ESTIMATING VISITOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION IN TWO ADIRONDACK WILDERNESS AREAS

Nathan E. Peters (APA Act 1998). Major reviews of the master plan must Graduate Student take place every five years by the APA in consultation State University of New York, College of Environmental with the NYSDEC, as required by statute. Science and Forestry 211 Marshall Hall Each individual Unit Management Plan (UMP) must One Forestry Drive conform to the guidelines and criteria set forth in the Syracuse, NY 13210 master plan and cannot amend the master plan itself. Chad P. Dawson These UMPs are required to contain an inventory Professor and assessment of the physical, biological, and social State University of New York, College of Environmental attributes of each area as well as applicable administrative Science and Forestry actions. UMPs should be used as a mechanism to refine and apply the general guidelines and criteria stated in Abstract the master plan to specific conditions on the ground, This study evaluated the temporal and spatial distribution at a level of detail appropriate to administration and of use and the patterns of use in two Adirondack management. UMPs can assist in resolving questions wilderness areas from May through November of 2003. of interpretation and application of the master plan The three methods used for collecting the baseline data (APSLMP 2001). for this study were: active infrared trail counters, trail registers, and on-site visitor interviews. The locations for collecting information via registers, counters, and The Adirondack Park contains 17 units of wilderness interviews were at major trailheads that provide access totaling over 1 million acres. At the present time, 10 to these wilderness areas. Each method provided unique units have met the requirement for the individual UMP information relating to visitor use such as: group size, development (NYSDEC webpage 2004). Seven UMPs length of stay, destinations, and the dates and times are either in the draft stage of development or have visitors were utilizing the area. not yet been addressed. Of the 10 completed UMPs, most have not been reviewed 5 years from their date of 1.0 Introduction completion as directed by the APSLMP. In June of 1972 the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) approved and submitted the master plan for management UMPs are required to measure and monitor visitor use of New York’s state lands following statutory procedures and its effects on the resources, which will aid in the and extensive public hearings around the state. The planning and management of forest preserve areas. This master plan was designed to guide preservation, study selected two areas based on the recommendations management, and use of these public lands by state from the NYSDEC and other associated UMP planners. agencies in the future. The overriding theme of the plan Neither area had a UMP and planners felt that this study is to ensure protection and preservation of the natural would be beneficial to their developing UMPs for these resources of the state lands within the park. “It also serves two areas. as a place for human use and enjoyment, so long as the resources in their physical and biological context as well 2.0 Site Descriptions as their social or psychological aspects are not degraded McKenzie Mountain and West Canada Lake Wilderness (APSLMP 2001, p. 1).” Areas are two major destinations for recreational users seeking a wilderness experience in the Adirondack Park. Section 816 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act directs the New York State Department of Environmental McKenzie Mountain Wilderness area (MMWA) is Conservation (NYSDEC) to develop, in consultation located in the Northeast corner of the Adirondack Park. with the APA, individual management plans for each unit It is in Essex County in the towns of St. Armand, North of land under its jurisdiction classified in the master plan Elba, Saranac Lake, Lake Placid, and Wilmington. These

164 Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 areas are major destinations for visitors who generate a Eleven major trails provide access to destinations, such great deal of recreational use in MMWA throughout all as Indian Lake, Falls Pond, Otter Brook, Northville-Lake seasons of the year. There are numerous trailheads to the Placid trail (north and south), Sucker Brook, Pillsbury 37,616-acre wilderness area providing public access from Mountain, Miami River, Spruce Lake, T-Lake Mountain, all sides. and the South Branch trail. Recreational activities in this area in the spring, summer, and fall months include MMWA is densely forested with mixed hardwoods hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing. and softwoods at lower elevations, while spruce and fir dominate the forest above 2,500 feet. The area is 3.0 Purpose of Study composed of steep and rugged terrain and the elevation The objective of this study is to aid UMP planners in ranges from 1,463 feet to 4,869 feet with excellent developing baseline visitor use data in support of UMPs views from atop McKenzie, Haystack, Baker, and for each of the two wilderness areas. It will help establish Moose Mountains. There are eight bodies of water and a prototype for monitoring and implementation of visitor numerous pristine brooks and streams contributing to the use assessments within these and other units within the lush ecosystems found in the valleys of MMWA. Adirondack and Catskill parks.

Six trailheads provide access to destinations within 4.0 Methods MMWA such as Moose Pond, Mt Baker, Jackrabbit trail Research was conducted on recreational use in MMWA (east and west), Haystack / McKenzie mountains, and the and WCLWA in the Adirondack Park from May through Connery Pond trail which provides access to Whiteface November of 2003. The three methods utilized to gather Mountain. Spring, summer, and fall use in this area data for this study are outlined below. include hiking, camping, rock climbing, hunting, and 1. Estimations of recreational use with active fishing (APSLMP 2001). infrared automated trail counters at eight access points in the MMWA and 11 access points in West Canada Lake Wilderness area (WCLWA) is located the WCLWA. The trail counters recorded the in the Southwest corner of the Adirondack Park in date and time that the users entered or exited the Herkimer and Hamilton counties in the towns of Ohio, wilderness area from May 15 to November 1, Morehouse, Arietta, Lake Pleasant, and Indian Lake. 2003. WCLWA is bounded on the north by Moose River 2. Brief on-site interviews were conducted Plains, on the east by both public and private land, on systematically at all 19 major access points to the the south by Jessup River Wild Forest and private land, areas studied from May 15, 2003 to November 1, and on the west by West Canada Creek and private land. 2003. Interview questions were used to determine Access to several trailheads within this wilderness area use characteristics and trip related experiences via is limited to travel on seasonally maintained dirt roads. the follow up survey. Users of three public campgrounds and the Moose River 3. Visitor data collected at 19 self-registration sites Plains area, which are adjacent to WCLWA, contribute to to gain information regarding date, group size, use on some of the area’s foot trails. length of stay, and trip destination. WCLWA consists of mixed hardwood and softwood forests with the terrain ranging from swamp flats and Active Infrared trail counters (sender and receiver rolling hills to steep mountains. The elevation ranges units) were installed within 50 feet on each side of the from 1,390 feet in the valleys to 3,899 feet at the height trails providing access to the areas studied. They were of the land. This 156,695-acre wilderness area contains mounted to trees with a large diameter in attempts to 168 bodies of water including numerous pond, lakes, and avoid false counts due to trees swaying in the wind. They streams totaling 2,460 acres. There is also considerable were located on or near uphill or narrow portions of acreage in spruce-fir swamps and beaver meadows trail where users would likely be single file (Yuan et al. (APSLMP 2001). 1995). Camouflage was utilized to further conceal the equipment to prevent theft or tampering by the users.

Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 165 800

y 700 a

D 600 r 500 pe s 400

ount 300 C r

e 200 s

U 100 0 l l l p p p y y n n n g g ul u u u e e e ct ep un u u u J J J J u u ug ug ug J J J J - S S S S O - - - - M a M a 5 2- 9- 6- A A A A A - 4- 1- 8- - - 3 0- 7 7 1 1 2 6 4 6- 3- 0- 4- 1- 1 2 2 2 9 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 Date Figure 1.—McKenzie Mountain wilderness temporal distribution from trail counter data.

Vegetation that could potentially cause false counts Using these techniques together can increase the validity between the two units was removed. Most operational of the data collected (Dawson et al. 2001). Analysis and problems in infrared trail counter equipment are related comparison of the results of each technique provided to improper initial setup and installation (Watson et additional detailed information about recreational users al. 2000). Each pair of counters were visited weekly to in the areas studied, allowing for more management download the previous week of data and to ensure that implications to be made regarding use in the area. data was not lost because of equipment malfunction or changes in the surrounding area. 5.0 Results and Discussion To illustrate the temporal distribution of use in each area, Trail register sheets from the trailheads were collected trail counter event dates and frequencies were graphed and entered into a spreadsheet for further analysis. (Figures 1 and 3). The x-axis dates represent Saturday of Information gathered includes date, number of users each week and the y-axis represents the number of events per group, length of stay, and trip destinations. Registers recorded per day. Similar trends were identified in both provide valuable information about use in the area; areas. Seasonally, use levels were lower early in the season however, signing is voluntary so participation was a with use picking up mid-summer and dropping back concern (Watson et al. 2000). off as summer temperatures decline. Weekends received higher levels of use than that of weekdays. Holiday Brief on-site field interviews were conducted to find weekends were the most distinguishable peak times for out further trip-related information about each group recreational use. One noticeable difference between entering or exiting the area. Information gathered the two areas was that there was an additional spike includes group size, length of stay, number of previous of increased use in the fall in WCLWA, which can be visits to the wilderness area, trail register compliance, attributed to late season backpacking and hunting. destination, date, time, type of user, and location of interview. The name and address of the interviewed users Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used were also collected to send out more detailed surveys to illustrate the use and distribution of recreational users about trip related experiences. The follow-up surveys in each area (Figures 2 and 4). ArcGis 8.3 and ArcCatalog were mailed to the user promptly after the field interview software was utilized to analyze the data gathered via to ensure a high response rate. Information was gathered trail counters, registers, and interviews. The coverages regarding how the management activities in the area for each area were acquired from the1 APA’s CD-rom were perceived by the users and how those perceptions set containing administrative data for the Adirondack impacted their wilderness experience. Park. The purpose of these maps is to illustrate, using

166 Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 . Figure 2.—McKenzie Mountain wilderness spatial distribution from trail counter and interview data.

a graduated line thickness, the use levels of each trail Throughout the study 84 interviews were attempted providing access to these wilderness areas. in MMWA and 105 in WCLWA (Table 3). Of those attempted, 83 were completed in MMWA and 103 in Comparisons between data gathered via trail counters WCLWA. versus that gathered from trail registers indicate significant differences in each of the areas studied. The number of users accounted for in the trail registers were subtracted from the number of events on the trail Table 1.—McKenzie Mountain Wilderness number counters divided in half, assuming all users hiked in and of visitors from trail counters versus trail registers. out on the same trail ((TC/2) -TR = difference). The Trail Trail difference column represents the number of users not Trail Counter/2 Register Difference accounted for in the trail register on each trail. Negative Whiteface Landing 812 628 184 numbers demonstrate a higher frequency of compliance Connery Pond 1081 1412 -331 of those signing the trail register than the actual number Jackrabbit (East) 595 473 122 of users reaching the trail counter (Tables 1 and 2). Haystack / Speculations can be made that these differences are due McKenzie 2755 2564 191 to the location of the trail counter in relation to the Jackrabbit (West) 615 225 390 Mt Baker 6270 1 4211 2059 trail register. Trails having negative differences had trail Moose Pond 681 374 307 counters located more than a 5-minute walk from the trail register. TOTAL 12808 9887 2921

Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 167 300

y 250 Da r

e 200 p s t

n 150 u 100 Co er s 50 U

0 l l l l t p t t t y y n n n g g g p p p v n u u u u g g c c c c a a e e e u J u u u e u u u J J J u u o - J J J J - - - S S S S O O O O - - - A - - - M M - 2 9 6 A A A A - - - - - N 5 - - - - 4 1 8 - - - 3 0 7 1 8 5 - 7 1 1 2 6 4 4 1 6 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 9 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 Date Figure 3.—West Canada Lake Wilderness temporal distribution from trail counter data.

Figure 4: West Canada Lake Wilderness spatial distribution from trail counter and interview data. Figure 4.—West Canada Lake Wilderness spatial distribution from trail counter and interview data.

1

168 Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326

1 Responses from the field interview questions were Table 2.—West Canada Lake Wilderness number of analyzed to determine trail register compliance, day visitors from trail counters versus trail registers. versus overnight use, and the number of previous visits Trail Trail to the area. In MMWA 44.6% of the users interviewed Trail Counter/2 Register Difference did not sign the trail register and in WCLWA, 8.0% Sucker Brook 340 497 -157 did not sign (Table 4). In MMWA, day users were often NPT (North) 436 548 -112 non-compliant compared to the WCLWA (Table 5). In Miami River 628 575 53 WCLWA, 5.0% of overnight users were non-compliant Pillsbury Mtn 893 827 66 with signing the trail register (Table 5). The higher Spruce Lake 526 428 98 level of register non-compliance in MMWA could be NPT (South) * 467 532 -65 attributed to users feeling more comfortable entering T-Lake Mtn 417 480 -63 South Branch 94 127 -33 the area on short hikes due to its proximity to nearby Indian Lake 198 156 42 developed areas; those entering WCLWA may feel a Falls Pond 405 376 29 greater sense of remoteness. Otter Brook 379 167 212 TOTAL 4783 4713 70 Noncompliance was higher among those who had * Missing 20 days of trail register data. previous visits to the area: 52.8% of MMWA users had been to the area previously, but did not register, and in WCLWA, 8.8% of the users have been to the Table 3.—Visitor interview totals and refusal area previously, but did not register (Table 6). These rates in 2003 studies. differences could be attributed to the users feeling a MMWA WCLWA greater sense of remoteness and risk when entering Interviews Attempted 84 105 WCLWA compared to those entering MMWA. Interview Refusal Rate 1.2% 1.9%

In MMWA it was evident that users on short hikes and those with a greater familiarity with the area (i.e., Table 4.—Trail register compliance by had previous visits to the area) were less likely to be visitors in 2003 studies. compliant with signing the register. In WCLWA, the Trail Register level of non-compliant users who had been to the area Non- previously did not greatly differ with familiarity to the Compliance Compliance N area. WCLWA user registration compliance was most (%) (%) likely greater due to the remote character of the area and MMWA 44.6 55.4 83 users wanting to be found if assistance was needed. WCLWA 8.0 92.0 88 TOTAL 25.7 74.3 171 Comparing register noncompliance rates determined from the field interviews with those determined from analysis of trail registers and counters, it is evident that Table 5.—Day-use versus overnight users and trail there is a difference. Based on interview responses, register compliance. 45% of the users in MMWA were noncompliant while 8% were non-compliant in WCLWA. Noncompliance Trail Register rates calculated when comparing the register and Non- N counter numbers were much lower than that found in Compliance Compliance the interviews, 23% in MMWA and 2% in WCLWA. (%) (%) The small sample size of interviews might explain MMWA Day-use 45.0 55.0 80 (e.g. sampling error) why the estimated rate of non- Overnight 0 100.0 2 compliance is higher based on the field interviews. TOTAL 43.9 56.1 82 Increasing the sample size would provide a rate of non- WCLWA Day-use 10.4 89.6 48 compliance that is more representative of the population. Overnight 5.0 95.0 40 TOTAL 8.0 92.0 88

Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 169 Table 6.—Previous visits to area and trail register • Tampering or theft of counters by recreational compliance. users. Trail Register • Browsing wildlife being counted on the trail (e.g., moose, whitetail deer). Non- Compliance Compliance N • Damage to counter or camouflage from curious (%) (%) wildlife (e.g., black bear, squirrels). MMWA No 27.6 72.4 29 Yes 52.8 47.2 53 7.0 Conclusions TOTAL 43.9 56.1 82 The methodology for data collection in this study and Dawson et al. (2001) serve as building blocks for WCLWA No 6.5 93.5 31 incremental change and improvement to the visitor use Yes 8.8 91.2 57 assessment prototype. We were able to collect baseline TOTAL 8.0 92.0 88 visitor use data in each of the areas studied reaffirming the value of this prototype. Minor changes to be made to improve the methodology for future studies would 6.0 Sources of Error include locating trail counters closer to trail registers and Trail registers provide a means by which managers can increasing the sample size of interviews conducted. monitor recreational use in a particular area by gathering information about group size, length of stay, and trip The data collected for this study is beneficial to the destinations. There are, however, sources of error that Adirondack Park Agency and the New York State should be taken into account when using these for Department of Environmental Conservation Unit estimation of visitor use. All of these sources could lead Management Plan planners, as it will aid in developing to an inaccurate representation of who is utilizing the indicators for the Limits of Acceptable Change planning area and for what length of time. Outlined below are the process. The baseline information collected emphasizes potential sources of error identified in trail registers for the areas that are currently receiving higher levels of use this study. and the areas in which staffing and fiscal support may be • Users reporting in the trail register the number of needed for future management to maintain or improve hours in the wilderness area or days they will be the conditions of the resource and the recreational spending in the geographic area rather than the experience. number of days spent in the wilderness area. • Illegible handwriting, entering fictitious trips, or 8.0 Acknowledgments not reporting the correct date. This project was supported by the Adirondack • More than one group member signing the Park Agency, the New York State Department of register, and writing the number of users in their Environmental Conservation, Cornell University, and the party causing multiple counts of the same group. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. • Noncompliance (e.g., visitors not signing registers). 9.0 Citations Adirondack Park Agency. (1998). Adirondack Park Trail counters are an effective way of monitoring visitor Agency Act. Raybrook, NY. use. However, as with self-registration, there are sources of error that need to be accounted for when utilizing the Adirondack Park Agency; New York State Department data gathered. Outlined below are the potential sources of Environmental Conservation. (2001). Adirondack of error identified in trail counters for this study. Park State Land Master Plan. Raybrook, NY. • Mechanical interference due to environmental factors such as wind causing the sway of limbs Cole, David N. (1996). Wilderness recreation trends, and trees, heavy rain and fog, and the position of 1965 through 1994. Res. Pap. INT-RP-488. Ogden, sun in relation to the trail counters’ infrared light source.

170 Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan Intermountain Research Station. Agricultural Experiment Station, MSU.

Dawson, Chad P.; Simon, Mark; Oreskes, Rebecca; New York State Department of Environmental Davis, Gary. (2001). Great Gulf Wilderness use Conservation. (2004). Unit Management Plans for estimation: Comparisons from 1976, 1989, and 1999. State Lands. March 15, 2004. “http://www.dec.state. Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation ny.us/website/dlf/publands/ump/index.html.” Research Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-276. Watson, Alan E.; Cole, David N.; Turner, David L.; Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Reynolds, Penny S. (2000). Wilderness recreation Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. use estimation: A handbook of methods and systems. Res. Pap. RMRS-GTR-56. Ogden, UT:USDA, Forest Hendee, J.C.; Dawson, C.P. (2002). Wilderness Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. management. North American Press. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden CO. Yuan, Susan; Maiorano, Brian; Yuan, Michael; Kocis, Susan M.; Hoshide, Gary T. (1995). Techniques and Lynch, Joel; Vogt, Christine; Cindrity, Stan; Nelson, equipment for gathering visitor use data on recreation Charles. (2002). Measuring and monitoring trail sites. 2300-Recreation, 9523-2838- MTDC. use: A nationwide survey of state and federal trail Missoula, MT: USDA, Forest Service, Technology and managers. Res. Proj. East Lansing, MI: Dept. of Development Program.

Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NE-326 171