnicking”, “driving for pleasure” and “hiking/walking” are rather small, making the interpretation of the results less reliable.


46

Table 2-47 Visitor rating of overall experience evaluation in primary activity at Electra

Lake. Activity Average n

Boating for pleasure 5.1 20 Boat/tube-based fishing 4.4 58 Shore-based fishing 4.0 115 Swimming 6.0 1 Mountain Biking 4.0 1 Picnicking 4.0 2 Driving for Pleasure 4.4 5 Relaxing 4.9 12 Hiking/Walking 4.8 9

Total: 223 1 Rated on a scale from 1 = poor to 6 = perfect. Table 2-48 displays the percentage of respondents rating of each experience category by recreation activity. Consistent with the overall evaluation in Table 2-47, visitors generally rated their experiences in their primary activity from good to perfect. A notable exception was the activity of shoreline fishing, where just over 12 percent of respondents rated their experience as “fair” (n=15) or less. Table 2-48 Experience ratings by primary activity based on percentage of total

participation. Rate your overall experience at Electra Lake in your

primary activity Type of Activity Poor Fair Good Very

Good Excellent PerfectTotal

Count 0 0 1 4 12 10 27 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 3.7 14.8 44.4 37.0 100.0Boating for pleasure % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 4.3 3.6 9.7 Count 1 1 8 21 23 10 64 % within primary activity 1.6 1.6 12.5 32.8 35.9 15.6 100.0Boat/tube fishing % of Total 0.4 0.4 2.9 7.6 8.3 3.6 23.1 Count 2 15 33 30 40 18 138 % within primary activity 1.4 10.9 23.9 21.7 29.0 13.0 100.0Shore-based fishing % of Total 0.7 5.4 11.9 10.8 14.4 6.5 49.8 Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0Swimming % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Count 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Mountain biking % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Count 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 100.0Picnicking % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 Count 0 0 1 2 1 1 5 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 100.0Driving for pleasure % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.8


47

Rate your overall experience at Electra Lake in your primary activity Type of Activity

Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Perfect

Total

Count 0 0 31 4 6 14 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 21.4 7.1 28.6 42.9 100.0Relaxing % of Total 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 1.4 2.2 5.1 Count 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0Camping % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Count 0 0 2 2 6 3 13 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 15.4 15.4 46.2 23.1 100.0Hiking or walking % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 2.2 1.1 4.7 Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0Kayaking/canoeing % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 Count 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 100.0Socializing, dining % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.4 Count 0 0 2 0 0 4 6 % within primary activity 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 66.7 100.0Water-skiing % of Total 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.2 Count 3 16 52 63 89 54 277 % within primary activity 1.1 5.8 18.8 22.7 32.1 19.5 100.0Total % of Total 1.1 5.8 18.8 22.7 32.1 19.5 100.0

Preferences for Recreation Settings and Facilities Water Level at Electra Lake Visitors to Electra Lake were asked to evaluate the water level on the day of their visit. Over 92 percent of respondents overall (n=261) rated the water level as “just right” (Table 2-49). In evaluating response by month, respondents consistently rated the water level of the reservoir as “just right”, with a majority of 90 percent or greater. Table 2-49 Visitor evaluation of water level at Electra Lake.

“Too Low” “Just Right” “Too High” “Much Too High” Time of Year % n % n % n % n

Combined Season 3.6 10 92.9 261 3.2 9 >1 1 May 3.1 1 90.6 29 6.3 2 0 0 June 3.6 2 91.1 51 5.4 3 0 0 July 4.9 5 94.1 96 1.0 1 0 0 August 5.4 2 94.6 35 0 0 0 0 September 0 0 91.8 45 6.1 3 2 1 October 0 0 100.0 5 0 0 0 0

Evaluation of Crowding by Visitors to Electra Lake Most recreation experts recognize a difference between density (i.e., contacts) and crowding. Density is a descriptive term that refers to the number of people per unit area. It is measured by


48

counting the number of people and measuring the space they occupy, and it can be determined objectively. Crowding, on the other hand, is a negative evaluation of density or encounters; it involves a value judgment about the specified density number. To emphasize the evaluative nature of the concept, the term “perceived crowding” is often used. For the purpose of clarity, the term “crowding” should not be substituted for high density or large numbers of people. Using this term confuses the objective impacts of larger numbers of people with the subjective evaluation of those impacts. Perceived crowding combines descriptive information (the density or encounter level experienced by the individual) with evaluative information (the individual's negative evaluation of that density or encounter level). When people evaluate an area as crowded, they have at least implicitly compared the condition they experienced (the impacts) with their perception of what is acceptable (their standards). If they conclude that the area is crowded, the existing conditions exceed their definition of a standard (one criterion for an area being over capacity). To understand visitors’ perception of crowding, researchers asked people to indicate how crowded the area was at the time of their visit on a 9-point scale:

Not at all crowded

Slightly crowded Moderately crowded Extremely

crowded Reservoir water surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Based on previous research, two of the 9 points on the crowding scale label the situation as uncrowded, while the remaining 7 points label it as crowded to some degree. The scale was collapsed into a dichotomous variable that provides a meaningful break point between those who labeled the situation as not at all crowded (scale points 1 and 2, a positive evaluation) and those who labeled the situation as slightly, moderately, or extremely crowded (scale points 3 through 9, a negative evaluation). This strategy has been used in over 200 evaluation contexts, and a comparative analysis of scores has led to the development of five general capacity assessment categories (Shelby et. al, 1989): ■ Under 35% No crowding: Relatively unique low-density experiences ■ 36 to 50% Low normal: Unlikely to be a problem ■ 51 to 65% High normal: experiences approaching capacity ■ 66 to 80% Over capacity: management probably needed ■ Over 80% Greatly over capacity: manage for high density or a sacrifice area Evaluation of Crowding by Visitors In general, visitors’ had average crowding scores of 2.39, which is “not at all crowded.” In addition, less than 35 percent of visitors’ identified the shoreline (33.3 percent) and water surface (28.6 percent) was not crowded (Table 2-50). In general, based on an overall analysis, visitors at Electra Lake experience a relatively unique low-density experience, with under 35 percent of respondents identifying any sort of crowding issue.


49

Table 2-50 Perceptions of crowding at Electra Lake among visitors. Visitors

Average Crowding Rating1 Average n Shoreline 2.39 279

Water Surface 2.25 245 Perceptions of Crowding2 % n

Shoreline Not Crowded 66.7 186

Crowded 33.3 93 Water Surface

Not Crowded 71.4 175 Crowded 28.6 70

1 Crowding rated on a scale from 1 = not crowded to 9 = extremely crowded. 2 Crowding scale converted to 1 through 2 = not crowded and 3 through 9 = crowded. Within the mail-back survey, visitors were asked to reflect on generally, summer visits to Electra Lake (Table 2-51). Visitors’ perception of crowding were higher for both shoreline and water surface areas on weekends than weekdays. Further, a majority of visitors felt the reservoir on weekends was crowded; weekdays were not crowded. With respect to the shoreline, again, a majority of visitors perceived the shoreline to be crowded on weekends and weekdays. The place that a majority of visitors actually felt crowded was the boat launch area. With respect to the results of visitors’ perceptions of crowding on Part II of the survey, due to the low response rate, results may not be generalizable to the entire population of visitors to Electra Lake. Table 2-51 Overall summer evaluation of visitors’ perception of crowding at Electra

Lake. Average n Average Crowding Rating1

Shoreline Weekends 4.7 39 Shoreline Weekdays 2.5 37

Water Surface Weekends 5.2 37 Water Surface Weekdays 3.0 37

Perceptions of Crowding2 Weekends on Reservoir Surface % n


Weekdays on Reservoir Surface % n Not Crowded 62.2 23

Crowded 37.8 14 Weekends on Reservoir Shoreline % n


Weekdays on Reservoir Shoreline % n Not Crowded 48.6 18

Crowded 51.4 19


50

Average n Places You Feel Crowded % n

Boat launch 60.5 26 Nunn Recreation Area 14.0 6

Edison Area 18.6 8 Westinghouse Area 23.8 10

Reservoir surface 16.3 7 Undeveloped shoreline 12.2 5

1 Crowding rated on a scale from 1 = not crowded to 9 = extremely crowded. 2 Crowding scale converted to 1 through 2 = not crowded and 3 through 9 = crowded. Based on crowding evaluations from previous studies, the results of members and visitors perceived level of crowding indicate that during weekends on the reservoir surface and shoreline, visitors’ responses indicate the social carrying capacity of the resource appears to be over capacity and should be managed for high density use. For weekdays, with nearly 38 percent of visitors responding that they perceived the reservoir as crowded, this indicates crowding is within the “low-normal” range and is unlikely to be a problem. For shoreline areas, 51 percent of visitors perceived some level of crowding, therefore indicate social carrying capacity is in the “high-normal” range and the experience may be approaching capacity. When visitors were asked about places that were most likely to make them feel crowded, the boat ramp a majority of members identified the boat ramp (61 percent). Other places mentioned included Westinghouse (24 percent), Edison (19 percent), Nunn Recreation area (14 percent), the reservoir surface (16 percent), and the undeveloped shoreline (12 percent). Evaluation of Crowding by ESC Members Similar to visitors’ evaluation of crowding at Electra Lake, ESC members perceived higher level of crowding at both shoreline and water surfaces during weekends (Table 2-52). A majority of members (75.3 percent) perceived crowding on the reservoir water surface during weekends and crowding on the shoreline during weekends (76.3 percent). During weekdays, 37.7 percent of members perceived the reservoir surface as crowded during the weekdays; with 52 percent who felt the shoreline was crowded during weekdays. When asked about the specific places members felt crowded, the boat launch area was mentioned by most members (61.3 percent), followed by the Nunn Recreation Area (28.8 percent), Reservoir surface (26.3 percent, n=21), Westinghouse Picnic and Parking Area (20.0 percent), Edison Picnic and Parking Area (13.8 percent), and Undeveloped shoreline (6.3 percent).


51

Table 2-52 Overall summer evaluation of ESC members’ perception of crowding at Electra Lake.

Average Crowding Rating1 Average Shoreline Weekends 4.1 Shoreline Weekdays 2.9

Water Surface Weekends 4.1 Water Surface Weekdays 2.4

Perceptions of Crowding2 % n Weekends on Reservoir Surface


Weekdays on Reservoir Surface Not Crowded 62.3 48

Crowded 37.7 29 Weekends on Reservoir Shoreline


Weekdays on Reservoir Shoreline Not Crowded 48.0 36

Crowded 52.0 39 Places You Feel Crowded % n

Boat launch 61.3 49 Nunn Recreation Area 28.8 23

Edison Area 13.8 11 Westinghouse Area 20.0 16

Reservoir surface 26.3 21 Undeveloped shoreline 6.3 5

1 Crowding rated on a scale from 1 = not crowded to 9 = extremely crowded. 2 Crowding scale converted to 1 through 2 = not crowded and 3 through 9 = crowded. Based on crowding evaluations from previous studies, the results of members perceived level of crowding indicate that during weekends on the reservoir surface and shoreline, ESC members responses indicate the social carrying capacity of the resource has been exceeded and management is probably needed. For weekdays, with nearly 38 percent of ESC members responding that they perceived the reservoir as crowded, this indicates crowding is within the “low-normal” range and is unlikely to be a problem. For shoreline areas, 52 percent of ESC members perceived some level of crowding, therefore indicate social carrying capacity is in the “high-normal” range and the experience may be approaching capacity. When ESC members were asked about places that were most likely to make them feel crowded, the boat ramp a majority of members identified the boat ramp (61 percent). Other places mentioned included Nunn Recreation area (29 percent), the reservoir surface (26 percent), Westinghouse (20 percent), Edison (14 percent), and the undeveloped shoreline (6.3 percent). Spacing of Boats, People, and/or Groups at Electra Lake To understand visitors and ESC Members perceptions of density and tolerance for the surrounding density, visitors were asked to estimate how many boats and fishing tubes they saw on the lake during there visit. These indicators may be useful for the lake because most of the area can be viewed from key locations. Accordingly, users were asked to evaluate the number of boats at one


52

time during their visit. Similarly, they were also asked to evaluate number of people or groups along the land-based shoreline areas. Statistically comparing the averages for existing and tolerable numbers (t-tests) assists in determining if there was an “impact problem,” and tolerances were used to assess whether there is agreement for different types of opportunities (settings). Visitor Perceptions On average, visitors at Electra Lake estimated the distance between them and the closest group to them to be approximately two bus lengths, or 80 to 100 feet away (Table 2-53). In addition, groups felt that the closest distance they would tolerate was somewhere between a bus (40 to 50 feet) and two bus lengths away (80 to 100 feet). Based on this evaluation, at present shoreline, users felt the current distances they experienced were within their estimated tolerable range. Table 2-53 Visitors’ perceptions of density tolerance at Electra Lake.

Visitors to Electra Lake Average n

Distance of Closest Group on Shoreline Distance of Closest Group Two bus lengths away (80-100 feet) 172 Closest Distance Tolerated Between one bus length (40-50 feet) and two bus

lengths away (80-100 feet) 172

Number of Boats/Fishing Tubes # Observed 8.16 128

# Tolerate 18.75 128 Visitors were also asked to evaluate the highest number of boats/fishing tubes they estimated to be on Electra Lake and to estimate the highest number they would tolerate before they felt their experience was compromised. The average number of boats/fishing tubes visitors saw at one time was just over 8, the average number of boats/fishing tubes they felt would be tolerated was 18.75. To further understand visitors’ perceptions of use density, Table 2-54 displays the percentage of visitors for each distance category. Overall, the majority of visitors’ perception of their experience was that groups should be at least a bus length away or greater with respect to shoreline use to be tolerated. Table 2-54 Visitors’ distance between groups and tolerance by percentage.

Visitors to Electra Lake % n

Distance to Closest Group (n=243) Right next to us

Experienced 9.1 22 Tolerate 4.0 7

A car length away (15 to 20 feet) Experienced 13.2 32

Tolerate 21.3 37


53

Visitors to Electra Lake % n

A bus length away (40 to 50 feet) Experienced 14.4 35

Tolerate 21.8 37 Two bus lengths away (80 to 100 feet)


Over 100 feet and within sight or sound Experienced 24.3 59

Tolerate 27.0 47 Out of sight and sound


ESC Member Perceptions On average, ESC members estimated the distance between them and the closest group to them to be approximately two bus lengths, or 80 to 100 feet away (Table 2-55). In addition, groups felt that the closest distance they would tolerate was also two bus lengths away (80 to 100 feet). Based on this evaluation, at present shoreline users felt the current distances they experienced were within their estimated tolerable range. Table 2-55 ESC members’ perceptions of density tolerance at Electra Lake.

Visitors to Electra Lake Average n

Distance of Closest Group on Shoreline Distance of Closest Group Two bus lengths away (80-100 feet) 59 Closest Distance Tolerated Two bus lengths away (80-100 feet) 54

Number of Boats/Fishing Tubes # Observed 11.99 71

# Tolerate 14.20 55 ESC members were also asked to evaluate the highest number of boats/fishing tubes they estimated to be on Electra Lake and to estimate what they would tolerate before they felt their experience was compromised. The average number of boats/fishing tubes visitors saw at one time was 12, the average number of boats/fishing tubes they felt would be tolerated was just over 14. To further understand ESC members’ perceptions of use density, Table 2-56 displays the percentage of members for each estimated distance category. Overall, the majority of members’ perception of their experience was that groups should be at least a bus length away or greater with respect to shoreline use to be tolerated.


54

Table 2-56 ESC members distance between groups and tolerance by percentage. Distance to Closest Group % n

Right next to us Experienced 6.8 4

Tolerate 5.6 3 A car length away (15 to 20 feet)


A bus length away (40 to 50 feet) Experienced 18.6 11

Tolerate 20.4 11 Two bus lengths away (80 to 100 feet)


Over 100 feet and within sight or sound Experienced 40.7 24

Tolerate 37.0 20 Out of sight and sound


Distance to Closest Group Doesn’t Matter 18.8 15 Acceptability of Existing Conditions and Facilities at Electra Lake Visitors Visitors to Electra Lake generally find facilities and existing conditions acceptable (Table 2-57). The items visitors felt were most acceptable included the “fish cleaning station” (rating = 5.0, n=173), “feeling safe” (rating = 4.8, n = 244), and “reservoir” (rating = 4.8, n = 207). Of items rated the lowest, the level of acceptability was still relatively high, with ratings of 4.2 or higher—these included “recreation activity conflict” (rating = 4.2, n = 109), “picnic facilities” (rating = 4.3, n=103), and “recreation entrance fees” (rating = 4.3, n = 234). Table 2-57 Visitors’ acceptability rating for a variety of items at Electra Lake.

Visitors Who Used Item Visitors Who Did Not Use / Had No Opinion Existing Conditions

Average1 Mode n % n Picnic facilities 4.3 5 103 52.9 155 Boat launch facilities 4.5 5 145 39.9 117 Group picnic area 4.5 5 81 59.0 173 Fish cleaning station 5.0 5 173 30.7 90 Recreation activity conflict 4.2 5 109 47.8 140 Behavior of others 4.5 5 194 21.8 64 Feeling safe 4.8 5 244 6.1 18 Number of other visitors 4.5 5 215 11.9 35 Reservoir 4.8 5 207 14.3 42


55

Visitors Who Used Item Visitors Who Did Not Use / Had No Opinion Existing Conditions

Average1 Mode n % n Litter in the area 4.6 5 240 6.5 19 Shoreline erosion / foot traffic 4.6 5 223 10.2 30 User created trails 4.6 5 178 25.6 75 Areas of trampled vegetation 4.6 5 174 25.9 76 Off highway vehicles 4.5 5 141 37.2 109 Recreation entrance fees 4.3 5 234 7.8 23 1 Acceptability was rated on a scale from 1 = totally unacceptable to 5 = totally acceptable. 1.1.1.5.5 Evaluation of Recreation Resources Overall Evaluation of Recreation Trips to Electra Lake Visitors Completing Part II The respondents completing Part II of the visitor survey questionnaire was low. As explained in Section 1.1.1.5.1 (Table 2-4), the overall response to the mail back questionnaire was 45, which resulted in a 47 percent response rate for those promising to return Part II, but only a 15 percent response rate overall, based on the total survey population. Therefore, the results of Part II provide useful information, but are not necessarily representative of the population of visitors to Electra Lake. Visitors rated their overall recreation trips as “good” to “perfect”, with the greatest percentage of respondents finding their trips “excellent” (55.6 percent). Based on a scale from 1 (poor) to 6 (perfect), the overall average was 4.7 or between very good to excellent (Table 2-58). Table 2-58 Visitors’ rating of recreation trips to Electra Lake.

Overall Rating % n Good 11.1 5 Very Good 20.0 9 Excellent 55.6 25 Perfect 13.3 6 Total 100% 45

ESC Members ESC Members rated their overall recreation trips as “good” to “perfect”. With the greatest percentage of respondents finding their trips “excellent” (41.3 percent). Based on a scale from 1 (poor) to 6 (perfect), the overall average was 4.6 or between very good to excellent (Table 2-59).


56

Table 2-59 ESC members’ rating of recreation trips to Electra Lake. Overall Rating % n

Good 14.7 11 Very Good 25.3 19 Excellent 41.3 31 Perfect 18.7 14 Total 100% 75

Evaluation of Recreation Resources within the Tacoma Project Area Visitors Visitors were asked evaluate the acceptability of several overall conditions and experiences at Electra Lake (Table 2-60). The results indicate that visitors have a high level of acceptability for experience and conditions at Electra Lake. Visitors rated “overall quality of the recreation experiences in the area”, “overall environmental conditions in the area”, and, the “overall quality of fishing in Electra Lake” as the most acceptable with ratings close to 5. Items rated lowest, but within the “slightly acceptable” range included the “length of fishing season on Electra Lake” (4.0); and, the “overall condition of developed recreation facilities (boat launches, day use areas)” (4.1). Table 2-60 Visitor acceptability rating for a variety of items at Electra Lake.

Visitors Who Had Opinion Visitors Who Had No Opinion Item1

Average Mode n % n Overall environmental conditions in the area 4.8 5 45 0.0 0 Overall quality of the recreation experiences in the area

4.9 5 45 0.0 0

Overall condition of developed recreation facilities (boat launches, day use areas)

4.1 5 44 2.2 1

Overall condition of trails 4.3 4 27 37.2 16 Number of directional signs 4.3 5 36 20.0 9 Locations of directional signs 4.3 5 36 20.0 9 Number and quality of interpretive information signs and kiosks

4.3 5 28 37.8 17

Overall quality of fishing in Electra Lake. 4.7 5 42 6.7 3 Length of fishing season on Electra Lake 4.0 5 40 9.1 4

1 Acceptability rated on a scale from 1 = totally unacceptable to 5 = totally acceptable. ESC Members ESC Members were asked evaluate the acceptability of several overall conditions and experiences at Electra Lake (Table 2-61). The results indicate that visitors have a high level of acceptability for experience and conditions at Electra Lake. Members rated “overall quality of the recreation experiences in the area” and “overall environmental conditions in the area” as the most acceptable, with ratings close to 5. Other items rated fairly high (above 4.5) were the “overall condition of developed facilities”, “overall quality of fishing”, and “length of public fishing season”. Items rated lowest, but within the “slightly acceptable” range included the “overall condition of the trails to the water” (4.5), the “number and location of directional signs”, and “the number and quality of interpretive signs and kiosks” (4.3).


57

Table 2-61 ESC members’ acceptability rating for a variety of items at Electra Lake.

Residents Who Had Opinion Residents Who Had No Opinion

Average Mode % n % N Overall environmental conditions in the area 4.8 5 95.0 76 3.8 3 Overall quality of my recreation experiences 4.9 5 97.5 78 1.3 1 Overall condition of developed recreation facilities

4.6 5 95.0 76 3.8 3

Overall condition of trails to the water 4.5 5 90.0 72 8.8 7 Number and location of directional signs 4.4 5 88.8 71 10.0 8 Number and quality of interpretive information signs and kiosks

4.3 5 77.5 62 20.3 16

Overall quality of fishing in Electra Lake 4.6 5 91.3 73 6.3 5 Length of public fishing season on Electra Lake 4.6 5 93.8 75 3.8 3

1 Acceptability rated on a scale from 1 = totally unacceptable to 5 = totally acceptable. Availability of Information at Electra Lake Visitors Based on the results of questions concerning various types of information, it appears that those seeking information are able to locate information (Table 2-62). The majority of visitors do not look for campfire regulations and environmental education information. Very few visitors overall were unable to locate information at all. Table 2-62 Visitors’ perception of availability of information at Electra Lake.

Never Looked For It Could Not Locate It Available Type of Information % n % n % n

Campfire regulations 63.6 28 2.3 1 34.1 15 Recreation site information 37.2 16 2.3 1 60.5 26 Recreation site regulations 27.3 12 2.3 1 70.5 31 Fishing regulations 8.9 4 0.0 0 91.1 41 Trail locations/maps 44.2 19 0.3 1 53.5 23 Environmental education information 68.2 30 4.5 2 27.3 12

ESC Members Based on the results of questions concerning various types of information, it appears that those seeking information are able to locate information (Table 2-63). The majority of ESC Members do not look for trail location maps and environmental education information. Very few members overall were unable to locate information at all.


58

Table 2-63 ESC members’ perception of availability of information at Electra Lake. Never Looked For It Could Not Locate It Available Type of Information

% n % n % n Campfire regulations 29.9 23 3.9 3 66.2 51 Recreation site information 25.6 20 1.3 1 73.1 57 Recreation site regulations 21.8 17 0.0 0 78.2 61 Fishing regulations 7.6 6 1.3 1 91.1 72 Trail locations/maps 44.2 34 10.7 8 45.5 35 Environmental education information 50.0 38 7.9 6 42.1 32

Existing and Preferred Recreation Settings Visitors To help understand visitors’ preferences for type of setting (i.e., primitive to developed recreation settings), visitors were asked to rate each of the various recreation areas within the Tacoma Project, identifying what they actually experienced and the type of setting they preferred for these various areas (Table 2-64). Again, responses overall were low, so interpretation of the results are conservative modest indications of visitors evaluation. Table 2-64 Recreation experience settings of visitors to Electra Lake.

Electra Lake

Nunn Recreation

Area

Westinghouse Parking and Picnic Area

Edison Parking and Picnic Area

Aspaas Lake

Forebay Lake Area

% n % n % n % n % n % n Primitive

experienced 11.9 5 0.0 0 7.1 1 25.0 2 0.0 0 9.1 1 prefer 9.7 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 16.7 1 0.0 0 14.3 1

Semi-primitive experienced 35.7 15 37.5 3 42.9 6 37.5 3 66.7 2 63.6 7

prefer 48.4 15 40.0 2 80.0 8 66.7 4 100.0 1 71.4 5 Semi-primitive motorize


Undeveloped experienced 9.5 4 12.5 1 21.4 3 12.5 1 0.0 0 9.1 1

prefer 9.7 3 20.0 1 10.0 1 16.7 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Developed


For Electra Lake, the majority of visitors experienced “semi-primitive” (35.7 percent) followed by “semi-primitive motorize” and “developed recreation” settings (21.4 percent). The majority of respondents indicated that they actually preferred a “semi-primitive” setting (48.4 percent), followed by more developed settings. This is fairly consistent for all other areas at Electra Lake, with a majority of respondents preferring a “semi-primitive” recreation setting (Table 2-64).


59

ESC Members Members were also asked to rate each of the various recreation areas within the Tacoma Project, identifying what they actually experienced and the type of setting they preferred for these various areas (Table 2-65). Table 2-65 Recreation experience settings of ESC members at Electra Lake.

Electra Lake

Nunn Recreation

Area

Westinghouse Parking and Picnic Area

Edison Parking and Picnic Area

Aspaas Lake

Forebay Lake Area

% n % n % n % n % n % n Primitive


Semi-primitive experienced 40.0 30 10.5 8 13.2 10 12.0 9 37.3 28 33.8 25

prefer 49.3 35 12.7 9 13.9 10 11.4 8 27.9 19 39.4 26 Semi-primitive motorize


Undeveloped experienced 2.7 2 10.5 8 14.5 11 8.0 6 1.3 1 5.4 4

prefer 4.2 3 11.3 8 9.7 7 5.7 4 0.0 0 3.0 2 Developed


For Electra Lake, the majority of members experienced (40 percent) and preferred (49 percent) a “semi-primitive setting, followed by “semi-primitive motorize” (28 percent experienced; 18.3 percent preferred) and “primitive” settings (13.3 percent experienced; 16.9 percent preferred). For the Nunn, Westinghouse, Edison, and Forebay Lake areas, a majority of respondents experienced a more developed setting (semi-primitive motorized to developed) with the majority preferring semi-primitive motorized. For Aspaas Lake, a majority of respondents experienced and preferred a primitive setting, Evaluation of Facility Development at Electra Lake Visitors Visitors were asked to rate the level of development for Electra Lake and for specific facilities within the area. For most facility developments, visitors have a average rating close to 3 as well as a mode of 3, indicating that they feel that the level of facility development at Electra Lake are generally appropriate. The number of shoreline access areas received a relatively low average rating (2.2), indicating visitors would like to see increased access along the shoreline (Table 2-66).


60

Table 2-66 Visitors’ perceptions of facility development at Electra Lake. Respondents with opinions No opinion Facility1

Average Mode n % n Overall level of development 3.0 3 36 14.3 6 Number of picnic areas 2.8 3 32 27.3 12 Number of shoreline access areas 2.2 3 36 18.2 8 Number of parking spaces 2.8 3 40 9.1 4 Number of toilets 2.7 3 39 11.4 5 Number of facilities for disabled 2.7 3 21 51.2 22 Access to reservoir for disabled 2.6 3 19 56.8 25

1 Development rated on a scale from 1 = much to low through 3 = about right to 5 = much too high. ESC Members ESC Members were also asked to rate the level of development for Electra Lake and for specific facilities within the area. For most facility developments, members have an average rating close to 3 (2.8) as well as a mode of 3, indicating that they feel that the level of facility development at Electra Lake was generally appropriate. The number of facilities for the disabled received relatively low ratings, 2.0 and 2.1 respectively; while their evaluation of public toilets, law enforcement, interpretive information and educational information were between “too low” and “about right” (Table 2-67). Table 2-67 ESC members’ perceptions of facility development at Electra Lake.

Respondents with opinions Item1

Average Mode n Overall level of recreation development 2.8 3 76 Number of picnic areas 2.8 3 75 Number of shoreline access areas 2.8 3 75 Number of parking spaces 2.8 3 75 Number of toilets 2.5 3 75 Number of facilities for disabled 2.0 3 73 Access to reservoir for disabled 2.1 3 73 Amount of law enforcement 2.6 3 75 Amount of interpretive information 2.5 3 75 Amount of educational information 2.5 3 75

1 Development rated on a scale from 1 = much to low to 5 = much too high. Important - Performance Evaluation of Amenities at Electra Lake PSCo recognizes that different people may expect different things when they visit Electra Lake. Visitors were asked to evaluate the importance of a range of amenities and their overall satisfaction with these amenities. Importance - Performance (IP) Methodology Visitor and ESC member ratings for the importance and performance of each type of facility were averaged and then put in the importance-performance coordinates. The centers of coordinates were


61

decided based on the ranges of ratings in actual data. For the visitors’ analysis, the center was (importance: 4; performance: 4); for ESC members, the center was (importance: 3; performance: 4). Visitor Importance - Performance Analysis The items located in or near Quadrant 1 (Figure 2-20) were evaluated as having high importance but low performance (satisfaction rating), hence drawing attention to these issues and incorporating consideration of these issues in a management plan, with every attempt to improve the performance of these items. These items included Shoreline fishing opportunities (11); Hours open to the public for recreation (24); Public toilets (9); Access trails to the lake (10), Watchable wildlife area (14); and Sense of privacy (23). The items located in Quadrant 2 have high importance and high performance; therefore, can be interpreted as doing well and focus should be on maintaining the status of these items. Items included in Quadrant 2 included: the fishing cleaning station (5). The items in Quadrant 3 had relatively low importance and low performance. The results of items located in this quadrant suggest management of these items could make improvements to these areas, yet have a lower priority than do items Quadrants 1 and 2. Items in Quadrant 3 included: Grills (4); Shoreline access for swimming (15); Parking adjacent to picnic tables (19); Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables (21); Picnic tables (7); Drinking water (3); Ranger staff (18); Availability of shade (17), Information about the Project and Electra Lake (6); Signs for direction and information (13); Accessibility for persons with disabilities (16); and, Parking specifically for boat ramp users (20). The items located in Quadrant 4 had overall low importance and high performance. Therefore, they would not necessarily be the focus of future management plans or actions. The items included in Quadrant 4 included: Public telephone (8); Security lighting (12); Boat ramp (1), and, Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) (22). Results of each item and their associated average and mode for both importance and satisfaction ratings are located in Tables 2-68 and 2-69.


62

Figure 2-20 Importance - performance visitor evaluation of amenities at Electra Lake.


63

Table 2-68 Visitors’ evaluation of the importance of various facilities and amenities at Electra Lake. Item of Importance1 Average Mode n

Boat ramp (1) 3.5 4 44 Fishing dock (2) 6.6 4 42 Drinking water (3) 3.3 3 44 Grills (4) 3.0 3 45 Fishing cleaning station (5) 4.1 4 44 Information about the Project and Electra Lake (6) 3.6 4 45 Picnic tables (7) 3.3 3 45 Public telephone (8) 2.9 3 45 Public toilets (9) 4.1 4 44 Access trails to the lake (10) 3.8 4 45 Shoreline fishing opportunities (11) 4.1 4 44 Security lighting (12) 3.1 3 45 Signs for direction and information (13) 3.6 4 44 Watchable wildlife area (14) 3.8 4 45 Shoreline access for swimming (15) 3.1 3 44 Accessibility for persons with disabilities (16) 3.7 4 45 Availability of shade (17) 3.5 3 45 Ranger staff (18) 3.3 4 45 Parking adjacent to picnic tables (19) 3.1 3 45 Parking specifically for boat ramp users (20) 3.7 4 45 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables (21) 3.2 3 45 Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) (22) 3.5 3 44 Sense of privacy (23) 3.9 4 44 Hours open to the public for recreation (24) 4.2 4 44

1 Importance rated on a scale from 1 = extremely unimportant to 5 = extremely important. Table 2-69 Visitors’ satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Electra Lake.

Visitors who Used Amenity / Facility Amenity / Facility1

Average Mode % n Boat ramp (1) 4.1 4 73.3 33 Fishing dock (2) 3.2 2 63.6 28 Drinking water (3) 3.7 3 38.6 17 Grills (4) 3.9 3 33.4 15 Fishing cleaning station (5) 4.4 5 86.7 39 Information about the Project and Electra Lake (6) 3.8 3 77.2 34 Picnic tables (7) 3.4 3 42.2 19 Public telephone (8) 4.0 3 42.2 13 Public toilets (9) 3.8 4 68.9 37 Access trails to the lake (10) 3.5 4 75.6 34 Shoreline fishing opportunities (11) 3.2 4 84.1 37 Security lighting (12) 4.3 3 45.5 20 Signs for direction and information (13) 3.8 3 81.4 36 Watchable wildlife area (14) 3.6 3 63.6 28 Shoreline access for swimming (15) 3.9 4 31.1 14 Accessibility for persons with disabilities (16) 3.3 3 20.5 9 Availability of shade (17) 3.3 3 55.8 24 Ranger staff (18) 3.8 3 66.0 29 Parking adjacent to picnic tables (19) 3.5 3 46.5 20


64

Visitors who Used Amenity / Facility Amenity / Facility1

Average Mode % n Parking specifically for boat ramp users (20) 3.8 3 66.7 30 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables (21) 3.4 2 31.1 14 Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) (22) 4.4 3 37.2 12 Sense of privacy (23) 3.6 3 84.1 37 Hours open to the public for recreation (24) 3.4 4 95.5 42

1 Satisfaction rated on a scale from 1 = completely dissatisfied to 5 = completely satisfied. In addition to the Importance-Performance analysis of facilities and amenities at Electra Lake, PSCo asked visitors to comment on areas they identified as “dissatisfied”. Of those comments captured from dissatisfied respondents, three primary issues emerged: ■ Access:

– I would like to see Electra Lake open all year. This is public land and we always feel we are intruding on people’s property with the action of others.

■ Fishing: – Fishing dock needs repaired. – Need more shoreline fishing opportunities. – Not enough shoreline areas throughout the park.

■ Parking: – Very limited parking at Westinghouse, with limited shoreline area to fish, and Edison

area also. ESC Member Importance-Performance Analysis The items located in or near Quadrant 1 (Figure 2-21) were evaluated by ESC members as having high importance but low performance (satisfaction rating), hence drawing attention to these issues and incorporating consideration of these issues in a management plan, with every attempt to improve the performance of these items. These items included Accessibility for persons with disabilities (16); Recycling location (22); Information about the Project and Electra Lake (6); and Sense of privacy (23). The items located in Quadrant 2 ESC members perceived as high importance and high performance therefore can be interpreted as doing well and focus should be on maintaining the status of these items. Items included in Quadrant 2 included: Boat ramp(1); Public toilets (9); Parking specifically for boat ramp users (20); Signs for direction and information (13); Shoreline fishing opportunities (11); Watchable wildlife area (14); Access trails to the lake (10); Fish cleaning station (5); and Drinking water (3). The items in Quadrant 3 were considered relatively low importance and low performance by ESC Members. The results of items located in this quadrant suggest management of these items could make improvements to these areas, yet have a lower priority than do items Quadrants 1 and 2. Items in Quadrant 3 included: Availability of shade (17); Ranger staff (18); and Grills (4).


65

Figure 2-21 Importance-performance ESC member evaluation of amenities at Electra Lake.


66

The items located in Quadrant 4 were evaluated by ESC members overall as low importance and high performance. Therefore, they would not necessarily be the focus of future management plans or actions. The items included in Quadrant 4 included: Rain/sun shelter for individual picnic tables (21); Shoreline access for swimming (15); Security lighting (12); Parking adjacent to picnic tables (19); Fishing dock (2); Picnic tables (7); and Public telephone (8). Results of each item and their associated average and mode for both importance and satisfaction ratings by ESC Members are located in Tables 2-70 and 2-71. Table 2-70 ESC members’ evaluation of the importance of various facilities and

amenities at Electra Lake. Item of Importance1 Average Mode n

Boat ramp (1) 3.8 4 77 Fishing dock (2) 3.0 4 75 Drinking water (3) 3.1 4 76 Grills (4) 2.6 2 76 Fishing cleaning station (5) 3.2 4 76 Information about the Project and Electra Lake (6) 3.4 4 75 Picnic tables (7) 3.0 3 75 Public telephone (8) 2.6 3 76 Public toilets (9) 3.6 4 76 Access trails to the lake (10) 3.2 4 76 Shoreline fishing opportunities (11) 3.3 4 75 Security lighting (12) 2.6 2 76 Signs for direction and information (13) 3.4 4 76 Watchable wildlife area (14) 3.2 3 74 Shoreline access for swimming (15) 2.7 2 75 Accessibility for persons with disabilities (16) 3.3 4 76 Availability of shade (17) 2.8 3 75 Ranger staff (18) 2.8 3 74 Parking adjacent to picnic tables (19) 2.9 3 75 Parking specifically for boat ramp users (20) 3.6 4 76 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables (21) 2.7 3 76 Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) (22) 3.2 4 76 Sense of privacy (23) 4.0 4 76

1 Importance rated on a scale from 1 = extremely unimportant to 5 = extremely important. Table 2-71 ESC members’ satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Electra Lake.

Residents Who Used Facility Residents

Who Did Not Use Facility

Residents Who Do Not Think it

Exists Amenity/Facility1

Average Mode % n % n % n Boat ramp (1) 4.5 5 88.8 71 7.5 6 0.0 0 Fishing dock (2) 4.2 5 47.5 38 46.3 37 1.3 1 Drinking water (3) 4.3 5 36.3 29 53.8 43 2.7 2 Grills (4) 3.8 3 26.3 21 67.5 54 1.3 0 Fishing cleaning station (5) 4.4 5 40.0 32 52.5 42 1.3 0 Information about the Project and Electra Lake (6)

4.0 5 56.3 45 36.3 29 0.0 0

Picnic tables (7) 4.3 5 36.3 29 57.5 46 1.3 1


67

Residents Who Used Facility Residents

Who Did Not Use Facility

Residents Who Do Not Think it

Exists Amenity/Facility1

Average Mode % n % n % n Public telephone (8) 4.3 5 42.5 34 51.3 41 1.3 1 Public toilets (9) 4.3 5 51.3 41 41.3 33 1.3 1 Access trails to the lake (10) 4.3 5 68.8 55 25.0 20 1.3 1 Shoreline fishing opportunities (11)

4.4 5 63.8 51 27.5 22 1.4 1

Security lighting (12) 4.2 5 53.8 43 40.0 32 1.3 1 Signs for direction and information (13)

4.2 5 67.5 54 26.3 21 0.0 0

Watchable wildlife area (14) 4.1 5 67.5 54 23.8 19 1.4 1 Shoreline access for swimming (15)

4.1 5 52.5 42 37.5 30 1.4 1

Accessibility for persons with disabilities (16)

3.7 3 41.3 33 53.8 43 0.0 0

Availability of shade (17) 3.9 3 51.3 41 40.0 32 1.4 1 Ranger staff (18) 3.9 5 57.5 46 32.5 26 1.4 1 Parking adjacent to picnic tables (19)

4.4 5 41.3 33 51.3 41 2.6 2

Parking specifically for boat ramp users (20)

4.5 5 67.5 54 25.0 20 1.3 1

Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables (21)

4.0 5 45.0 36 52.5 42 1.4 1

Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) (22)

3.7 4 53.8 43 36.3 29 4.0 3

Sense of privacy (23) 4.0 4 83.8 67 6.3 5 2.7 2 1 Satisfaction rated on a scale from 1 = completely dissatisfied to 5 = completely satisfied. In addition to the Importance-Performance analysis of facilities and amenities at Electra Lake, PSCo asked ESC members to comment on areas they identified as “dissatisfied”. Of those comments captured from dissatisfied respondents, three primary issues emerged: ■ Access:

– Better handicap access; – Try and limit motor vehicles from just cruising around; – Need more facilities for the disabled; – We need more access for disabilities; – Closer monitoring for everyone; – Rain/lightening shelters at the north end of the lake; – Gravel parking lot at clubhouse is impossible to maneuver in a wheelchair—have to

bring our own ramps to get to the dock at the clubhouse. ■ Boating:

– Boat ramp curves—straight would be easier; – Both ramp and fishing dock are basically co-located with our dock and are on a cove

with other member docks. This makes for awkward instance if we swim, waterski, etc. ■ Fishing:

– Fish cleaning station was out of order some this year; – Fish dock too crowded cannot dock and get off boat.


68

■ Private Property: – Many times encountered illegal visitors that had hiked in from the north end of the lake

without passing through the gate; put one fire out, picked up a lot of trash, vehicle confrontations.

– Touring public regularly ignore the private residence drive sign and feel perfectly free to look about.

■ Recycling: – I have not seen any recycling stations/locations.

Evaluation of Various Impacts at Electra Lake Visitor Evaluation For visitors with an opinion regarding and evaluation of various impacts at Electra Lake, visitors did not identify any significant problems (ratings around or below 1.5) (Table 2-72). Visitors identified “crowding along the shoreline” and “competition for good fishing areas” as being a “small problem”. Table 2-72 Visitor perceptions of problems at Electra Lake.

Visitors with Opinion Visitors with No Opinion Item1

Average Mode % n % n Litter or human waste impacts 1.5 1 77.8 35 22.2 10 Competition for good fishing areas 2.0 1 84.4 38 15.6 7 Competition for picnic sites 1.3 1 47.7 21 52.3 23 Speeding / reckless powerboats 1.5 1 77.8 35 22.2 10 Noise from powerboats 1.5 1 80.0 36 20.0 9 Conflicts between boaters and anglers 1.4 1 82.2 37 17.8 8 Shoreline erosion 1.2 1 75.6 34 24.4 11 Conflicts between ESC residents and visitors 1.3 1 77.8 35 22.2 10 “Beat out” areas (trampled vegetation, cut trees) 1.3 1 62.2 28 37.8 17 “Spider web” of user-created trails 1.2 1 66.7 30 33.3 15 Reservoir water level 1.2 1 88.9 40 11.1 5 Discourteous behavior by visitors 1.3 1 80.0 36 20.0 9 Drunken behavior by visitors 1.1 1 75.6 35 24.4 11 Vandalism 1.1 1 84.1 37 15.9 7 Personal safety 1.0 1 86.4 38 13.6 6 Crowding along the shoreline 1.8 1 82.2 37 17.8 8

1 Items rated on a scale from 1 = not a problem to 4 = a large problem. ESC Member Evaluation For ESC Members with an opinion regarding and evaluation of various impacts at Electra Lake, Members did not identify any significant problems (ratings around or below 1.5) (Table 2-73). Members identified “Litter or human waste impacts” as a small problem.


69

Table 2-73 ESC member perceptions of problems at Electra Lake.

Residents with Opinion Residents with No Opinion Item1

Average Mode % n % n Litter or human waste impacts 1.7 1 93.5 72 6.5 5 Competition for good fishing areas 1.6 1 89.6 69 10.4 8 Competition for picnic sites 1.3 1 79.2 61 20.8 16 Speeding / reckless powerboats or PWCs 1.6 1 94.8 73 5.2 4 Noise from powerboats or PWCs 1.5 1 94.7 71 5.3 4 Conflicts between boaters or PWCs and anglers 1.3 1 92.2 71 7.8 6 Shoreline erosion 1.3 1 86.8 66 13.2 10 Conflicts between ESC residents and visitors 1.5 1 92.2 71 7.8 6 “Beat out” areas (trampled vegetation, cut trees) 1.4 1 88.3 68 11.7 9 “Spider web” of user-created trails 1.3 1 82.9 63 17.1 13 Reservoir water level 1.6 1 94.8 73 5.2 4 Discourteous behavior by visitors 1.6 1 92.2 71 7.8 6 Drunken behavior by visitors 1.4 1 87.0 67 13.0 10 Vandalism 1.4 1 90.9 70 9.1 7 Personal safety 1.3 1 92.2 71 7.8 6 Crowding along the shoreline 1.5 1 88.3 68 11.7 9

1 Items rated on a scale from 1 = not a problem to 4 = a large problem. In addition to the problems identified above, there are problems that have been known to be specifically residentially oriented issues. Therefore, ESC Members were asked to evaluate impacts identified in Table 2-74 which are resident oriented. Table 2-74 Number of trespass incidences reported by residents at Electra Lake.

Number of Trespass Incidences 0-5 6-15 16-30 >30 Type of Trespass

% n % n % n % n Litter 54.1 20 5.4 2 2.7 1 37.8 14 Human waste impacts 58.8 20 0.0 0 0.0 0 41.2 14 Major dumping (a large trash bag or more) 58.8 20 0.0 0 0.0 0 41.2 14 People stopping briefly on your land 48.6 17 5.7 2 2.9 1 42.9 15 People hiking across your land 42.9 15 8.6 3 0.0 0 48.6 17 People fishing from your land 44.1 15 5.9 2 8.8 3 41.2 14 People picnicking on your land 60.0 21 0.0 0 0.0 0 40.0 14 People recreating on your shoreline deck or dock 42.9 15 11.4 4 2.9 1 42.9 15 People recreating in front of or adjacent to your property

48.7 16 5.7 2 0.0 0 48.6 17

Vandalism 60.0 21 0.0 0 0.0 0 40.0 14 The results indicated that residents’ perception of trespass incidences tend to be polarized. For each type of trespass, approximately 50 percent of residents reported no more than five incidences, while another 50 percent residents reported more than 30 incidences. ESC Members were also asked to indicate how large of a problem the trespasses or annoyances were to them (Table 2-75). ESC Member most frequently rated trespasses or annoyances as a 1 or “not a problem”. The average rating for all types of trespass/annoyance behaviors were below 1.4. These


70

jointly indicate that generally residents do not regard current trespass /annoyance behaviors as a problem. Table 2-75 Residents’ opinion of trespass incidences at Electra Lake.

Residents Who Had Opinion Residents Who Had

No Opinion / Did Not Respond

Item1

Average Mode % n % n Litter 1.4 1 86.3 69 13.8 11 Human waste impacts 1.0 1 78.8 63 21.3 17 Major dumping (a large trash bag or more) 1.0 1 76.3 61 23.8 19 People stopping briefly on your land 1.4 1 85.0 68 15.0 12 People hiking across your land 1.3 1 82.5 66 17.5 14 People fishing from your land 1.3 1 78.8 63 21.3 17 People picnicking on your land 1.1 1 76.3 61 23.8 19 People recreating on your shoreline deck or dock 1.3 1 83.8 67 16.3 13 People recreating in front of or adjacent to your property

1.2 1 81.3 65 18.8 15

Vandalism 1.1 1 81.3 65 18.8 15 1 Items rated on a scale from 1 = Not a problem to 4 = A large problem. Evaluation of Safety Issues Visitor Perceptions Visitors to Electra Lake were asked questions related to safety at Electra Lake (Table 2-76). Visitors perceived a “moderate” to “high” perceived level of safety concerning issues related to “physical harm by other people”, “property loss (theft, vandalism)”, and “environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.)” at Electra Lake. Generally, respondents rated 5 “extremely safe” concerning these three issues, with an average overall rating of 4.5, 4.4, and 4.3, respectively. Visitors had a relatively lower level of perceived safety concerning weather hazards (lightning, etc.). Generally, respondents rated this type of hazard as “somewhat safe.” Table 2-76 Visitor perception of safety at Electra Lake.

Safety related to:1 Average Mode n Physical harm by other people 4.5 5 45 Property loss (theft, vandalism) 4.4 5 45 Environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.) 4.3 5 45 Weather hazards (lightning, etc.) 3.6 4 44

1 Perceived level of safety was rated on a scale from 1 = very much at risk to 5 = extremely safe. ESC Members’ Perceptions It is interesting to note that results of both visitor and ESC members are exactly the same concerning safety issues. Members perceived a “moderate” to “high” perceived level of safety concerning issues related to “physical harm by other people”, “property loss (theft, vandalism)”, and “environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.)” at Electra Lake (Table 2-77). Generally, respondents rated 5 “extremely safe” concerning these three issues, with an average overall rating of


71

4.5, 4.4, and 4.3, respectively. Visitors had a relatively lower level of perceived safety concerning weather hazards (lightning, etc.). Generally, respondents rated this type of hazard as “somewhat safe.” Table 2-77 ESC members’ perception of safety at Electra Lake.

Safety related to:1 Average Mode n Physical harm by other people 4.7 5 76 Property loss (theft, vandalism) 4.2 5 77 Environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.) 4.0 5 76 Weather hazards (lightning, etc.) 3.6 4 75

1 Perceived level of safety was rated on a scale from 1 = very much at risk to 5 = extremely safe. Perceptions of Various Management Actions at Electra Lake Visitor Evaluation Visitors level of agreement concerning various management actions were rated from “1” strongly oppose to “5” strongly support (Table 2-78). Overall, visitors were fairly neutral with respect to most management actions, with mean scores neutral to slightly supportive for better public access (average 3.45), better enforcement (average 3.12), off limits zones for protective species (average 3.37), restricting public recreation developments and expansion (average 3.28), and better signage (average 3.77). Table 2-78 Visitor level of support for management actions at Electra Lake.

Strongly Oppose

Slightly Oppose Neutral Slightly

Support Strongly Support Management Action

% n % n % n % n % n Provide better public access to public areas (Average-3.45)

7.1 3 11.9 2 40.5 17 31 13 16.7 7

Zone the areas to provide specific uses at specific places (Average-2.98)

16.3 7 9.3 4 41.9 18 25.6 11 7.0 3

Provide better enforcement of rules and regulations (Average-3.12)

11.6 5 2.3 1 55.8 24 23.3 10 7 3

Establish "off limits" zones to protect sensitive resources (Average-3.37)

9.3 4 9.3 4 34.9 15 27.9 12 18.6 8

Restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion (Average-3.28)

11.6 5 11.6 5 32.6 14 25.6 11 18.6 8

Better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands (Average-3.77)

2.3 1 2.3 1 41.9 18 23.3 10 30.2 13

Respondents rate each item from 1=strongly oppose to 5=strongly support. With respect to providing better public access, a majority of respondents were supportive of this management action (47.7 percent) or neutral (40.5 percent). Visitors were neutral when it came to implementing a zoning strategy (42 percent), with mixed feelings between supporting (32.6 percent) or opposing zoning (25.6 percent). With respect to the idea of better enforcement of rules and regulations, the majority were neutral (55.8 percent), with just over 30 percent in support and


72

14 percent opposed. A majority of visitors supported establishing “off limits” zones to protect sensitive species (46.5 percent), with 35 percent neutral and just over 18 percent in opposition. ESC Member Evaluation ESC members’ level of agreement concerning various management actions were rated from “1” strongly oppose to “5” strongly support (Table 2-79). Overall, visitors were fairly neutral with respect to most management actions, with mean scores neutral to slightly supportive for “zone the areas to provide specific uses at specific places” (3.36), “provide better enforcement of rules and regulations” (3.56), “establishing off limits zones to protect sensitive resources” (3.92), “restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion” (3.84), and “better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands (3.63). ESC Members were least supportive of “providing better access to public areas at Electra Lake” (2.39). Table 2-79 ESC member level of support for management actions at Electra Lake.

Strongly Oppose

Slightly Oppose Neutral Slightly

Support Strongly Support Management Action

% n % n % n % n % n Provide better public access to public areas (Average-2.39)

31.6 24 15.8 12 40.8 31 5.3 4 6.6 5

Zone the areas to provide specific uses at specific places (Average-3.36)

9.2 7 9.2 7 6.8 28 26.3 20 18.4 14

Provide better enforcement of rules and regulations (Average-3.56)

1.3 1 7.8 6 50.6 39 14.3 11 26 20

Establish "off limits" zones to protect sensitive resources (Average-3.92)

0 0 12.3 9 18 24.7 16 21.9 41.1 30

Restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion (Average-3.84)

10.5 8 10.5 8 13.2 10 15.8 12 50 38

Better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands (Average-3.63)

3.9 3 7.9 6 34.2 26 28.9 22 25 19

Respondents rate each item from 1=strongly oppose to 5=strongly support. With respect to providing better public access, a majority of respondents were not supportive of this management action (47.4 percent) or neutral (40.8 percent). Members were generally supportive when it came to implementing a zoning strategy (44.7 percent). With respect to the idea of better enforcement of rules and regulations, the majority were neutral (50.6 percent), with just over 40 percent in support and 9 percent opposed. A majority of visitors supported establishing “off limits” zones to protect sensitive species (57.1 percent), with 18 percent neutral and just over 12 percent in slight opposition. With respect to the item “restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion”, the majority of ESC Members supported this idea (54 percent), with 34 percent neutral and nearly 12 percent in opposition. Additional comments by ESC Members concerning management actions included the following:


73

■ Access: – I think it is good to allow public access to Electra Lake. Too much will result in a very

crowded lake/shoreline and the lake will loose its unique wildlife standing. ■ Facilities:

– Additional dock/access for public fishing would be nice around the boat launch area. ■ Patrolling/Law Enforcement:

– My cabin is used mostly during July through September. Petty theft occurred when no one was present. Caretakers could not observe thefts unless patrolled each cabin site often!

– Actively patrol the lake for fishing violations. Some people catch more than 10 times the limit.

■ Member: – Each member should be required to put in eight hours of public service at the lake or

pay additional fees to provide or pay for things such as forest agriculture, litter control, weed control; continue fire mitigation efforts as needed.

■ Public Fee: – Cost for public to use the lake is ridiculously low.

Evaluation of Fees at Electra Lake Visitor Evaluation Visitors were asked to evaluate whether the entrance fees presently charged at Electra Lake were appropriately priced for the services and facilities provided (Table 2-80). Visitors felt that fees were appropriately priced (96 percent) and generally would not support additional fees (73 percent) for specific services or amenities at Electra Lake. Table 2-80 Visitors’ evaluation of fees at Electra Lake.

% n Are current fees appropriately priced?

Yes 95.6 43 No 4.4 2

Non-respondents 0.0 0 Would you favor additional fees for specific services or amenities provided at Electra Lake?

Yes 27.3 12 No 72.8 32

Non-respondents 0.0 0 However, of those that would support additional fees for specific services (27 percent), comments regarding specific services included the following: ■ Boating:

– Provide canoe or small boat day use rental – Boating in general.


74

■ Facilities/Maintenance: – Better trails at Westinghouse; – Better maintenance of fish cleaning station; – Restrooms.

■ Fishing: – For stocking cutthroats; – More shoreline fishing, trail access to north end of the lake.

■ Other: – Camping; – Children under 15 should be free.

ESC Member Evaluation ESC members were also asked to evaluate whether the entrance fees presently charged at Electra Lake were appropriately priced for the services and facilities provided (Table 2-81). ESC members felt that fees were appropriately priced (66 percent), and generally, would not support additional fees (55 percent) for specific services or amenities at Electra Lake. Table 2-81 ESC members’ evaluation of fees at Electra Lake.

% n Are current fees appropriately priced?

Yes 66.3 53 No 22.5 18

Non-respondents 11.4 9 Would you favor additional fees for specific services or amenities provided at Electra Lake?

Yes 33.8 27 No 55.0 44

Non-respondents 11.3 9 However, of those that would support additional fees for specific services (34 percent), comments regarding specific services included the following: ■ Access:

– Accessibility for persons with disabilities; – Additional handicap fishing access facilities; and – Need additional disability access.

■ Boating: – Provide canoe or small boat day use rental; – Boating and fishing; – Boats, tubes, skiers small fee for each day use for being towed; and – Additional fees for 2-stroke outboards and to access north of the Big Island.

■ Facilities/Maintenance: – If additional facilities or fees are mandated, fees should increase, I favor no increase in

facilities or services; – Anything that costs the club extra money—patrols, new facilities. – Better maintained access road;


75

– More road maintenance to member cabins from main roads; and – Sanitation.

■ Fishing: – Fishing appreciation, kids equipment; – Fishing fee increase; – Fishing should be at a higher cost, fish stocking is expensive; – Fishing, any use; – Increase of visitors’ fishing fees; and – Stock more fish.

■ Natural Resources: – Nature walks; – Control of weeds through natural manner; and – Increased public access fees and put the increased revenue toward improving wildlife

and natural beauty. ■ Patrol:

– A ranger to patrol public use at their expense, not members; and – Ranger fees.

■ Other: – Ranger fees; – Children under 15 should be free; and – I’d like the fees to be in line with other recreational experiences.

Quality of Visit at Electra Lake Visitors Quality of Visit Visitors were asked whether or not they believed that Electra Lake provided a quality recreation experience (Table 2-82). Of those responding to the question, 100 percent agreed that indeed Electra Lake provides a quality recreation experience (n=35). Table 2-82 Evaluation of visitor experience over the years.

% n Do you believe Electra Lake provides a quality recreation experience?

Yes 77.8 35 No 0.0 0

Non-respondents 22.2 10 Has the quality of visit changed?

Improved 11.1 5 Stayed the same 77.8 35

Slightly declined 6.7 3 Substantially declined 2.2 1

I do not know 2.2 1 If, Visit Slightly Declined

Changed expectations 4 Taken fewer trips 2

If , Visit Substantially Declined Changed expectations 1


76

Respondents felt the following elements contributed to or helped create a quality experience at Electra Lake: ■ Beauty and Scenery:

– Beautiful lake; – Electra Lake is still quiet and pristine, beautiful place in the mountains, there is just

enough public access so that it is not spoiled; – High quality water; – Scenery and views; – Fresh water; and – Clean and not overused.

■ Boating: – Only so many boats are allowed on the lake.

■ Facilities/Maintenance: – Adequate parking, restrooms, good fishing.

■ Fishing: – A day of fishing. Everyone you meet is friendly and not a large crowd of people; – Great fishing; and – We always catch big fish, we are from NM where we don’t have good fishing.

■ Limited Access: – Limited public permits/access; – Relative privacy; and – The limited use by the public.

■ Quality: – Overall experience-friendliness of people, quality fishing, beautiful location,

accessibility; – Peaceful; and – Quality time with family!

In addition, respondents also felt certain actions could help make Electra Lake a quality recreation experience. These included: ■ Limiting the number of persons allowed on the lake; ■ Having the ability to take a 19-foot boat on the lake; ■ Develop a boat dock for mooring boats while launching or taking craft off the water; ■ Need fishing dock, specifically for fishing; need to be open all year; and, ■ Identify public versus private lands for bank fishing. Visitors were also asked about whether they felt if the quality of visits to this are has improved, declined, or stayed the same over the years (Table 2-82). The majority of respondents (77.8 percent, n=35) felt that their experience had “stayed the same”, and 11.1 percent (n=5) felt it had improved. A small percentage of respondents (8.9 percent) felt that the quality of their experience had slightly declined (n=3) to substantially declined (n=1). Of those that felt the experience had declined, a few chose to take fewer trips or stop taking trips; some of them choose to change their expectations for the experience overall. However, the majority of visitors (77.8 percent) felt that Electra Lake continues to provide a quality recreation experience.


77

Visitors also commented if their experience had declined at all over the years. Their responses included the following: ■ Fishing:

– No longer catch the big cutthroats. ■ Regulations:

– More humans, more regulations! – Rude people who abuse the rules and regulations.

Visitors were asked what additional recreation opportunities they would like to see at Electra Lake. Their responses were as follows: ■ Boating:

– Boat dock charges, slightly higher entrance fee. ■ Fishing:

– Allow more access to north end of the lake for shore fisherman; – Ice fishing; – More public fishing areas; – More trout; – Off shore fishing platform for the disabled; and – Open to fishing at 6 am.

■ Trails: – Development of a multi-use trail system on east side of the lake; – Greater trail/foot access to north end of the lake; – More backcountry trails and signage in Edison area.

ESC Members The majority of ESC Members felt that their visits to Electra Lake over the years have mostly stayed the same (40 percent) or slightly declined (33.8 percent). As a result of visits in slight decline, most members simply changed their expectations (35 percent) (Table 2-83). Table 2-83 Evaluation of ESC members’ experience over the years.

% n Quality of Visit

Improved 13.8 11 Stayed the same 40.0 32

Slightly declined 33.8 27 Substantially declined 6.3 5

Non-respondents 6.3 5 For Visit Slightly Declined

Changed expectations 35.0 28 Taken fewer trips 5.0 4

Stopped taking trips 0.0 0 Non-respondents 60.0 48


78

% n Visit Substantially Declined

Changed expectations 1.3 1 Taken fewer trips 0.0 0

Stopped taking trips 0.0 0 Non-respondents 98.8 79

ESC members were asked to explain or comment why their visits have declined over the years. The open-ended responses are as follows: ■ Access:

– Public access; – Public access and lack of meaningful patrols.

■ Crowding: – More people accessing the lake each year; – More people use the lake each year; – Number of people; – Over use, trash, noise; – People crowding me, people leaving trash, people releasing dead fish so they can stay

under the limit; – Population increase; and – Too many boats on the water, especially at pristine northern end of the lake.

■ Fishing: – Length of fishing season—old fish limit (6).

ESC members were also asked what additional recreation opportunities they would like to see at Electra Lake. Their responses included the following: ■ Boating

– Possible low HP boat rentals for fishing; and – Maybe a tour boat during summer for visitors;

■ Facilities: – Picnic table near the lakeshore.

■ Education/Interpretation: – Interpretive walks; and – Educational classes.

■ Miscellaneous: – Electra Lake is very special—keep human impact low to keep experience excellent

overall. As far as wildlife viewing areas—the whole lake and shoreline provide a continuous vista of birds and animals. Stay the same for the next 45 years.

2.1.3 Analysis and Discussion The results of this study have confirmed that Electra Lake provides quality of the fishing experience for the public, ESC members, and members’ guests. The purpose of this study was to define the preferences, attitudes, and characteristics of the Project’s primary recreation user groups.


79

Information from the recreation survey of visitors, members, and members’ guests have provided an understanding of the preferences and attitudes regarding the recreation experience at Electra Lake. The results of the survey also provides user preferences for various types of recreation opportunities, the level of acceptability of experiential impacts, and the level of support for existing and alternative management options. Visitor Trip Characteristics and Socio-demographics Visitors to Electra Lake generally traveled to Electra Lake with family or family and friends, with a group size of primarily two to four persons. A majority of visitors have traveled to Electra Lake on previous trips, visiting at least two to five days a year, if not more. Visitors on average spend approximately 5 hours at the lake during a typical visit. The groups are generally made up of at least one female in the party, with nearly 40 percent made up of males only. A majority of those visiting Electra Lake (nearly 47 percent) reside within 0 to 50 miles of Electra Lake. Visitors to Electra Lake seemed relatively split on places they visit within the Project area, with a slight majority to Nunn Recreation Area (46 percent), 38 percent to Westinghouse, and 33 percent to Edison. Overall, 73 percent of visitors responding to the survey stated Electra Lake as their primary destination. A majority of Electra Lake visitor respondents were male (73 percent), 40 years or older, educated, white (80 percent), with incomes generally of 50,000 or more, and education levels with some college or higher (86 percent). ESC Member Trip Characteristics and Socio-demographics Electra Sporting Club members are primarily seasonal/part-time members (86 percent), who spend about 35 days on average at the lake per year. Most ESC members stay two days at a time, but also have a wide range—with anywhere from 1 to 210 days at the lake per year. On average, members have owned or leased their property for 25 years, with the majority of properties within the Tacoma Project Boundary (91 percent). Over 76 percent of ESC members reported their primary residence was within 0 to 50 mile of Electra Lake. Group composition of members was generally two, but noted as high as 20 persons. ESC members responding to the survey were also predominately male (80 percent), 36 years or older, white, and well educated, with over 90 percent having some college. Electra Lake Gate The Electra Sporting Club allocates permits for various recreation activities during a given day. Currently, a total of 50 fishing permits are admitted per day and 14 motorboats. Permits are not allocated by shore fishing or motor boat lake fishing, but by angling versus non-angling, etc. The gate is opened at 7:00 a.m. and by 5:30 p.m., people are no longer allowed entry, with the gate operations officially closing at 7:00 p.m. Based on observations at the gate, people arriving with a boat at 2:00 p.m. are discouraged to enter. A visitor, who wishes to stay for dinner at the Electra Sporting Club dining facility, must take their boat off the lake and had it parked outside the gate before re-entering for dinner. This rule also applies to those with non-motorized craft such as kayaks and canoes. Based on the allocation, visitors to Electra Lake were turned away four days in June and four in July. The greatest turn-away day due to capacity was Father’s Day, where 27 people were turned away; with July 01, being the second greatest number turned away, 18 people.


80

Records of visitation and recreation use are kept by the main gate. ESC members were asked to complete use forms over the course of the past two years (2005 and 2006) to assist with a general understanding of recreation use at Electra Lake. During the recreation season for 2006, based on reported gate activity counts summarized by ESC for each month during peak season, the total use at Electra Lake was estimated to be 27,238 persons. Members and family accounted for 46 percent of the season use;member’s guests accounted for 20 percent of the total use;and visitors, including paid fishing visitors, free groups, and day use permits accounted for 19 percent of total use, with restaurant visitors 5 percent of total use. Recreation Activities at Electra Lake During the 2006 recreation season, visitors’ top three activities were shore fishing (2,064 RD), boat fishing (1020 RD), and sightseeing (789 RD). All other activities engaged in by visitors had less than 300 recreation days over the course of the season. For members and their guests, the top recreation activities were nature viewing (3,749 RD), pleasure boating (2,428 RD), hiking (2,336 RD), boat fishing (1,635 RD), and shore fishing (1,171 RD), and canoe/kayaking (760 RD). All other activities reported by ESC members were less than 500 RD. ESC members also recorded volunteer time in hours and for the 2006 season, members spent over 200 hours on shore line management and noxious weed management; 454 hours on fire mitigation; and 100 hours or less on ESC committee work and relicensing work. The total number of volunteer hours reported was 1,099 hours. Overall, visitors’ recreational activity participation increases from May, reaching a peak during July, then continues to decrease through October. The exceptions were hiking and nature viewing, which had high participation during July and October; and, pleasure boating which seemed to peak in August as opposed to July. This general pattern was also found for ESC members and guests; however, compared to the monthly variation of visitors, members and guests had a more consistent seasonal participation pattern across different types of activities overall (see Tables 2-35 and 2-36). When comparing the overall participation levels for the 2006 season between visitors and members and guests, members and guests had overall more frequency of participation in recreation activities than visitors. Members and guests accounted for 74 percent of the total activity participation. Specifically, members & guests had the most participation in Hiking (97 percent), Nature Viewing (98 percent), Pleasure Boating (97 percent), and Water Skiing/Towing (100 percent). Visitors were most prevalent in Sightseeing4 (100 percent) and Relaxing (100 percent). Members and guests reported more participation in Canoeing/Kayaking (72 percent) and Boat Fishing (62 percent) than did visitors. And, visitors had more participation in Shore Fishing (64 percent) than members and guests. The average response rate of members from May to October was 61 percent. Therefore, the estimation of actual total participation of members and guests is conservative. Of the total estimated number of users during the recreation season 2006, members and family reported 47 percent of the use, followed by members guests at 20 percent, visitor paid fishing, 11 percent, day use permits,

4 Sightseeing was recorded at the gate for visitors due to the type of fee charged. For ESC members and their guests,

sightseeing would have been self-reported with no associated fee, therefore not necessarily an accurate reflection of this activity.


81

5 percent, and free kids and groups, 1 percent each. The rest of the percentage includes restaurant use (5 percent), workers (9 percent), and other at 1 percent. Regarding fishing activities, two of the primary uses at Electra Lake, the majority of individuals kept rainbow trout (81 percent), followed by brook trout (12 percent), cutthroat (4 percent), and German brown (3 percent) for all users at Electra Lake. Of the rainbow trout kept, visitors kept 70 percent of the overall catch and 55 percent of brook trout. Members and guests kept the majority of cutthroat (58 percent) and German brown trout (60 percent). The number of fish kept overall was 7,050. The number of fish stocked in 2006 was as follows: rainbow 7 to 8 inch, 8000; cutbow 5 to 6 inch, 5,000; and cutthroat 4 to 5 inch, 5000. According to survey results, the average fishing time for members was two hours, whereas the average fishing time for visitors was nearly 6 hours. The majority of visitors (58 percent) fished for all types of trout species, whereas ESC members were relatively split between all trout species, rainbow, and brown. The majority of visitors used bait, with the majority of members using fly tackle. Recreation Experience Evaluation Visitors to Electra Lake have a very good experience in a wide range of activities at Electra Lake. Among all of their primary activities, “swimming” received the highest average rating (6=perfect), while “mountain biking” and “picnicking” receive the lowest rating which was still “very good.” However, the samples for “swimming”, “mountain biking”, “picnicking”, “driving for pleasure” and “hiking/walking” are rather small, making the interpretation of the results less reliable. In general, visitors rated their experiences in their primary activity from good to perfect. One notable exception was the activity of shoreline fishing, where just over 12 percent of respondents rated their experience as “fair” or less. Visitors were also asked to rate the water level at Electra Lake on the day that they visited. A substantial majority (92 percent) rated the water level “just right” overall. To understand the quality of their recreation experience, both visitors and members rated their overall recreation trips to Electra Lake from “good” to “perfect”. For visitors, only 10 percent of respondents rated the quality of their trips as “good”, the remaining percentages fell in the “very good” to “perfect” range, with a majority of those respondents (56 percent) rating their experiences as “excellent” overall. For ESC members, the pattern was similar, with only “good” to “perfect” ratings, and the majority (41 percent) falling into the “excellent” category as well. To further understand visitors and members quality of experience, they were asked to ask to reflect on the quality of their visits over the years. In general, visitors appeared to be more positive about the quality of their visits over the years than members. For example, nearly 90 percent of all visitors felt their experience had either stayed the same (78 percent) or improved (11 percent). Whereas 54 percent of members felt that the quality of their experience had improved (14 percent) or stayed the same (40 percent). Only 9 percent of visitors felt that there was some decline in their experience overall. For members, nearly 40 percent felt that there was some decline in their experience overall.


82

General reasons identified for the decline of the quality experience included, they were not catching the big cutthroats anymore (visitor), more humans and more regulations (visitor), rude people abusing regulations (visitor), public access (member), lack of meaningful patrols (member), more people using the lake each year (member), trash (member), noise (member), too many boats on the water (member), and length of fishing season (member). Overall Quality/Acceptability of Conditions at Electra Lake To understand visitors and members impressions of the overall quality of conditions at Electra Lake, respondents were asked to rate a series of statements on the acceptability of various conditions. In general, both visitors and residents felt that the overall environmental conditions of the area, overall quality of the recreation experiences in the area, overall condition of trails, number and quality of interpretive information signs and kiosks, and the overall quality of fishing at Electra Lake were acceptable to totally acceptable. There were some differences in visitors and residents perceptions on some items. For the items overall condition of developed recreation facilities, and the length of fishing season, visitors rated these items lower than residents, but overall in the acceptable range (mean score of 4 or slightly higher on a 1 to 5 scale). This provides some indication that visitors may be more sensitive to these items than residents overall. Problems at Electra Lake Visitors and members were asked to evaluate the range of potential problems that can occur in recreation resource areas at Electra Lake and identify how much of a problem these issues are. For visitors with an opinion regarding and evaluation of various impacts at Electra Lake, visitors did not identify any significant problems (ratings around or below 1.5). Visitors identified “crowding along the shoreline” and “competition for good fishing areas” as being a “small problem”. For members, they too did not identify any significant problems (ratings around or below 1.5). Members identified “Litter or human waste impacts” as a small problem. Perceptions of Crowding Visitors were asked to rate their level of perceived crowding on the day of their visit and to reflect on their perception of crowding during summer weekends on the follow-up survey. For visitors responding to the day of their visit, overall they had a low average crowding score (2.39), with less than 35 percent of visitors’ identifying the shoreline (33.3 percent) and water surface (28.6 percent) as crowded. Visitors’ level of perceived crowding at Electra Lake demonstrates a relatively unique low-density experience, with under 35 percent of respondents identifying any sort of crowding issue at all. When asked to reflect on summer visits to Electra Lake on the follow-up survey, visitors’ perception of crowding were higher for both shoreline and water surface areas on weekends than weekdays. Further, a majority of visitors felt the reservoir on weekends was crowded and weekdays were not crowded. With respect to the shoreline, again, a majority of visitors perceived the shoreline to be crowded on both weekends and weekdays. For weekdays, with nearly 38 percent of visitors responding that they perceived the reservoir as crowded, this indicates crowding is within the “low-normal” range and is unlikely to be a problem. For shoreline areas, 51 percent of visitors perceived


83

some level of crowding, therefore indicate social carrying capacity is in the “high-normal” range and the experience may be approaching capacity. The place that a majority of visitors actually felt crowded was the boat launch area. Based on the low response rate, the results of visitors’ perceptions of crowding on Part II of the survey, due to the low response rate, results may not be generalizable to the entire population of visitors to Electra Lake. Similar to visitors’ overall evaluation of crowding during the summer season at Electra Lake, ESC members perceived higher level of crowding at both shoreline and water surfaces during weekends. A majority of members (75 percent) perceived crowding on the reservoir water surface during weekends and crowding on the shoreline during weekends (76 percent). During weekdays, 38 percent of members perceived the reservoir surface as crowded during the weekdays; with 52 percent who felt the shoreline was crowded during weekdays. When asked about the specific places members felt crowded, the boat launch area was again mentioned by most members (61 percent), followed by the Nunn Recreation Area (29 percent), Reservoir surface (26 percent), Westinghouse Picnic and Parking Area (20 percent), Edison Picnic and Parking Area (14 percent), and Undeveloped shoreline (6 percent). Based on crowding evaluations from previous studies, the results of members perceived level of crowding indicate that during weekends on the reservoir surface and shoreline, ESC members responses indicate the social carrying capacity of the resource has been exceeded and management is probably needed. For weekdays, with nearly 38 percent of ESC members responding that they perceived the reservoir as crowded, this indicates crowding is within the “low-normal” range and is unlikely to be a problem. For shoreline areas, 52 percent of ESC members perceived some level of crowding, therefore indicates social carrying capacity is in the “high-normal” range and the experience may be approaching capacity. With respect to crowding, utilizing the crowding evaluations of visitors on-site and the perceived crowding evaluations of the summer season by residents, it appears there may be an emerging crowding issue along shorelines on weekends (slightly crowded) and the water surface on weekends. Residents appear to perceive crowding as an issue more than visitors. With respect to spacing between groups at Electra Lake along the shoreline, visitors and ESC members were asked about the spacing between groups they experienced as well as the spacing they would tolerate. Visitors generally felt that the spacing between groups was 80 to 100 feet away, with a distance they could feasibly tolerate somewhat closer (40 to 50 feet). Further, visitors were asked how many boats they experienced on Electra Lake and how many they felt they could tolerate before the quality of their experience would be compromised. The results indicated that while the average number of boats spotted at one time was 8, visitors believed they could tolerate more, estimating on average nearly 19 boats at one time. ESC members perceived similar situations as visitors, with the average distance between groups as 80 to 100 feet, with their tolerance estimated at the same distance away before their experience would be compromised. For ESC members, the average number of boats they saw at one time was 12, with the average number of boats they would tolerate, slightly higher (14).


84

Natural Resource Evaluation Experience Settings Visitors and ESC members were asked to evaluate what type of setting they experienced and preferred at Electra Lake. While visitor response to this survey were relatively low (15 percent response rate), most respondents experienced a “semi-primitive” setting, followed by “semi-primitive motorized” and “developed” recreation setting. However, a majority of respondents actually preferred a “semi-primitive” setting for their recreation experience at Electra Lake. For ESC members, a majority of respondents both experienced and preferred a “semi-primitive” setting at Electra Lake. As defined by the Forest Service, a semi-primitive setting is one where a person expects to meet few other groups, but solitude is still possible, particularly at undeveloped camping areas or on trails away from roads. There is little or no motorized use or OHV trails, occasional evidence of previous use, and a few developments such as trails or outhouses. Based on the results of the study, it appears there is consistent agreement that the preferred setting type for visitors and ESC members is semi-primitive. Facility Development Visitors and ESC members were asked to evaluate the level of facility development at Electra Lake. Overall, visitors felt that the level of development was appropriate for Electra Lake. The only area evaluated rather low (2.2 on a 5-point scale) was the level of access to the shoreline. ESC members also felt the overall level of development was appropriate for recreation at Electra Lake. The areas they felt were low were the number of facilities for the disabled, which included both access to the reservoir and facilities. To further understand the importance of a range of amenities and facilities at Electra Lake, an importance/performance analysis was done on a range of facilities and amenities currently provided at Electra Lake. Items that visitors felt had high importance and low performance included shoreline fishing opportunities, the hours opened to the public for recreation, public toilets, access trails to the lake, watchable wildlife area, and a sense of privacy. The fish cleaning station and public toilets was two areas visitors thought was done well, with a rating of high importance and high performance overall. Items that were of low importance and low performance included the following: grills, picnic tables, shelters for picnic tables, parking next to picnic tables, the provision of drinking water, ranger staff, shade, information on the Project, signs for direction and information, parking for boat ramp users, and access for persons with disabilities. Areas of relatively low importance and high performance included security lighting, boat ramp, public telephone, and recycling station. Visitors were also asked for recommendations with areas they were dissatisfied. Recommendations addressed year round access, repairs relative to the fishing dock, shore line fishing and access opportunities, and limited parking at Westinghouse and Edison recreation areas. The importance-performance analysis of ESC member results identified areas of high importance and low performance as well. These items included accessibility for persons with disabilities, creation of a recycling location, information about the Project, and similar to visitors, creating a sense of privacy. Areas ESC members felt were doing well were the boat ramp, signage, shoreline fishing opportunities, watchable wildlife areas, access trails to the lake, the fish cleaning station, and


85

drinking water. Areas with relatively low importance and low performance included grills, ranger staff, and shade. Lastly, areas ESC members felt had low importance and high performance included rain/sun shelter for picnic tables, shoreline access for swimming, security lighting, parking adjacent to picnic tables, picnic tables, a public telephone, and the fishing dock. When asked about areas ESC members were dissatisfied, access/facilities for people with disabilities, including parking areas; disrespect for private property signs; shelter at north end of the lake; location of public dock and size; and the lack of recycling stations were the chief areas of dissatisfaction. This analysis demonstrates some differences in opinion between visitors and residents. The focus for management should be on areas seen as low performance areas with high level of importance first. Then consideration should be given to low performance areas overall. While some see access trails to the lake as high performance, others see them as low performance. These areas with opposing views should be discussed further with the intention of finding resolution to appease both residents and those that visit on a daily basis. There is also an interest by visitors in wildlife watching, this can be considered with access issues and trail issues raised in other aspects of this study, keeping in mind both visitors and members did not perceive many problems overall. Safety Visitors and ESC members and visitors perceived Electra Lake as relatively safe. The only area both groups perceived somewhat of a safety issue was with respect to weather hazards. Management Actions Several management actions were presented to visitors and ESC members to understand their level of support. For visitors the most support came from the item “provide better public access to public areas and to “establish off-limits zones to protect sensitive species.” For ESC members support levels overall were fairly neutral to supportive, similar to those of visitors. Items that leaned towards a more supportive side (from lowest mean score to highest) were “provide better enforcement of rules and regulations”; “better/more signs identifying public vs private lands”; “restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion”; and, “establish off-limits zones to protect sensitive resources.” The area most strongly opposed or least supported was “provide better public access to public areas.” Overall visitors and residents were fairly neutral when it came to various management actions relative to Electra Lake recreation. In summary, Visitors and ESC members strongly supported having “better/more signs identifying public/private lands.” Residents had stronger support than visitors for “restricting further public recreation facility development and expansion”, and “establishing ‘off-limits’ zones to protect sensitive resources” (even though both were supportive). Visitors and residents had quite different attitudes toward the action of “providing better public access to public areas”, with visitors strongly supportive and residents are strongly opposed. Fee Structure at Electra Lake With respect to visitor and ESC member response to questions related to fees, overall the majority of both groups felt that the current fees were appropriately priced. Approximately one-third of


86

respondents in both groups would favor additional fees for specific services or amenities at Electra Lake. These services/amenities included: ■ The provision of a boat rental/canoe rental; ■ Better trails at Westinghouse; better trail access to shoreline for fishing; ■ Better maintenance of the fish cleaning station; ■ Better maintenance of the restrooms; ■ Increased stocking of cutthroat fish; ■ Camping; ■ Access for people with disabilities, including fishing; ■ Tube and skier tow fees; and ■ Better maintained roads. According to ESC Budget and Expense itemized report (see Appendix G), 2005 annual expenses, which included all actual expenses related to public recreation administered by the ESC, were $75,461 for 2005. Revenue, 27,651 for 2005, included all receipts received at the gate from the public for recreation including fishing, day use, motorboat launching, and non-motorized equipment launching. Currently, there appears to be a deficit in covering the cost, as presented by the ESC for recreation services, operations and maintenance, and patrols, of $47,810. P:\Xcel\132.0010_Tacoma_Project_Relicensin\WP\0400-Recreation\Rec Use EL\T-RecUse EL-071008.doc KB/jph 132.0010.0400/ .0 8October 8, 2007

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

- 1 -

Electra Lake Sporting Club Resident/Member Survey Tacoma Hydroelectric Project

Dear ESC Resident/Member, The purpose of this study is to understand how Electra Sporting Club (ESC) residents/members utilize the recreation opportunities at Electra Lake within the Tacoma Hydroelectric Project area (Project Area). As residents (part-time or full-time)/members within close proximity to the project, we are also interested in your preferences and evaluation of the facilities. By completing this survey, you will aid Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) in better understanding your recreation needs and opportunities within the Project Area.

The Tacoma Project was constructed in 1905 and 1906. Water for operation of the facilities originates from three drainage basins: Cascade Creek, Little Cascade Creek, and Elbert Creek. The main water storage reservoir is Electra Lake. Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) operates the Tacoma Project under conditions of a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The current FERC license, Project No. 12589, expires on June 30, 2010 and PSCO is in the process of relicensing the Project to continue its operations. As part of the relicensing process, PSCO is conducting studies to obtain information needed to evaluate the potential impacts of the existing Project and its operations.

Some of these issues pertain to recreation at Electra Lake (see map). To better understand your recreation interests and concerns, PSCO would like to know about your use of recreation areas and your opinions of the recreation resources at Electra Lake. Your participation is important and will help provide for informed recreation planning. The survey is organized in sections to make it easy to answer. The first sections focus on your evaluation and use of the overall Project Area, with the last section focused on you and your demographic information.

While your participation in this study is completely voluntary, it is important that you answer each question. Answer what you believe to be true for you. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers. All results of this study will be presented in a combined format so that your identity will remain anonymous. Should you agree to complete this survey, your name will be entered into a drawing for a $100 gift certificate to Home Depot.

Sincerely, Kelly Bricker, PhD Tacoma Survey Project Coordinator c/o Devine Tarbell & Associates 2725 CR 250 Durango CO 81301

Tacoma Hydroelectric Project-ESC Resident Mail Survey

- 1 -

Your Residence 1. Is this property a (check one):

Permanent residence Part-time seasonal residence Other( please explain):__________________________________________________________________________________

2. How many years have you owned/leased this residence? _________years. 3. Is your residence located within the Tacoma Hydroelectric Project Boundary (Check one)?

Yes No I am not sure 4. How many people and which of the following water oriented recreation equipment reside at your household at Electra Lake? (Write

a number for each). _____ People (include yourself) _____ Fishing tubes _____ Large powerboats (60 horsepower or larger) _____ Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs – 2, 3, and 4 wheels) _____ Small powerboats (under 60 horsepower) _____Other (please specify): _____________________ _____ Boat/PWC/Raft Trailers _____Other (please specify): _____________________ _____ Canoes / kayaks _____Other (please specify): _____________________ _____ Other non-motorized boats (rafts, paddleboats) 5. Please check if your property has the following: Trail access from your house to the water A deck or landscaped patio area visible from the water Chairs, picnic tables, or other development next to the water An unobstructed view from your house to the water Your house is visible from the water “No trespassing” signs visible from the water Cultivated landscaping and/or lawn between your house and the water Vegetation or topography that forms a visual barrier between your house and the water A fence around all of your property A fence around part of your property A fence or gate blocking access to your property from the water Steep banks that prevent easy access to your property from the water

A boat dock along the shoreline A deck along the shoreline


- 2 -

Recreation Related Issues 6. Trespass incidents or annoyances can be more or less of a problem depending upon what visitors do. Please estimate the number

of different types of trespass incidents or annoyances that occur on your land per year, and indicate how large a problem this is to you. (Please write in the approximate number of incidents per year and circle one rating for each item).

7. Do you support or oppose the following potential management actions to address trespass issues in your area? (Circle one number

for each).

Strongly oppose

Slightly oppose Neutral Slightly

support Strongly support

Provide better public access to public areas at Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5

Zone the areas to provide specific uses at specific places 1 2 3 4 5 Provide better enforcement of rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 Establish "off limits" zones to protect sensitive resources 1 2 3 4 5 Restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion 1 2 3 4 5 Better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands 1 2 3 4 5

*If you have other suggestions for management, please comment in the space below.

Approximate

number of incidents per

year

No opinion

Not a problem

A small problem

A moderate problem

A large problem

Litter 0 1 2 3 4 Human waste impacts 0 1 2 3 4 Major dumping (a large trash bag or more) 0 1 2 3 4 People stopping briefly on your land 0 1 2 3 4 People hiking across your land 0 1 2 3 4 People fishing from your land 0 1 2 3 4 People picnicking on your land 0 1 2 3 4 People recreating on your shoreline deck or dock 0 1 2 3 4 People recreating in front of or adjacent to your property 0 1 2 3 4 Vandalism 0 1 2 3 4 Other (please specify): 0 1 2 3 4


- 3 -

Evaluation of Recreation Resources within the Tacoma Project Area 8. In general, how would you rate your recreational use of the Project Area? (Circle one letter). a. Poor b. Fair c. Good d. Very good e. Excellent f. Perfect 9. For the general Project Area, please rate the following items. (Circle one number for each item).

No opinion Totally unacceptable

Slightly unacceptable Marginal Slightly

acceptable Totally

acceptable Overall environmental conditions in the area 0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall quality of the recreation experiences in the area 0 1 2 3 4 5


0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall condition of trails 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number and locations of directional signs 0 1 2 3 4 5

Number and quality of interpretive information signs and kiosks

0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall quality of fishing in Electra Lake. 0 1 2 3 4 5

Length of public fishing season on Electra Lake 0 1 2 3 4 5

10. If you are not a full-time resident, on average, how many times per year do you visit Electra Lake?_________________________ 11. If you are not a full-time resident, on average, how many days would you stay per visit? ________average number of days per visit. 12. How available is information about recreation in the area? Please indicate if you have ever seen information about the following

topics. I’ve never

looked for it Not

available Available Suggested improvements?

Campfire regulations 0 1 2 Recreation site information 0 1 2 Recreation site regulations 0 1 2 Fishing Regulations 0 1 2 Trail locations/maps (for overall area) 0 1 2 Environmental education information 0 1 2

13. Please indicate how you feel about Electra Lake by responding to each of the statements below (Circle one choice for each statement).

(Circle one number for each statement) Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

a. Electra Lake is the best place for the recreation activities that I enjoy 1 2 3 4 5

b. I feel that a lot of other lakes could substitute for Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5


- 4 -

(Circle one number for each statement) Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree

c. Compared to Electra Lake, there are few satisfactory alternatives 1 2 3 4 5

d. I have a lot of fond memories of past experiences with family and friends at Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5

e. I have a strong emotional bond to Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 f. I can’t imagine a better place for what I like to do 1 2 3 4 5 g. I feel that Electra Lake is a part of me 1 2 3 4 5 h. I feel a strong sense of belonging to Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 i. I identify with Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 j. I feel that my identity is reflected in Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 k. I really enjoy Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 l. Electra Lake means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 m. Visiting Electra Lake says a lot about who I am 1 2 3 4 5 n. I’m happiest when I get to visit Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 o. Visiting Electra Lake area allows me to release built-up

tension 1 2 3 4 5 p. The time spent at Electra Lake allows me to bond with my

family and friends 1 2 3 4 5 q. I associate special people in my life with Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 r. Visiting Electra Lake allows me to spend time with my

family and friends 1 2 3 4 5

Existing and Preferred Recreation Settings

14. People seek different kinds of recreation experiences in different settings. Listed below are five “experience settings”

available at different areas in the Project area. A. Primitive Setting: Where one expects to find solitude, very few traces of previous use, no motorized use or OHV trails, and no

development. B. Semi-Primitive Setting: Where one expects to meet few other groups, but solitude is still possible, particularly at undeveloped

camping areas or on trails away from roads. There is little or no motorized use or OHV trails, occasional evidence of previous use, and a few developments such as trails or outhouses.

C. Semi-Primitive Motorized Setting: Similar to a semi-primitive setting, but motorized use may occur and OHV impacts may occasionally be visible.

D. Undeveloped Recreation Setting: Where one expects to meet other groups and solitude is difficult to find. There is motorized use, OHV impacts may be visible at several locations, and there may be evidence of previous use at many sites.

E. Developed Recreation Setting: Where one expects to meet many other users, there are multiple facilities, and there is considerable evidence of previous use.

Please choose the letter that best describes…

the setting you actually experience during typical trips (for each area you visit) the setting you would prefer to experience at those areas

Circle one letter for each area in each column (or check the box if you don’t visit or don’t know).

Don’t visit / don’t know

Letter of setting you actually experienced

Letter of setting you would prefer

Electra Lake A B C D E A B C D E

Nunn Recreation Area A B C D E A B C D E

Westinghouse Parking and Picnic Area A B C D E A B C D E

Edison Parking and Picnic Area A B C D E A B C D E

Aspaas Lake A B C D E A B C D E

Forebay Lake A B C D E A B C D E

Other (please specify): A B C D E A B C D E


- 5 -

Your “Typical Stay” at Electra Lake 15. What activities do you generally participate in at Electra Lake? (Check all that apply).

Motor Boating for pleasure Relaxing Water skiing Camping Boat/Tube-based fishing Hiking or walking Shore-based fishing Mountain biking Swimming Cross-country skiing Picnicking Other (please specify): Driving for pleasure/sightseeing Other (please specify): Non-motorized boating for pleasure (kayak, canoe) Other (please specify):

16. What time of day do you generally participate in recreation on the lake? For example, “morning from 8AM-10AM” 17. Of the activities listed above, please circle the one that is your primary activity on your typical stay at Electra Lake. 18. Do you fish on your Electra Lake visits? (Circle one letter). a. No Skip to question #17 b. Yes I fish about _____ hours per day on my typical stay at Electra Lake 19. Please answer the following questions about fishing during your Electra Lake visits: a. Primary target species: ___________________________________ b. Typical number caught per hour (number):_____________________ per hour of fishing c. Overall evaluation of fishing (Circle one): 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Good 4. Very good 5. Excellent

d. Preferred type of fishing (Circle one): 1. Boat 2. Tube 3. Shore 4. Other: e. Preferred tackle (Circle one): 1. Bait 2. Spinners 3. Flies 4. Other: 20. In general, how crowded do you feel on summer visits (Memorial Day – Labor Day) to Electra Lake? (Circle one number for each item in a row).

Not at all crowded

Slightly crowded

Moderately crowded

Extremely crowded

Weekends on reservoir surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weekdays on reservoir surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weekends on reservoir shorelines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weekdays on reservoir shorelines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

21. Which places in the area are most likely to make you feel crowded? (Check all that apply).

Boat Launch Nunn Recreation Area Edison Picnic and Parking Area Westinghouse Picnic and Parking Area Reservoir surface Undeveloped shoreline (where?)__________________________ Other (please describe):_______________________


- 6 -

22. Think about the number of boats on the reservoir on summer weekends. Please estimate… The highest number

of boats you’ve seen at one time: The highest number of boats at one time you will tolerate before your experience is compromised:

_____ boats

_____ boats

OR check if this doesn’t matter to you

23. Think about the space between you and the closest group when you are using the reservoir shoreline on summer weekends.

Please estimate the distance between you and the closest group, and tell us the distance you will tolerate. (Circle one number for each column)

Distance Scale Distance of closest

group during a typical trip

Closest distance you will tolerate

Right next to us 1 1 A car length away (15 to 20 feet) 2 2 A bus length away (40 to 50 feet) 3 3 Two bus lengths away (80 to 100 feet) 4 4 Over 100 feet but within sight or sound 5 5 Out of sight and sound 6 6

Or check if this doesn’t matter to you

24. In general, has the quality of visits to this area improved, declined, or stayed the same over the years? (Circle one). a. Improved b. Stayed the same c. Slightly declined (Please check all that apply) so I’ve adjusted by changing my expectations so I’ve taken fewer trips than I used to d. Substantially declined (Please check all that apply)

so I’ve had to substantially change my expectations so I’ve taken fewer trips than I used to

e. If your trips have slight to substantially declined, what do you believe had contributed to this decline? 25. Please rate the level of recreation facility development at Electra Lake. (Circle one number for each item).

Item No opinion Much too low Too low About right Too high Much too high

Overall level of recreation development 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of picnic areas 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of shoreline access areas 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of launch parking spaces 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of toilets 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of facilities for disabled 0 1 2 3 4 5 Access to the reservoir for disabled 0 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of law enforcement 0 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of interpretive information 0 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of educational information 0 1 2 3 4 5


- 7 -

26. Please indicate how much each of the following is a problem at Electra Lake (Circle one number for each item).

(Circle one number for each item). No opinion Not a problem

A small problem

A moderate problem

A large problem

Litter or human waste impacts 0 1 2 3 4 Competition for good fishing areas 0 1 2 3 4 Competition for picnic sites 0 1 2 3 4 Speeding / reckless powerboats or PWCs 0 1 2 3 4 Noise from powerboats or PWCs 0 1 2 3 4 Conflicts between boaters or PWCs and anglers 0 1 2 3 4 Shoreline erosion 0 1 2 3 4 Conflicts between ESC Residents and visitors 0 1 2 3 4 “Beat out” areas (trampled vegetation, cut trees) 0 1 2 3 4 “Spider web” of user-created trails 0 1 2 3 4 Reservoir water level 0 1 2 3 4 Discourteous behavior by visitors 0 1 2 3 4 Drunken behavior by visitors 0 1 2 3 4 Vandalism 0 1 2 3 4 Personal safety 0 1 2 3 4 Crowding along the shoreline 0 1 2 3 4

27. Different people may expect different things when they visit Electra Lake. Using the list below, tell me how important each of the

items is to you (Circle one number for each item). Items of Importance (Circle one number for each item)

Extremely unimportant Unimportant Neither important or

unimportant Important Extremely important

Facilities and Visitor Amenities: Boat ramp 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing dock 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 Grills 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing cleaning station 1 2 3 4 5 Information about the Project and Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5

Picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Public telephone 1 2 3 4 5 Public toilets 1 2 3 4 5 Access trails to the lake 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline fishing opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Security lighting 1 2 3 4 5 Signs for direction and information 1 2 3 4 5 Watchable wildlife area 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline access for swimming 1 2 3 4 5 Facility Attributes: 1 2 3 4 5 Accessibility for persons with disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of shade 1 2 3 4 5 Ranger staff 1 2 3 4 5 Parking adjacent to picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Parking specifically for boat ramp users 1 2 3 4 5 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of privacy 1 2 3 4 5


- 8 -

28. How satisfied were you with those amenities and facilities? If you did not use an amenity/facility, please indicate that as well. (Circle one number for each item).

Items of Importance (Circle one number for each item)

Did not use

Does not

exist Completely dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Completely satisfied

Facilities and Visitor Amenities: Boat ramp 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing dock 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 Grills 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing cleaning station 1 2 3 4 5 Information about the Project and Electra Lake

1 2 3 4 5

Picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Public telephone 1 2 3 4 5 Public toilets 1 2 3 4 5 Access trails to the lake 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline fishing opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Security lighting 1 2 3 4 5 Signs for direction and information 1 2 3 4 5 Watchable wildlife area 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline access for swimming 1 2 3 4 5 Facility Attributes: 1 2 3 4 5 Accessibility for persons with disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of shade 1 2 3 4 5 Ranger staff 1 2 3 4 5 Parking adjacent to picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Parking specifically for boat ramp users 1 2 3 4 5 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of privacy 1 2 3 4 5

29. If you rated a facility as “dissatisfied,” in the space below or on the back of the last page of the survey, please identify the item from

the table above and describe the location and nature of your dissatisfaction.

30. How safe have you felt while you have been at Electra Lake? (Circle one number for each item). Safety related to… Very much at

risk Somewhat at risk Neither at risk nor safe Somewhat safe Extremely safe

Physical harm by other people 1 2 3 4 5 Property loss (theft, vandalism) 1 2 3 4 5 Environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 Weather hazards (lightning, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 31. Are the entrance fees presently in use at Electra Lake appropriately priced for the services/facilities provided? Yes No 32. Would you favor additional fees for specific services or amenities provided at Electra Lake?

Yes No 33. If yes, what facilities or services would you be willing to support through a fee?

34. What additional recreational opportunities would you like to see at Electra Lake?

None I would like to see ____________________________


- 9 -

Questions About You The following questions will help us understand the socio-demographic trends in the region. 35. What gender are you? (Circle one). Female Male 36. What is your age? _____ years 37. Please tell us which of the following categories best represents your ethnic group? (Circle one letter).

a. Native American or Alaskan Native b. Hispanic c. Asian or Pacific Islander d. White, not of Hispanic origin e. African-American f. Other (please specify): ______________________

38. Which of the following best describes your household income in 2005 (before taxes)? (Circle one letter).

a. I prefer not to say b. Less than $10,000 c. $10,000 to $29,999 d. $30,000 to $49,999 e. $50,000 to $69,999 f. $70,000 to $89,999 g. $90,000 - $109,999 h. $110,000 - $149,999 i. $150,000 or higher

39. Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed. (Circle one letter).

a. Some high school b. Graduated high school c. Some college or vocational school d. Graduated college e. Some graduate school f. Masters, doctorate, or professional degree or vocational school

40. Which of the following best describes your employment status? (Circle one letter).

a. Employed, full time b. Retired, but working full time c. Homemaker d. Employed, part time e. Retired, working part time f. Student g. Unemployed h. Retired, not working i. Other (please specify):_________________________

41. What is the Zip Code of your full-time residence?_______________-___________

Please make additional comments or recommendations on another sheet of paper or back of the survey.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. Your name will be entered into a drawing for a $100 gift certificate to Home Depot!

Kelly Bricker, PhD Tacoma Project Survey Coordinator

c/o Devine Tarbell & Associates, 2725 CR 250 Durango CO 81301

DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project Area Recreation Study Recreation Resident Mail Survey Part I

- 12 -

Tacoma Hydroelectric Project

Recreation Visitor Survey-Part II

Dear Thank you for your interest in Part II of the Recreation Visitor Survey sponsored by Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo). We would like to learn more about your recreational activities, opinions, and experiences with Electra Lake, as shown on the attached map. To that end, we invite you to complete the following questions relative to the recreation areas in and around PSCo’s Tacoma Hydroelectric Project (Project), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Project No. 12589.

The Tacoma Project was constructed in 1905 and 1906. Water for operation of the facilities originates from three drainage basins: Cascade Creek, Little Cascade Creek, and Elbert Creek. The main water storage reservoir is Electra Lake. Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) operates the Tacoma Project under conditions of a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The current FERC license, Project No. 12589, expires on June 30, 2010 and PSCO is in the process of relicensing the Project to continue its operations. As part of the relicensing process, PSCO is conducting studies to obtain information needed to evaluate the potential impacts of the existing Project and its operations.

You recently completed Part I of the Project’s visitor survey. Part I of the visitor survey asked questions about your activities, resource conditions, and potential future recreation management actions and, also, identified other areas within the Project Area that you generally visit. This recreation visitor survey (Part II) focuses on your opinions and use of the Electra Lake recreation area. In addition, based on a “typical” trip, it asks questions about your activities, views of resource conditions, and potential management actions you have visited within the Project Area. Your completion of the Part II survey is important and will help provide valuable information for the planning of future at Electra Lake.

As with the survey Part I, participation is voluntary and confidential. There is no need to include your name or address with your response. All results of this survey will be presented in a combined format so that your identity will remain anonymous. We appreciate your participation in this survey. Upon receipt of Part II, we will enter your name in a drawing for one of two opportunities to win a $100 gift certificate to Home Depot. Sincerely, Kelly Bricker, PhD Tacoma Project Survey Coordinator c/o Devine Tarbell & Associates 2725 CR 250 Durango CO 81301

Tacoma Hydroelectric Project - Electra Lake Visitor Recreation Survey

13

Evaluation of Recreation Resources within the Tacoma Project Area 1. In general, how would you rate your recreation trips to the Project Area?

(Circle one letter). a. Poor b. Fair c. Good d. Very good e. Excellent f. Perfect 2. For the general Project Area, please rate the following items. (Circle one number for each item).

No opinion Totally

unacceptable Slightly

unacceptable Marginal Slightly acceptable

Totally acceptable

Overall environmental conditions in the area 0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall quality of the recreation experiences in the area 0 1 2 3 4 5


0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall condition of trails 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of directional signs 0 1 2 3 4 5

Locations of directional signs 0 1 2 3 4 5

Number and quality of interpretive information signs and kiosks

0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall quality of fishing in Electra Lake. 0 1 2 3 4 5

Length of fishing season on Electra Lake 0 1 2 3 4 5

3. On average, how many times per year do you visit Electra Lake?__________________# times per year. 4. What year did you first visit Electra Lake?_____________________.

5. How available is information about recreation at Electra Lake? Please indicate if you have ever seen information about the

following topics.

I’ve never looked for it

Not available Available Suggested improvements?

Campfire regulations 0 1 2 Recreation site information 0 1 2 Recreation site regulations 0 1 2 Fishing Regulations 0 1 2 Trail locations/maps (for overall area) 0 1 2 Environmental education information 0 1 2


14

Existing and Preferred Recreation Settings

5. People seek different kinds of recreation experiences in different settings. Listed below are five “experience settings” available at different areas in the Project area.

A. Primitive Setting: Where one expects to find solitude, very few traces of previous use, no motorized use or OHV trails,

and no development. B. Semi-Primitive Setting: Where one expects to meet few other groups, but solitude is still possible, particularly at

undeveloped camping areas or on trails away from roads. There is little or no motorized use or OHV trails, occasional evidence of previous use, and a few developments such as trails or outhouses.

C. Semi-Primitive Motorized Setting: Similar to a semi-primitive setting, but motorized use may occur and OHV impacts may occasionally be visible.

D. Undeveloped Recreation Setting: Where one expects to meet other groups and solitude is difficult to find. There is motorized use, OHV impacts may be visible at several locations, and there may be evidence of previous use at many sites.

E. Developed Recreation Setting: Where one expects to meet many other users, there are multiple facilities, and there is considerable evidence of previous use.

Please choose the letter that best describes…

the setting you actually experience during typical trips (for each area you visit) the setting you would prefer to experience at those areas

Circle one letter for each area in each column (or check the box if you don’t visit or don’t know).

Don’t visit / don’t know

Letter of setting you actually

experienced Letter of setting you would prefer

Resource Area: Electra Lake A B C D E A B C D E Nunn Recreation Area A B C D E A B C D E Westinghouse Parking and Picnic Area A B C D E A B C D E Edison Parking and Picnic Area A B C D E A B C D E Aspaas Lake A B C D E A B C D E Forebay Lake A B C D E A B C D E Other (please specify): A B C D E A B C D E

Your ‘Typical’ Visits to Electra Lake 6. What activities do you generally participate in at Electra Lake? (Check all that apply).

Motor Boating for pleasure Relaxing Water skiing Camping Riding Personal Water Craft (PWCs) Hiking or walking Boat/Tube-based fishing Mountain biking Shore-based fishing Non-motorized boating for pleasure Swimming Picnicking Driving for pleasure/sightseeing Other (please specify):

7. Of the activities listed above, please circle the one that is your primary activity on your typical visit to Electra Lake. 8. Do you fish on your Electra Lake visits? (Circle one letter). a. No Skip to question #10. b. Yes I fish about _____ hours per day on my typical visits to this area


15

9. Please answer the following questions about fishing on your Electra Lake visits: a. Primary target species: ___________________________ b. Typical number caught per hour (number): _____ per hour fished c. Overall evaluation of fishing (Circle one): 1. Poor 2. Fair 3. Good 4. Very good 5. Excellent

d. Preferred type of fishing (Circle one): 1. Boat 2. Tube 3. Shore 4. Other:_________________

e. Preferred tackle (Circle one): 1. Bait 2. Spinners 3. Flies 4. Other:_______________

f. What time do you typically start and stop fishing? Please use military time and round to the nearest quarter hour (i.e., 6:00 AM = 0600 hours). _____________start time ______________end time

10. In general, how crowded do you feel on summer visits (Memorial Day – Labor Day) to Electra Lake? (Circle one number for

each row). Not at all

crowded Slightly crowded

Moderately crowded

Extremely crowded

Weekends on reservoir surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weekdays on reservoir surface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weekends on reservoir shorelines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weekdays on reservoir shorelines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. Which places in the area are most likely to make you feel crowded? (Check all that apply).

Boat launch Nunn Recreation Area Edison Parking and Picnic Area Westinghouse Parking and Picnic Area Reservoir surface Undeveloped shoreline (where?):____________________________________________________

Other (please describe):____________________________________________________________ 12. Think about the number of boats on the reservoir on summer weekends. Please estimate…

The highest number of boats you’ve seen at one time:

The highest number of boats at one time you will tolerate before your experience is compromised:

_____ boats _____ boats OR check if this doesn’t matter to you 13. Please indicate how you feel about Electra Lake by responding to each of the statements below.

(Circle one number for each statement)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

s. Electra Lake is the best place for the recreation activities that I enjoy 1 2 3 4 5

t. I feel that a lot of other lakes could substitute for Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5

u. Compared to Electra Lake, there are few satisfactory alternatives 1 2 3 4 5

v. I have a lot of fond memories of past experiences with 1 2 3 4 5


16

(Circle one number for each statement)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

family and friends at Electra Lake w. I have a strong emotional bond to Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 x. I can’t imagine a better place for what I like to do 1 2 3 4 5 y. I feel that Electra Lake is a part of me 1 2 3 4 5 z. I feel a strong sense of belonging to Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 aa. I identify with Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 bb. I feel that my identity is reflected in Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 cc. I really enjoy Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 dd. Electra Lake means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 ee. Visiting Electra Lake says a lot about who I am 1 2 3 4 5 ff. I’m happiest when I get to visit Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 gg. Visiting Electra Lake area allows me to release built-up

tension. 1 2 3 4 5 hh. The time spent at Electra Lake allows me to bond with

my family and friends 1 2 3 4 5 ii. I associate special people in my life with Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 jj. Visiting Electra Lake allows me to spend time with my

family and friends 1 2 3 4 5

14. i. In general, has the quality of visits to this area improved, declined, or stayed the same over the years? (Circle one letter and

check appropriate box). a. Improved b. Stayed the same c. Slightly declined (Please check all that apply) so I’ve adjusted by changing my expectations so I’ve taken fewer trips than I used to so I’ve stopped taking trips

d. Substantially declined (Please check all that apply) so I’ve had to substantially change my expectations so I’ve taken fewer trips than I used to

so I’ve stopped taking trips

e. I don’t really know, I have only visited one time

ii. If your trips have slightly to substantially declined, what has contributed to this decline? 15. Please rate the level of facility development at Electra Lake. (Circle one number for each item).

Items No

opinion Much too low Too low About right Too high Much too high Overall level of development 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of picnic areas 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of shoreline access areas 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of launch parking spaces 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of toilets 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of facilities for disabled 0 1 2 3 4 5 Access to the reservoir for disabled 0 1 2 3 4 5

16. Please indicate how much each of the following is a problem at Electra Lake.


17

(Circle one number for each item). No opinion Not a problem

A small problem

A moderate problem

A large problem

Litter or human waste impacts 0 1 2 3 4 Competition for good fishing areas 0 1 2 3 4 Competition for picnic sites 0 1 2 3 4 Speeding / reckless powerboats 0 1 2 3 4 Noise from powerboats 0 1 2 3 4 Conflicts between boaters and anglers 0 1 2 3 4 Shoreline erosion 0 1 2 3 4 Conflicts between ESC residents and visitors 0 1 2 3 4 “Beat out” areas (trampled vegetation, cut trees) 0 1 2 3 4 “Spider web” of user-created trails 0 1 2 3 4 Reservoir water level 0 1 2 3 4 Discourteous behavior by visitors 0 1 2 3 4 Drunken behavior by visitors 0 1 2 3 4 Vandalism 0 1 2 3 4 Personal safety 0 1 2 3 4 Crowding along the shoreline 0 1 2 3 4

17. Different people may expect different things when they visit Electra Lake. Using the list below, tell me how important each of

the items is to you.


Extremely unimportant Unimportant

Neither important or unimportant

Important Extremely important

Facilities and Visitor Amenities: Boat ramp 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing dock 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 Grills 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing cleaning station 1 2 3 4 5 Information about the Project and Electra Lake 1 2 3 4 5 Picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Public telephone 1 2 3 4 5 Public toilets 1 2 3 4 5 Access trails to the lake 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline fishing opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Security lighting 1 2 3 4 5 Signs for direction and information 1 2 3 4 5 Watchable wildlife area 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline access for swimming 1 2 3 4 5 Other Attributes: Accessibility for persons with disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of shade 1 2 3 4 5 Ranger staff 1 2 3 4 5 Parking adjacent to picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Parking specifically for boat ramp users 1 2 3 4 5 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of privacy 1 2 3 4 5 Hours open to the public for recreation 1 2 3 4 5

18. As a visitor, how satisfied are you with those amenities and facilities? If you have not use a facility/item, please indicate that as

well.


18


√ If

Did not use

√ If

I do not think it

currently exists

Completely dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Completely satisfied

Facilities and Visitor Amenities: Boat ramp 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing dock 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 Grills 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing cleaning station 1 2 3 4 5 Information about the Project and Electra Lake

1 2 3 4 5

Picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Public telephone 1 2 3 4 5 Public toilets 1 2 3 4 5 Access trails to the lake 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline fishing opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Security lighting 1 2 3 4 5 Signs for direction and information 1 2 3 4 5 Watchable wildlife area 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreline access for swimming 1 2 3 4 5 Other Attributes: 1 2 3 4 5 Accessibility for persons with disabilities

1 2 3 4 5

Availability of shade 1 2 3 4 5 Ranger staff 1 2 3 4 5 Parking adjacent to picnic tables 1 2 3 4 5 Parking specifically for boat ramp users 1 2 3 4 5 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables

1 2 3 4 5

Recycling location (aluminum, glass, etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

Sense of privacy 1 2 3 4 5 Hours open to the public for recreation 1 2 3 4 5

19. If you rated a facility/item as “dissatisfied,” in the space below or on the back of the last page of the survey, please identify the

item from the table above and describe the location and nature of your dissatisfaction.

20. How safe have you felt while you have been at Electra Lake?

Safety related to…

Very much at

risk Somewhat

at risk Neither at risk nor

safe Somewhat

safe Extremely

safe

Physical harm by other people 1 2 3 4 5 Property loss (theft, vandalism) 1 2 3 4 5 Environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 Weather hazards (lightning, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5

21. Are the entrance fees presently in use at Electra Lake appropriately priced for the services/facilities provided? Yes No 22. Would you favor additional fees for specific services or amenities provided at Electra Lake?

Yes No 23. If yes, what additional facilities or services would you be willing to support through a fee? 24. Are there any additional outdoor recreational opportunities you would like to see at Electra Lake?


19

25. Do you support or oppose the following potential management actions to address issues on Electra Lake? (Circle one number

for each).

Strongly oppose

Slightly oppose Neutral Slightly

support Strongly support

Provide better public access to public areas 1 2 3 4 5

Zone the areas to provide specific uses at specific places 1 2 3 4 5

Provide better enforcement of rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 5 Establish "off limits" zones to protect sensitive resources 1 2 3 4 5 Restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion 1 2 3 4 5

Better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands 1 2 3 4 5 *If you have other suggestions for management, please comment in the space below or on the back of this survey.

26. Do you believe Electra Lake provides a quality recreation experience? Yes No

a. If so, what is it that creates a quality experience for you at Electra Lake (use the back of this page if necessary)?

b. If not, what changes do you feel would help make Electra Lake a quality recreation experience?

Questions About You

The following questions will help us understand the socio-demographic trends in the area. 27. What gender are you? (Circle one number). female male 28. What is your age? _____ years 29. Please tell us which of the following categories best represents your ethnic group? (Circle one letter).

b. Native American or Alaskan Native b. Hispanic c. Asian or Pacific Islander e. White, not of Hispanic origin e. African-American g. Other (please specify): __________________________________________

30. Which of the following best describes your household income in 2005 (before taxes)? (Circle one letter).

b. I prefer not to say b. Less than $10,000 c. $10,000 to $29,999 d. $30,000 to $49,999 f. $50,000 to $69,999 f. $70,000 to $89,999 g. $90,000 - $109,999 h. $110,000 - $149,999 i. $150,000 or higher

31. Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed. (Circle one letter).

b. Some high school b. Graduated high school c. Some college d. Graduated vocational school

e. Graduated college f. Some graduate school g. Masters, doctorate, or professional degree

32. Which of the following best describes your employment status? (Circle one letter). b. Employed, full time b. Retired, but working full time c. Homemaker e. Employed, part time e. Retired, working part time f. Student f. Unemployed f. Retired, not working g. Other (please

specify):_________________________

33. Do you or others on your visits have a disability or impairment?


20

a. No b. Yes ( Please describe the type(s): _____________________________________________________________

Please make additional comments or recommendations on the back of this survey.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey! Dr. Kelly Bricker, Tacoma Project Survey Coordinator, Devine Tarbell & Associates

J:\Projects\Xcel Energy\132.0010-Tacoma\0400-Recreation\RecQlty&FeeStrctre EL\OrigGraphics\App A-Survey Instruments.doc

APPENDIX B

LIST OF ALL SURVEY DATES

Appendix B - 1

Type of Day Date Weekday

Monday 6/19/2006 8/28/2006 Tuesday 5/30/2006 8/1/2006 9/26/2006 12/12/2006 * Wednesday 6/7/2006 6/14/2006 9/27/2006 10/25/2006 Thursday 7/27/2006 10/5/2006 11/9/2006 * 12/7/2006 * Friday 8/18/2006

9/8/2006 10/27/2006 Weekend

Saturday 6/10/2006 6/24/2006 7/1/2006 7/8/2006 7/21/2006 7/29/2006 9/16/2006 10/7/2006 10/21/2006 11/11/2006 * 12/2/2006 * 12/9/2006 *

Sunday 6/4/2006 7/22/2006 8/6/2006 8/13/2006 9/10/2006 10/29/2006 11/5/2006 * 12/3/2006 * 12/6/2006 * Holiday

Sunday 7/2/2006 9/3/2006 Monday 5/29/2006 7/3/2006 9/4/2006 Tuesday 7/4/2006 Saturday 5/27/2006

9/2/2006 * Observation days only, gate closed- no surveys conducted.

APPENDIX C

SURVEY SCRIPT GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOL

Appendix C - 1

General protocol for personal delivery of surveys at the Electra Lake Entrance Gate (in Dillman, 2000, and adapted from Dillman, Dolsen, and Machlis, 1995) Step 1: At the entrance gate, ESC staff will thank visitor for their entrance payment or guest

referral. Then ask the randomly selected visitor the following:

Before you go in, I wonder if I could ask you to pull over to where the person in the PSCo uniform is standing to talk with him/her briefly about a study we are doing of what visitors like and don’t like about Electra Lake. It’ll take a minute. Thank you so much and enjoy your day!

Step 2: PSCo Field Staff:

Hello! Welcome to Electra Lake. My name is _________, and Public Service Company of Colorado is conducting and important visitor survey to learn what you think of your experience, and the facilities and services at Electra Lake. We are only interviewing a few select visitors, so your voluntary cooperation would be greatly appreciated. If you agree to help us, the survey will take approximately 5 minutes to complete, which you may return after your experience on your way out. The follow-up questionnaire, which you can mail back to us, will take about 15 minutes to complete. Would you be willing to do this?


Okay, we need to designate one of the adults, 18 years or older in your group as the individual responsible for completing the surveys. Who is willing to complete the surveys?


Thank you. What kind of group are you traveling with? Family, friends, family and friends, a tour group, some other group? How many people in your group? And, what is your age?


We would like to send you a post-card after your visit thanking you for assisting with the study and perhaps reminding you to please return your mail survey. To do that, I’d like to ask you to write your name and address on this mailing label that we’ll use on your postcard. And that postcard can serve as a reminder about the questionnaire inasmuch as it is really crucial to the success of our visitor survey. In appreciation for completing the mail-back survey, we will also enter your name in a drawing for a $100 gift certificate to REI. I will be here to collect your on-site survey at the end of your stay today. I will place a card in your windshield so that we know which cars will be delivering surveys to us at the close of their day.

Appendix C - 2

Step 6:

That’s all of the questions. Please enjoy Electra Lake, and thank you very much for your help. We greatly appreciate it!

Each survey was numbered for tracking and follow-up purposes. PSCo trained surveyors and ESC staff on random selection techniques for choosing vehicles to participate, introduction strategies, recording, and tracking refusals.

APPENDIX D

LOCATION OF VISITOR’S HOMETOWNS

Appendix D - 1

Town Name State Zip Code Number of Residents Percent Miles from

Electra Lake Durango CO 81301 48 60.0 0-50 Durango CO 81302 7 8.8 Durango CO 81303 5 6.3 La Plata NM 87418 1 1.3 Total 61 76.3% Cortez CO 81321 1 1.3 50-100 Delta CO 81416 1 1.3 Farmington NM 87401 1 1.3 Farmington NM 87499 1 1.3 Total 4 5.0% Colorado Springs CO 80906 1 1.3 150-200 Albuquerque NM 87109 1 1.3 Total 7 8.8% Denver CO 80210 1 1.3 200-250 Total 10 12.5% Sun City AZ 85351 2 2.5 >300 Safford AZ 85546 1 1.3 Paradise CA 95967 1 1.3 Germantown MD 20874 1 1.3 Allen TX 75013 1 1.3 Irving TX 75061 1 1.3 Katy TX 77450 1 1.3 Layton UT 84040 1 1.3 Total 4 5.0%

APPENDIX E

VISITOR RESIDENCE LOCATIONS

Appendix E - 1

Zip Code Town State Number Percent Miles from Electra Lake

81122 Bayfield CO 5 1.8 0-50 81137 Ignacio CO 2 0.7 81301 Durango CO 86 30.9 81302 Durango CO 6 2.2 81303 Durango CO 12 4.3 81323 Dolores CO 1 0.4 81326 Hesperus CO 5 1.8 81328 Mancos CO 2 0.7 81432 Ridgeway CO 1 0.4 87410 Aztec NM 10 3.6 Total 130 46.8 81147 Pagosa Springs CO 1 0.4 50-100 81321 Cortez CO 3 1.1 81401 Montrose CO 2 0.7 87401 Farmington NM 6 2.2 87413 Bloomfield NM 3 1.1 87415 Flora Vista NM 1 0.4 87416 Fruitland NM 1 0.4 Total 17 6.3 81501 Grand Junction CO 1 0.4 100-150 81503 Grand Junction CO 1 0.4 81504 Grand Junction CO 1 0.4 81505 Grand Junction CO 1 0.4 87312 Continental

Divide NM 1 0.4

87532 Espanola NM 1 0.4 87533 Espanola NM 1 0.4 Total 7 2.8 80439 Evergreen CO 1 0.4 150-200 80920 Colorado Springs CO 1 0.4 87048 Corrales NM 1 0.4 87105 Albuquerque NM 1 0.4 87106 Albuquerque NM 3 1.1 87107 Albuquerque NM 3 1.1 87109 Albuquerque NM 1 0.4 87110 Albuquerque NM 1 0.4 87111 Albuquerque NM 4 1.4 87112 Albuquerque NM 2 0.7 87113 Albuquerque NM 1 0.4 87114 Albuquerque NM 2 0.7 87120 Albuquerque NM 4 1.4 87121 Albuquerque NM 1 0.4 87122 Albuquerque NM 1 0.4 87123 Albuquerque NM 2 0.7 87124 Rio Rancho NM 3 1.1 87144 Rio Rancho NM 1 0.4 87501 Santa Fe NM 1 0.4

Appendix E - 2

Zip Code Town State Number Percent Miles from Electra Lake

87502 Santa Fe NM 1 0.4 87505 Santa Fe NM 1 0.4 87740 Raton NM 1 0.4 Total 37 13.8 80016 Aurora CO 1 0.4 200-250 80129 Littleton CO 3 1.1 80241 Denver CO 1 0.4 80266 Denver CO 1 0.4 80401 Golden CO 1 0.4 80602 Brighton CO 1 0.4 87031 Los Lunas NM 2 0.7 87035 Moriarty NM 1 0.4 84701 Richfield UT 1 0.4 Total 12 4.6 85901 Show Low AZ 1 0.4 250-300 86004 Flagstaff AZ 1 0.4 86339 Sedona AZ 1 0.4 Total 3 1.2 72855 Paris AR 1 0.4 >300 72943 Magazine AR 1 0.4 85044 Phoenix AZ 1 0.4 85226 Chandler AZ 1 0.4 85250 Scottsdale AZ 1 0.4 85259 Scottsdale AZ 1 0.4 85268 Fountain Hills AZ 1 0.4 85301 Glendale AZ 1 0.4 85308 Glendale AZ 1 0.4 85326 Buckeye AZ 1 0.4 85331 Cave Creek AZ 1 0.4 85381 Peoria AZ 1 0.4 85748 Tucson AZ 1 0.4 86323 Chino Valley AZ 1 0.4 92107 San Diego CA 1 0.4 92203 Indio CA 1 0.4 92646 Huntington

Beach CA 1 0.4

92692 Mission Viejo CA 1 0.4 93221 Exeter CA 1 0.4 95267 Stockton CA 1 0.4 95448 Healdsburg CA 1 0.4 32131 East Palatka FL 1 0.4 32346 Panacea FL 1 0.4 33706 Saint Petersburg FL 1 0.4 34285 Venice FL 1 0.4 30269 Peachtree City GA 1 0.4 50229 Prole IA 1 0.4 83201 Pocatello ID 1 0.4 60010 Barrington IL 1 0.4 61364 Streator IL 1 0.4 46077 Zionsville IN 1 0.4

Zip Code Town State Number

Appendix E - 3

Percent Miles from Electra Lake

40014 Crestwood KY 1 0.4 70611 Lake Charles LA 1 0.4 63626 Blackwell MO 1 0.4 64850 Neosho MO 1 0.4 65663 Half Way MO 1 0.4 28202 Charlotte NC 1 0.4 88240 Hobbs NM 1 0.4 11222 Brooklyn NY 1 0.4 43221 Columbus OH 1 0.4 73007 Arcadia OK 1 0.4 73099 Yukon OK 1 0.4 74840 Earlsboro OK 1 0.4 97504 Medford OR 1 0.4 15211 Pittsburgh PA 1 0.4 37922 Knoxville TN 1 0.4 75034 Frisco TX 1 0.4 75082 Richardson TX 1 0.4 75230 Dallas TX 1 0.4 75701 Tyler TX 1 0.4 76001 Arlington TX 1 0.4 76431 Chico TX 1 0.4 77057 Houston TX 1 0.4 77070 Houston TX 1 0.4 77479 Sugarland TX 1 0.4 77493 Katy TX 1 0.4 77573 League City TX 1 0.4 77840 College Station TX 1 0.4 78373 Port Aranas TX 2 0.7 78624 Fredericksburg TX 1 0.4 79316 Brownfield TX 1 0.4 79735 Fort Stockton TX 1 0.4 98045 North Bend WA 1 0.4 82401 Worland WY 1 0.4 Total 65 25.9

APPENDIX F

WEEKEND DAY VERSUS WEEKDAY USE AT ELECTRA LAKE

Appendix F - 1

APPENDIX F WEEKEND DAY VERSUS WEEKDAY USE AT ELECTRA LAKE

Electra Lake visitor use was also evaluated on the basis of weekend versus weekday use. As shown by Table A-1, the average participation during weekends was greater than participation during weekdays with the exception of the holiday week, July 1. After excluding the first week in July, the largest difference between average participation during a weekend day and weekday ranged from 0.6 (first week of September) to 48.7 (fourth week in August). Independent sample t-test shows that the average participation during weekends is significantly larger than that during weekdays (p<.01). Table F-1 Average participation during a weekday and weekend day.

By Week By Month

Weekdays Weekend Days Difference Weekdays Weekend

Days Difference

MAY WEEK 4 N/A* 54 N/A 40.6 59 18.4 WEEK 5 40.6 64 23.4

JUNE WEEK1 27.4 61 33.6 32.2 62.125 29.93 WEEK2 31.8 66.5 34.7 WEEK3 39.4 56 16.6 WEEK4 30.2 65 34.8

JULY WEEK1 56 32.5 -23.5 39.52 59.2 19.68 WEEK2 37.2 66.5 29.3 WEEK3 31.2 73.5 42.3 WEEK4 33.6 58.5 24.9 WEEK5 39.6 65 25.4

AUG WEEK1 30.8 44 13.2 22.3 46.875 24.575 WEEK2 17.2 38 20.8 WEEK3 21.4 37 15.6 WEEK4 19.8 68.5 48.7

SEPT WEEK1 18.4 19 0.6 12.8 26 13.2 WEEK2 7.8 17 9.2 WEEK3 8.8 29 20.2 WEEK4 16.2 39 22.8

OCT WEEK1 4.8 30 25.2 5.55 17.625 12.08 WEEK2 6.4 15.5 9.1 WEEK3 5.2 13 7.8 WEEK4 4.8 12 7.2 WEEK5 8** N/A N/A

* The site was closed. ** the average of participation for the weekdays in this week was calculated based on Monday and Tuesday. Visitor Use Calculation by Week The average participation during a weekday, when calculated for the entire season, ranged from 4.8 to 56 individuals (Figure F-1). The mean of the average participation during weekdays for the entire whole season was 23.33, with a standard deviation of 14.39. As shown by Figure F-1, the average participation during the weekdays increased from May and reached the highest level during the first week of July. After this time, use generally decreased until the end of October/end of season.

Figure F-1 Average participation during a typical weekday.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

WEE

K 5

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K5

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K5

MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT

Week & Month

Indi

vidu

als

The average participation during a weekend day during the entire season ranged from 12 to 73.5 individuals (Figure F-2). The average participation during a weekend day for the entire season was 44.54, with a standard deviation of 20.58. As shown by Figure F-2, the average participation during a weekend day fluctuated significantly across different weeks during the season. Participation began with a gradual increase from opening day in May, and reaches its highest level during the third week of July. Then participation tends to decrease until the first week of September until the fourth week of September. After that, it decreases through the last week of the season. Overall, the fourth week of August experienced an abnormal increase of participation. Figure F-2 Average participation during a weekend day.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

WEE

K

WEE

K

WEE

K1

WEE

K2

WEE

K3

WEE

K4

WEE

K1

WEE

K2

WEE

K3

WEE

K4

WEE

K5

WEE

K1

WEE

K2

WEE

K3

WEE

K4

WEE

K1

WEE

K2W

EEK3

WEE

K4

WEE

K1

WEE

K2

WEE

K3

WEE

K4


Week & Month

Indi

vidu

als

Appendix F - 2

Visitor Use Calculation by Month The average participation during a weekday during the season ranged from 5.55 to 40.60 individuals. The overall average participation during weekday for the entire season was 25.50, with a standard deviation of 14.41. As shown by Figure F-3, the average participation during weekdays decreased from May to June, and then increased until July. After July, use declined to the end of the season. Figure F-3 Average participation during a weekday and weekend day.

01020304050607080

WEE

KW

EEK

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K5

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K5


Week & Month

Indi

vidu

als

WeekdaysWeekends

The average participation during a weekend day during the season ranged from 17.63 to 62.13 individuals. The average use during a weekend day for entire season was 45.14, with a standard deviation of 19. As shown in Figure F-3, the average participation during weekends increased slightly from May to June, and then decreased to the end of the season.

Appendix F - 3

The greatest difference of the average use levels for weekends and weekdays ranged from 12.08 (October) to 29.23 (June) (Figure F-4). Figure F-4 The difference between average participation during weekend days and

weekdays.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60W

EEK

5

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K5

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4

WEE

K1W

EEK2

WEE

K3W

EEK4


Week & Month

Indi

vidu

als

Figure F-5 displays the average use level for weekdays by month. May was atypical due to the holiday weekend with just over and average of 40 users. July was the other high weekday average due to the July 4 holiday falling during weekdays. Figure F-5 Average weekday use by month.

05

1015202530354045


Month

Indi

vidu

als

Appendix F - 4

Figure F-6 displays the average use levels of weekend days during the season by month. Average weekend use peaks during June, gradually declining over the course of the season. Figure F-6 Average weekend use level by month.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Month

Indi

vidu

als

Weekends

Figure F-7 displays a comparison between the average use level on weekdays and weekend days. In all cases, the average weekend day is significantly higher than the average weekday use. Figure F-7 Average use level comparison between weekday and weekend days.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Month

Indi

vidu

als

WeekdaysWeekends

Appendix F - 5

Figure F-8 displays the use level difference between average use on weekdays as opposed to weekend days. The difference overall is greatest during June and August. Figure F-8 Average use level comparison between weekday and weekend days.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Indi

vidu

als

Month

Appendix F - 6

APPENDIX G

ESC EXPENSE AND REVENUE STATEMENT FOR RECREATION AT

ELECTRA LAKE

Appendix G - 1