Managing Dispersed Recreation in the Allegheny National Forest
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 4-2014 Managing Dispersed Recreation in the Allegheny National Forest Anne Santa Maria Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Human Geography Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, and the Physical and Environmental Geography Commons Recommended Citation Santa Maria, Anne, "Managing Dispersed Recreation in the Allegheny National Forest" (2014). Master's Theses. 495. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/495 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MANAGING DISPERSED RECREATION IN THE ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST by Anne Santa Maria A Thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree ofMaster ofArts Geography Western Michigan University April 2014 Thesis Committee: Dave Lemberg, PhD Lisa DeChano-Cook, PhD James Lewis, PhD MANAGING DISPERSED RECREATION IN THE ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST Anne Santa Maria, M.A. Western Michigan University, 2014 In the Allegheny National Forest, an unregulated dispersed camping policy has led to significant impacts to the natural environment. This study used data gathered from visitor surveys, interviews with managers, and environmental conditions of campsites to recommend management actions for campsites along seven roads in the National Forest. The seven road areas fell into two categories. Primitive recreation was more common in some areas and solitude was more highly valued by campers. Other areas had more frequent visitor use, motorized camping, and solitude was less important to campers. These factors influenced management recommendations, which include designing and constructing campsites to minimize amount of area affected by camper activities, closing and rehabilitating campsites, and visitor education. Results from the visitors surveyed indicate that campers were less bothered by resource impacts than managers and that impact to campsites was influenced by type and frequency of visitor use. These results will aid in the development of dispersed campsite management plans for the Allegheny National Forest. Copyright by Anne Santa Maria 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis was completed with the support of many people. I owe my deepest appreciation to the staff of the Marienville Ranger District, Allegheny National Forest, specifically Linda White, without whose accommodations, support, and words of encouragement I would have never finished this thesis. Thank you for providing your valuable time, staff, expertise, and advice in aiding me in my research. I also want to thank the Pennsylvania chapter of the Leave No Trace organization for providing me with various hang tags and paraphernalia to hand out to campers as they completed my survey. My thesis committee members at Western Michigan University, Dr. Dave Lemberg, Dr. Lisa DeChano-Cook, and Dr. Jim Lewis for their counsel, direction, and never ending support. Thank you to Dr. Lisa DeChano-Cook for bailing me out when I was stuck in the middle of Pennsylvania with no car and no hopes of finishing my research. Thank you to Dr. Dave Lemberg for his detailed and diligent review. Again, thank you. Thank you to my family members for the support, guidance, and patience while they tolerated my bellyaching and overall crankiness as I completed this process. Without you this process would have been too painful to complete. Anne Santa Maria 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Research Objectives 2 Chapter Descriptions 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 Front Country Dispersed Recreation and Recreation Planning 4 Resource Impacts 8 Monitoring Resource Impacts 14 Recreation Management Techniques 16 Recreation Fees 20 Comparing Visitors and Managers Perceptions of Resource Degradation 21 Previous Studies 23 3. THE ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST 29 Physical and Biological Characteristics 31 Social and Economic Characteristics 33 in Table of Contents—continued Recreation and Dispersed Camping in the National Forest 36 The Study Areas 41 4. METHODS 52 Camper Questionnaire 52 Questionnaire Administration 54 Questionnaire Response Analysis 56 Biophysical Data Collection 57 Site Area Measurements 58 Vegetation Assessments 60 Other Conditions 61 Campsite Impact Ratings 62 5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 67 General Information on Dispersed Campers 67 Camping Equipment 70 Camping Group Composition 70 Group Size 71 Activities on the National Forest 71 How many times have you used this campsite in the past? 72 Educational Attainment 73 Did you choose this campsite because you did not have to pay a fee? 74 Do you practice "Leave No Trace" Techniques? 76 IV Table of Contents—continued Analysis of Likert Responses 76 What do you find important when choosing a campsite outside of a formal campground 76 How satisfied are you with the resource conditions surrounding your campsite 82 How willing would you be to accept the following management actions to help improve the quality of dispersed campsites through the ANF? 84 Biophysical Data Results 89 Discussion 91 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 100 Leave No Trace Education 101 Campsite Monitoring and Inventory Assessment 105 Firewood Sale 107 Fees 108 Trash Cans 109 Setting Group Size Limits 110 Recommendations for the Seven Surveyed Road Areas 110 Recommendations for Salmon Creek Area (FR 127 and FR 145), Millstone Creek Area (FR 131,132, and 133), and Tionesta Creek Area (SR666) 111 Description of Areas and Major Problems Ill Recommendations 112 Recommendations for ATV Trailheads (Timberline Road and FR 395), Clarion River Road Area, Reservoir Area (FR 160 and 259), and Red Mill Pond Area (FR143) 121 v Table of Contents—continued Description of Areas and Major Problems 121 Management Recommendations 122 Summary of Management Recommendations 130 7. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH 135 Suggestions for Future Research 136 BIBLIOGRAPGHY 141 APPENDICES A. Survey Instrument 147 B. HSIRB Approval Letter 153 C. USFS Approval Letter 155 D. Allegheny National Forest Dispersed Recreation Policy 157 E. Question 14 Responses 161 vi LIST OF TABLES 3.1 General Demographic Information for Pennsylvania, the U.S., and the Four County Region within the ANF 35 4.1 Roads Surveyed, Number of Sites Visited, Number of Surveys Administered Across the Allegheny National Forest. Summer 2013 55 4.2 Campsite Impact Ranking Assessment Variables 64 5.1 General Information about Dispersed Campers by Road Area 69 5.2 Respondents' Reported Activities in the ANF 72 5.3 Respondents Reported Educational Attainment in Comparison to Educational Attainment in Pennsylvania, the U.S., and the Four County Region within the ANF(The Center for Rural Pennsylvania 2013) 73 5.4 Likert Percentage Responses to Attributes Campers Find Important when Choosing a Dispersed Campsite 78 5.5 Kruskal Wallis Results for Likert Responses to Importance Levels for Various Attributes when Choosing Campsites (Asterisks Indicate Significance at the 0.05 alpha level) 80 5.6 Mann Whitney U Post Hoc Results Comparing Road Areas Importance for Quiet and Solitude (D= Different Importance Levels; S = Same Importance Levels) 80 5.7 Mann Whitney U Post Hoc Results Comparing Road Areas for Importance in Access to ATV and Horse Trailheads (D= Different Importance Levels; S = Same Importance Levels) 81 5.8 Mann Whitney U Post Hoc Results Comparing Road Areas for Importance Placed on Distance to Water (D= Different Importance Levels; S = Same Importance Levels) 81 5.9 Mann Whitney U Post Hoc Results Comparing Importance Placed on Natural Setting (D= Different Importance Levels; S = Same Importance Levels) 81 vu List ofTables—continued 5.10 Mann Whitney U Post Hoc Results Comparing Importance Placed on Privacy (D= Different Importance Levels; S = Same Importance Levels) 82 5.11 Likert Reponses to Satisfaction of Resource Conditions Surrounding their Campsite 83 5.12 Kruskal Wallis Results Comparing Satisfaction Levels between Surveyed Road Areas (Asterisks Indicate Significance at the 0.05 alpha level) 84 5.13 Mann Whitney U Post Hoc Results Comparing Satisfaction Level with Amount of Firewood near Campsites (D= Different Satisfaction Levels; S = Same Satisfaction Levels) 84 5.14 Likert Responses to Support for Management Actions 85 5.15 Kruskal Wallis Results for Management Preferences (Asterisks Indicate Significance at the 0.05 alpha level) 87 5.16 Mann Whitney Post Hoc Results for Support of Minimal Camping Structures (D= Different Satisfaction Levels; S = Same Satisfaction Levels) 87 5.17 Mann Whitney Post Hoc Results for Support of Signs to Identify Campsites (D= Different Level of Support for Management; S = Same Level of Support for Management) 88 5.18 Mann Whitney Post Hoc Results for Support of Providing Firewood for Sale (D= Different Level of Support for Management; S = Same Level of Support for Management) 88 5.19 Mann Whitney Post Hoc Results for Support for Providing Water Pumps, Trashcans, and Toilets (D= Different Level of Support for Management; S = Same Level of Support for Management) 88 5.20 Grouping of Campsites into Low, Medium, and High Impact Categories 90 5.21 Low, Medium, and High Impact Categories for Surveyed Road Locations: Low Impact (9 to 15); Medium Impact (16-20); High Impact