I nllnnllnlnlnl mhhhhhhhihm mmmnmmmmmmEnmE … · 2014-09-27 · RECREATION CARIBYING CAPACITY...

876 URBAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORP BETHLEHEM PA F/6 13/2RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS. REPORT 6-- TC(U)JUL 80 DAC¥39-78-C-0096

UNCLASSIFIED WESMP '80-1-6 NL

I *lflflflfIIl IIIfflIfmhhhhhhhihmnllnnllnlnlnlmmmnmmmmmmEnmEmEmmEEmmEEmmEEEhmnhmhEmhEnhK

RECREATION CARIBYING CAPACITYFACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Report 8

MoNARY LOCK AND DAM

LAKE WALLULA PROJECT AREA .by-

Urban Research and Development Corporation 'Im4

10

0Washington,,D.aC 20314Unde

MISCELLANEOU PAPContract No. Y 1AW 98.00RPR96O6 SRE

U.S ryEgne aerasEprmn tto

P.0>o 3,Vcsug is 96

ZOiiilonti~olzpGaos A)1 DTC ror'u

>oswl ei lc nVht0

> -- -

q.|

MISCELLANEOUS PAPER R-80-1

RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Title

Report I- Barkley Lock and Dam, Lake Barkley Project Area Jul 1980Report 2: Benbrook Lake Project Area Jul 1980Report 3: Hartwell Lake Project Area Jul 1910

Report 4: Lake Ouachita Project Area Jul 1960Report 5: Lake Shelbyville Project Area Jul 1980

Report 6: McNary Lock and Dam, Lake Wallula Project Area Jul 1980Report 7: Milford Lake Project Area Jul 1980Report 8: New Hogan Lake Project Area Jul 1980Report 9: Shenango River Lake Project Area Jul 1980

Report 10: Somerville Lake Project Area Jul 1960

Report 11: Surry Mountain Lake Project Area Jul 1980

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the enthusiasm and excellent cooperation of the resourcemanagers, rangers, and other Corps personnel at Lake Wallula and the representa-tves from the Walla Walla District Office. Their contributions of practical experi-ence and knowledge, along with their assistance in arranging schedules, have madethis carrying capacity research effort possible.

8I

IiDestroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return

it to the originator.

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official* Department of the Army position unless so designated

by other authorized documents.

, (

.... ~

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (We Dea Efircide

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCIONSBEFORE COMPLETIG FORM

REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Miscellaneous Paper R-80-1. 8'II4O 7 (o____________4. TITLE (andSubtfitLe S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOO COVERED

(Jj CREATION CARRYING PPACITY FACTS AND Report 6 of a series_ . I N S I D E R A T I O N S o R p o r t 6 9 1 p ti: A R Y J 0 C K . P R O M N R O E O T N M ED DAM, LAKE WALLULA PROJECT . ,

7. ATH611t() ... S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(q)

. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADr ESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT. TASK

Urban Research and Development Corporation AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

528 North New Street Recreation Research ProgramBethlehem, Pa. 18018

,. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS4

Office, Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army / Jul 80

Washington, D, C. 2031. NUMBEROFPAGES/

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESS(ff diffrent fusm Contronllng Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of uspo")

U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station UnclassifiedEnvironmental laboratoryP. 0. Box 631, Vicksburg, Miss. 39180 IS&. DECLASSIFICATION/OW ADINGSCHEDULE

AppDISRITOv AEMN for pub i Relae; dtriuinulmtdApproved for public release; distribution unlimited. €

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ohetrect entered In Block 20. if different ho. Report)

.11

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

A project map of McNary Lock and Dam, Lake Wallula, is enclosed in an envelope

attached inside the back cover of this report.i ,S19. KEY WORDS (Continue on revwoo side It noecoeoy ad Identify by block number)

Carrying capacity Recreation UtilizationMcNary Project Recreation resource planningMonitoring Recreational areasOvercrowding Recreational facilities

ABTRACT ( w m nvere ab N nesw md Identify bp block nwm)

*-This report provides selected recreation carrying capacity-related information

for the McNary Project. The information is based upon: 1) user and management

surveys conducted at McNary, and 2) Urban Research and Development Corporation's

, observations and perceptions of the situations at the project's activity areas.

The report provides information regarding activity situations, user character-istics, carrying capacity findings, and other findings; it then focuses onselected problem situations and their possible solutions.

DD 'JP om 03 EDITION or No esW is1 onecLaTeN 4Unclassified

SECURITY CL ASS PIC AT1OM Or THIS ibAie (06A . SAen0

j , /.

PREFACE

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the

Urban Research and Development Corporation (URDC) relative to recre-

ational carrying capacity at the McNary Lock and Dam, Lake Wallula

Project Area. Results of site analyses and user surveys are presented

as they relate to existing carrying capacity conditions on the project.

The study was conducted under Contract with the U. S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, Mississippi, (Contract

No. DACW39-78-C-0096).

Mr. Donald R. Detwiler, President of URDC, was Principal-In-Charge

of this study, assisted by Mr. Martin C. Gilchrist, Executive Vice-

President and Mr. David H. Humphrey, Vice-President. Mr. B. Thomas

Palmer, Project Director, had the major responsibility for technical

project direction; Messrs. Phillip D. Hunsberger and Paul L. Sabrosky

were involved in the site analysis, conducting surveys, and the success

analysis; and Mr. Timothy A. Fluck was involved in conducting surveys,

survey analysis, and development of methodologies.

Mr. R. Scott Jackson, WES was the Project Monitor. Dr. Adolph

Anderson, WES, was Program Manager of the Environmental Laboratory (EL)

Recreation Research Program. The study was supervised by Dr. Conrad J.

Kirby, Chief, Environmental Resources Division, EL, under the general

supervision of Dr. John Harrison, Chief, EL.

COL John L. Cannon, CE, and COL Nelson P. Conover, CE, were Com-

manders and Directors of WES during this study. Technical Director was

Mr. F. R. Brown.

AccOs~sonyo

• i. .............................................................

'4i# ,

c, .. _ A

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE .. .... ..................... .. .. .. .....

COlNVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OFMEASUREMENT .. ... .......................... iv

PART 1: INTRODUCTION. .. .................. .......

This Report. .. .................. ......... 3

Purpose .. ................... ......... 3Relationship to Technical Report and Handbook. ..... ..... 4Qualifications. .. .................. ...... 4

Sumnary Project Area Description .. .................. 5

PART 2: SURVEY FINDINGS BY ACTIVITY. ...... ............. 7

Boating/Waterskiing. .. .................. ..... 9

Orientation .. ................. ......... 9User characteristics .. ...... ................ 10User opinions. ...... .................... 11

Spacing preferences. ..... ................. 11Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience. .. ......... 12Acceptability of techniques .. .................. 14

Boat Launching. ..... ...................... 17

Orientation..................................17User characteristics .......................... 18User opinions.............................19

Launch tine preferences.....................19Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience. .. ......... 20Acceptability of techniques .. .................. 24

Camping .. ... ............................ 27

Orientation..............................27User characteristics .......................... 28User opinions.............................29

Spacing preferences...........................29Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience .. .......... 30Acceptability of techniques .. .................. 34

Hiking. .... ............................ 37

Orientation. .... ....................... 37User characteristics .. ...... ................ 38User opinions. .... ...................... 39

Saigpreferences. ...... ................ 39Reaonsforpleasant/unpleasant experience. .. ......... 39Accetablit oftechniques .. .................. 42

Picnicking. ..... ........................ 45

Orientation. ..... ...................... 45User characteristics .. ..... ................. 46User oDinions. ...... .................... 47

Spacing preferences. ...... ................ 47Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience. .. ......... 48Acceptability of techniques .. .................. 52

Sunbathing/Swimming . ....................... 55

Orientation............................55User characteristics ......................... 56User opinions.............................57

Spacing preferences........................57Reasons f or pleasant/unpleasant experience .. ........... 58Acceptability of techniques .................... 64

PAT3 AAYI OF SELECTED PROBLEM1S/SITUATIONS .. ............ 67

ApenixA:Key Terms.........................Al

Appndi B:Example Survey Forms. ................... Bl

Appendix C: Project Area Description .. ............... Cl

7i

CONVERSION FACTORS, U. S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

U. S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted

to metric (SI) units as follows:

Mul tiply B To Obtain

acres 4046.856 square metres

Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsuis degrees or Kelvins

feet 0.3048 metres

horsepower (550 foot and 745.6999 wattspounds per second)

inches 2.54 centimetres

miles per hour 1.609344 kilometres per hour

(U. S. statute)

miles (U. S. statute) 1.609344 kilometres

square feet 0.09290304 square metres

yards 0.9144 metres

t.I

'v

To obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) read-ings, use the following formula: C = (5/9) (F - 32). To obtain Kelvin(K) readings, use K - (5/9) (F - 32) + 273.15.

iv

;I"

I ;,

11

2 I* Ve i

PART i:ITOUTO

RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

McNARY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE WALLULA PROJECT AREA

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

This Report

Purpose

This report, prepared as the sixth in a series of the U. S. Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station's (WES) Recreational Carrying

Capacity Design and Management Study reports, provides selected carrying

capacity-related information for the McNary Lock and Dam, Lake Wallula

Project Area, which is not contained in the Technical Report. The infor-

mation is based upon: 1) the user and management surveys conducted at

Lake Wallula, and 2) Urban Research and Development Corporation's (URDC)

observations and perceptions of the situations at the project's study

activity areas. Some observations and suggestions dealing with project

area planning, design, and/or management are included, even though they

are not specifically carrying capacity related. The report also suggests

specific solutions and treatments of specific recreation activity areas.

The report first provides information regarding activity situa-

tions, user characteristics, carrying capacity findings, and other

findings; it then focuses on selected problem situations and their possi-

ble solutions. Although suggestions regarding possible solutions to

'A problems are included, this report is not intended to be a substitute

for master planning or to provide answers to all project area capacity

S'f iproblems. Instead, this report should be viewed as a constructive,

informative document which points out directions and techniques for

consideration by project managers and designers in the near or distant

future.

i IA PimB~ED1IiG PAaz I Io1

3

Relationship to TechnicalReport and Handbook

In addition to this Project Area Report and similar reports on the

other ten study project areas,* the overall capacity study !ffort pro-

duced a Technical Report and a Capacity Handbook:

a. The Technical Report describes the overall study process,reports detailed study findings, and suggests and demonstratesmethods and techniques for capacity management.

b. The Capacity Handbook is a more graphic, "how-to-do-it" typeof report, designed to serve as a useful field tool for deter-mining carrying capacity and applying techniques for capacitydesign and management.

This project area report is different from the Technical Report and

Handbook in several ways: it includes information not found in the

Technical Report and Capacity Handbook; it reports and examines user

survey information by activity area and project area, rather than from

the total survey population; it addresses specific problems and examines

possible solutions; and it does not include the methodologies for deter-

mining and monitoring social and resource capacity. For these reasons,

this report is intended to compliment the Technical Report and the Hand-

book, and is not intended to substitute for them.

Qualifications

The information in this report is based on the Management/Site

Survey conducted on October 26-28, 1978, and the User Survey conducted on

July 13-15, 1979 by Urban Research & Development Corporation (URDC) (see

Appendix B). The user survey information was collected

over a one-weekend period, which may or may not have been representative

of a typical or heavy use weekend at McNary Lock & Dam. Interviews were

limited at some activity areas because of such factors as lack of users

and weather conditions. For these reasons and because carrying capacity

analysis is dynamic rather than static, this report is not intended to

provide the final answers. Rather, it is a foundation for future

analysis and carrying capacity progress.

* See definition of "Study Project Area" in Appendix A for a listingof these project areas.

4

r '

Summary Project Area Description*

§McNary Lock and Dam** is located on the Columbia River 292 miles

from the Pacific Ocean. The project was authorized for the purposes of

navigation, hydroelectric power generation, and irrigation. The Wash-

ington cities of Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick border Lake Wallula.

Lake Wallula extends 64 miles upstream from the dam and represents

35,922 acres of water surface and 242 miles of shoreline at its normal

pool elevation. The project area covers a total of 53,912 acres, which

makes McNary the third largest project area studied. More than two-

thirds of the land bounding Lake Wallula is characterized by steep,

rugged basalt formations. In some places, bluffs rise abruptly from the

shoreline; in other places, the topography at the shoreline is gently

sloping. The climate of the area is arid; precipitation averages only

six inches annually. Summer temperatures average near 90 degrees F.

(with extremes to over 110 degrees F.). Trees are scarce and the vege-

tative cover is sparse, consisting of mainly grasses, sagebrush, forbs,

and low shrubs.

The upper and lower 'ends and the eastern portions of the project

are accessible via adjacont highways. However, much of the lake's

eastern and western shoreline is not accessible due to high canyon-like

cliffs at the water's edge. The project's recreation facilities serve

visitors from a very large area encompassing northern Oregon and south-

eastern Washington. Visitation in 1978 was 4.5 million recreation days.

(See Appendix C for a more detailed project area description.)

g * Appendix C contains a more detailed project area description for

your future use.

See map inside back cover.* § A table of factors for converting U. S. customary units of measure-

ment to metric (SI) units is found on page iv.

5

.°I

4

-

I I

PRjg1DI4G pAGE BLANK-NOT nLoED

PART 2: SURVEY FINDINGS BY ACTIVITY

7

BOATING/WATERSKI ING

Orientation

Boating and waterskiing are popular at McNary, especially on the

Snake River area adjacent to Hood Park and the lower portion of Lake

Wallula between the dam and McNary Beach. On most of Lake Wallula,

power boating is almost totally contained on the Columbia River proper,

which can sustain present use. Frequent water fluctuation occurs (3-4

feet) daily and many shallow areas are unusable during the low water

periods. Like most other project areas, there are sometimes nodal

crowding problems and conflicts between recreational boaters and other

lake u.,ers (i.e., boat fishermen and swimmers).

The findings presented in the remainder of this section are based

on the User Survey. This survey obtained 32 responses from boaters and

waterskiers at McNary.

piMEDING PAGS LANKNOT nLw=

" 'I

II

User characteristics

Table I indicates the characteristics of the boaters and water-

skiers surveyed at McNary. The most significant differences in the

characteristics of the boaters and waterskiers surveyed at McNary from

those of other study project areas are: the large number of groups of

nine or more people, and the large number coming from nearby areas.

Table 1

Boater/Waterskier Characteristics

Percent of Group Percent ofAge Boaters/Wa te rskiers Size Boaters/Waterskiers

<18 3 1 018- 25 22 2 1626- 40 56 3 - 4 3441- 55 16 5- 8 2556 - 65 0 9 - 12 13*

>65 0 >12 13*

Travel Tirue to Percent of Visit Percent ofProject Area Boaters/Waterskiers Duration Boaters/aterskiers

<15 minutes 25* 1 - 4 hours 615 - 30 minutes 44* 5 - 8 hours 7830 - 60 minutes 13 1 day 3

I - 2 hours 16 2 days 62 - 3 hours 0 3 days 63 - 5 hours 3 4 days 0

>5 hours 0 5 - 7 days 0>7 days 0

No. of Other Percent of Percent ofActivities Boaters/Waterskiers Equipment Boaters/Waterskiers

0 3 Sailboat 01 19 Canoe 32 16 Power Boat3 12 (<25 h.p.) 64 44 Power Boat

5 6 (>25 h.p.) 90

6 0>6 0

*Significantly higher than total survey sample.

10

f1

Ijj I "C."

User opinions

Spacing preferences - Tables 2 and 3 indicate the spacing that

the boaters and waterskiers surveyed at McNary and elsewhere prefer.

Table 2

Preferred Distance Responses*

Samp.. S-amp-1V Range Mean Median Mode

Al I Boaters Surveyed 135 30- a 531 30)0 300

IrivlksWal tulo 18 15-1800 476 W0O 300

All Waterskiers Surveyed 95 30- a 520 300 300M~iz l~k klloa8 10)0- a 286 300 300

*In 'e,.,t; sLt' Appendix A for definitions of terms.

a| - rc€;pe 'InI"or "out of sight."

Tab Il I

Pre erred Distance Responses in Planning Rangeand Preferencet Groupings*

Z in Planning % in A2

% in "2 % in C2

RAn 1 (1000'- 0 0'- 99' ( 200'-450') (451'-1500

All Boaters Surveyed 791. 29% 37% 34%

McNar%/l.. ib'e Wal lula 89 19 50 31

% in Planning % inA %inB2

in CSampl[e __ Rangel(l0O'-1500') ( I00'-199') (200'-400') (10l'-1500'

All Waterskiers 91% 22% 50% 28%Surveyed

McNarv,/Lake WallUla 88 14 57 29

*See Appendix A for definitions of terms; see Technical Report for a full develop-

ment of spacing preference information.1Percentage of all preferred distance responses.

Percentage of all preferred distance responses in the Planning Range.

.1 The distributions of preferred spacing of both boaters and water-

skiers at McNary are relatively similar to those of the total survey.

11

S .. :.

.- . I . l a t/u .la nt_ t.xL rience lable 4 indicates tile

,i,'Ilt t it di Iti'rtit I:ictori had oil making tile boating or waterskling

cx ,- i i,-tk k p I-. as an t o r imp I l stant to r users at M-Nary. TIhe 'amount /

I'IVC'lit' l 0!e o l te' I lai I tics" and "noise" were tile Iactors which most

ni i. ie xp 1 r i nc i iLt'e at MtNa ry tunpleas an t . None of the boaters or

w.itot sk ,. r; st rvev .d inudicate.d that the y would not return to the lake.

Fables , ind 0 indicate thc chalnages in the physical condition and

people'- tist ol the area, repo rted bv boaters and waterskiers from their

previou.'S ViSit.

Tab] e 5

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed ill the Physical Conditionsof the Area - Items Mentioned by Boaters and Waterskiers

Area Positive Changes Negative Changes

Lake and Adjacent "Addition of levee (new "Too much water fluctua-

Areas boat ranhIp)" (1) tion"()

"Park nicer" (1) "Launch ramp too small--

"General improvement" (1) need at least 3 or 4" (1)

"Better water" (i) "Need more parking" (1)

NOTE: The number in parenthesis (#) indicates the number of times thechange was mentioned.

Tab le 6

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the People's Useof the Area - Items Mentioned by Boaters and Waterskiers


Lake and Adjacent "Less rowdy" (1) "Littering" (1)

Areasore crowded" (4)

NOTE: The number in parenthesis (#) indicates the number of times thechange was wentioned.

12

"F

-. .- -

Table 4

Reasons Making Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant--Boating/Waterskiing~McNary Dam

Mc.ary Own Percentage* of Users Responding:Reasons Not

Pleasant Unpleasant Impot...... _ Important

GeneralI Reasonsi

Characteristics and behavior of other people 84 16 -

Distance from other people 78 19 3

Number of people in other visitor groups 44 9 47

Number and type of other activities occurring 91 6

here

Scenic views 91 9

Noise 44 22 34

Accidents or near accidents 81 19

Enforcement of rules/regulations 94 6

Car parking facilities 94 6

Theft 100

Vandalism 100 -

Land-Based Reasons

Amount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 69 22 9

Convenience to facilities (restrooms, water,ec)75 22 3~~etc.) ,

Maintenance of facilities 97 3 -

Condition of trees and landscape 100 - -

Condition of grass or soil 97 3 -

Water-Based Reasons

Water quality 91 9 -

Formal designation of places for your activity 16 - -

Waiting time to launch boat 84 -

People in areas they shouldn't be 94 3

*Percentages may not total 100% because of those responding "Does Not Apply."

13

°°,. 1 .. .. ,T .. ...

. ... "~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ . , %.. . . . Il ] .... ] " . . .

Acceptability of techniques - Table 7 indicates the acceptability

of different techniques for solving problems to the boaters and water-

kiers surveyed at McNary.

The acceptability of most techniques is very clear: at least 60

percent of the respondents agreed on one of the 3 levels of acceptability

for 11 of the 11 techniques. But even for those techniques wrich most

respondents found to be acceptable, up to 44 percent found them to be

unacceptable. Thus, project management should expect some opposition

to any technique used.

In general, the more apparent and widespread that a problem of

overcrowding or overuse is, the more likely users may accept a technique

which addresses it. Thus, remedial techniques (which solve existing

problems) are generally more acceptable than preventative techniques

(which correct a problem before it becomes readily apparent.

The more users can understand the rationale and operation of a

technique, the more likely they will accept the use of the technique.

Education, therefore, would seem to be an important method of improving

user acceptance of different techniques.

It also seems as though the more directly a technique impacts

only the problem, and the less it operates to diminish recreational

opportunities generally, the more likely users will accept the use of

the technique. Thus, techniques which can be applied in the short-term

or selectively to problem areas are favored (particularly if done in a

crisis setting).

Techniques which call for reductions in existing opportunities

to use recreational resources and facilities are strongly disfavored.

User expectations of the opportunities available are critical in this

determination. Consideration should be given initially to avoiding

aoverdeveloping an area with the idea that selective cutbacks in services

and facilities can be accomplished later. Users expectations will be

based on the initial level, and subsequent reductions will be disfavored.

"4 14

-'c

Table 7

User Acceptability of Tecliniques--Boating/WaterskiingMcNary Dam

Levels of AcceptabilityPercentage* of Users Responding:

Techniques Very Mildly UnacceptableAcceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

General Planning Techniques

Keep _maLor recreation areas moz , separated 36 19 44Make vehicle access to areas less 3 3 94

convenient 3_3_94

Make area's existence less obvious 9 9 81

Site P.anninyj Techniques

Design fojr greater distance between people 3 9 13

Reduce number of parking spaces 59 25 16

Management Techniques

Procedures:Require prior reservations __ 6 19 ._75

Require permits 16 31 53

Charge/increase fees 13 7 80

Rules and Regulations:Impose more rules 13 13 75

Provide stricter enforcement of rules 56 9 28

Close areas when natural resource 75 16 9destruction reaches critical point

Close areas when they become "too full" 69 17 14

Reduce number of activities in same area 31 22 44

Keep unnecessary vehicles out 72 9 19

Services:Provide more and better information 78 13 9

Increase maintenance and restoration 75 13 -

Reduce facilities and services 3 6 91


15

bo

S - - .. . .. . .. . iII .. . -..... . .. .[- " ". . . . . .

BOAT LAUNCHING

Orientation

The launching ramp at Hook Park is overcrowded and there are no

individually designated spaces for vehicles and boat trailers. Other

problems exist at this launching area: the ramp itself is too short

and not quite wide enough for two launchers to easily use at the same

time; there is a parking shortage, the water is shallow, there are

few circulation controls to expedite flow. A new and better designed

ramp is being constructed nearby in deeper water to solve these problems.

The boat launching facility located between McNary Dam and McNary Beach

lacks individually designated parking spaces for boat trailers. The

Corps is planning to upgrade this facility.


on the User Survey. This survey obtained 28 responses from boat launchers

at McNary.

tfIi2

17

p~~1~Q PGI naag-ON IAi6

a

aP ~'


Table 8 indicates the characteristics of the boat launchers sur-

veyed at McNary.

Table 8

Boat Launching Characteristics

Percent of Group Percent of

A~e Boat Launchers Size Boat Launchers

<18 4 1 0

L8 - 25 22 2 4

26 - 40 56 3 - 4 43

41 - 55 19 5 - 8 36

56 - 65 0 9 - 12 11

>65 0 >12 7

Travel Time to Percent of Visit Percent ofProject Area Boat Launchers Duration Boat Launchers

<15 minutes 36 1 - 4 hours 0

15 - 30 minutes 43 5 - 8 hours 86

30 - 60 minutes 14 1 day 0

1 - 2 hours 7 2 days 6



>5 hours 0 5 -7 days 6>7 days 7

No. of Other Percent ofActivities Boat Launchers

0 141 14

" 2 14

3 14

't 4 365 0

6 7

>6 0

"* 18

I° €.

User opinions

Launch time preferences - Table 9 indicates the launch times that

boat launchers at McNary and elsewhere prefer.

Table 9

Preferred Launch Time Responses*

Sample Sample Range MeanS__a ____l__e_ Size

McNary 25 0 - 15 min. 6 min.

Hood Park 23 0 - 15 min. 6 min.

McNary Dam 2 5 min. 5 min.

*In minutes; See Appendix A for definitions of terms.

1

I

19

Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience - Tables 10 and 11 indi-

cate the impact that different factors had on making the boat launching

experience pleasant or unpleasant for users at the two areas surveyed.

The "amount of facilities" and "convenience to the facilities" were the

factors which most often made the experience at McNary unpleasant. None

of the boat launchers indicated that they would not return.

2

S .4

20

Table 10

Reasons Making Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant--Boat Launching

McNary Damn

Percentage* of Users Responding:Reasons Not

tUnpleasant Important

General ReasonsCharacteristics and behavior of other people 100 - -

Distance from other people 100 - -

Number of people in other visitor groups 100 - -

Number and type of other activities occurring 100 - -here

Scenic views 100 - -

Noise 100

Accidents or near accidents 100 -

Enforcement of rules/regulations 100 -

Car parking facilities 100 -

The f t 100 -

Vandalism 100 -

Land-Based ReasonsAmount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 50 50 -

Convenience to facilities (restrooms, water, 50 50 -

etc.)

Steepness of slopes 100 - -

Maintenance of facilities 100 - -


Condition of grass or soil 100 - -

Water-Based Reasons

Water quality 100 - -

Formal designation of places for your activity 0 0 0

Waiting time to launch boat 100 - -

People in areas they shouldn't be 100 - -


21

"dl

,!C

Table 11

Reasons Making Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant--Boat LaunchingHood Park

Percentage* of Users Responding:Reasons Not

Pleasant Unpleasant Important

General Reasons

Characteristics and behavior of other people 96 4 -


Number of people in other visitor groups 65 - 35

Number and type of other activities occurring 85 4 12here

Scenic views 88 4 8

Noise 77 8 15

Accidents or near accidents 96 4 -

Enforcement of rules/regulations 100 -

Car parking facilities 81 19

Theft 100 -

Vandalism 100 --

Land-Based ReasonsAmount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 65 31 4

Convenience to facilities (restrooms, water, 73 27etc.) _

Steepness of slopes 96 4

Maintenance of facilities 100 -

Condition of trees and landscape 100

Condition of grass or soil 100 -

Water-Based Reasons

"* Water quality 92 8 -

Formal designation of places for your activity 27 -

Waiting time to launch boat 85 -

People in areas they shouldn't be 96 - -


22

II

Tables 12 and 13 indicate the changes in the physical condition and

people's use of Hood Park reported by boat launchers from their previous

visit. No changes were reported by the launchers surveyed at McNary Dam.

Table 12

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the Physical Conditionsof the Area - Items Mentioned by Boat Launchers


Hood Park "Overall nicer" (2) "Too much water fluctua-

"Filled" (1) tion" (1)

"Cleaned up beach" (1)


Table 13

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the People's Useof the Area - Items Mentioned by Boat Launchers


Hood Park (None mentioned) "More boaters" (1)

NOTE: The number in parenthesis (#) indicates the number of times the

change was mentioned.

23

' " . . .................. i

1.7


of different techniques for sciving problems to the boat launchers

surveyed at McNary.

The acceptability of most techniques is very clear: at least bO


for 13 of the 18 techniques. But even for those techniques which most


unacc,'-ptable. Thus, project management should expect some opposition


24.f

24

L/

Table 14

User Acceptability of Techniques--Boat LaunchingMcNary Dam


Techniques Very Mildly... .......__ ________ _______ Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

General Planning TnuesKeep major recreation areas more separated 46 14 39Make vehicle access to areas less 4 11 86

convenient


Site Planning TechniquesRedesign area to accommodate fewer users

Design for greater distance between people 7 4 21



Procedures:Require prior reservations - 18 82

Reqiire permits 7 18 75






Reduce number of activities In same area 50 18 32

Limit number of people in visitor groups 4 68

Kee l) unnecessary vehicles out 86 4 11

AServices:

Provide more and better information 81 19 -

Increase maintenance and restoration 68 25 4

Reduce facilities and servi ces - 100

*Percentraes miv not total 100% because of those responding "Does Not Apply."

I5

CAMPING

Orientation

The study camping areas include: the Hood Park and Madame Dorian

Park campgrounds. Hood Park campground, once overcrowded and overused,

is niow a well balanced, successful fee camping area. The campground was

regraded and redesigned with paved pads, and made more attractive by

underground utilities and landscaping. The irrigation system has

allowed the establishment of attractive lawn areas adjacent to the

asphalt camp pads in spite of the arid climate.

Madame Dorian Park has approximately 25 less developed campsites

(undesignated). It is a free area located directly adjacent to a major

highway. The park is sometimes overcrowded and some overuse can be seen.


on the User Survey. This survey obtained 35 responses from campers at

McNarY (9 at Madame Dorian and 26 at Hood Park).

* J

II

PPMEDING PAG9 BLA(-Q Fnoa

27

.1,

.. i - ' .i.

alI


Table 15 indicates the characteristics of the campers surveyed

at McNary.

Table 15

Camper Characteristics

Percent of Group Percent ofCampers Size Campers

<18 0 1 0

18- 25 6 2 46

26 - 40 36 3- 4 26

41 - 55 33 5- 8 2356 - 65 25 9 - 12 0

>65 0 >12 6

Travel Time to Percent of Visit Percent of-Project Area Campers Duration Campers

<13 minutes 6 1 - 4 hours 315 - 30 minutes 14 5 - 8 hours 0

30 - 60 minutes 19 1 day 11

I - 2 hours 25 2 days 28


3- 5 hours 8 4 days ii

>5 hours 22 5 - 7 days 17

>7 days 25

No. of Other Percent of Percent of

Activities Campers Equipment Campers

0 25 Tent 81 25 Tent Camper 3

28 Truck-mounted Camper 148 Travel Trailer 61

4 3 Motor Home 14

S863

* -6 0

*Slgni ficantly higher than total survey sample.

**Signjflcantly lower than total survey sample.

28

I--

User opinions

Spacing preferences - Tables 16 and 17 indicate the spacing (as

measured onpenter of each site) that campers surveyed at McNary and

elsewhere prefer.

Table 16

Preferred Distance Responses* - Camping

SapeSample _ 'Sample _Sampe _ R. ingv j MeJ Jan [Mode

_______ ______Size I

All Campers Surveyed (11 projects) 511 10 - a 79 60 75

McNary 27 10 - a 41 75 75

Hood Park 20 10 - a 42 75 75

Madame Dorian 7 25 - a 39 1.0 50

in feet; See Appendix A for definitions of terms.a - response of "alone" or "out of sight.'

Table 17

Preferred Distance Responses in Planning Range andPtef- reince Croupings*

- in Planning - inA- % in B -in c % in D

a _pe _ R~an 20'- 120) {2O'-3')_ _4'-59I) (60'-79') (80'-120')

All Campers Surveyed 90. 207 28% 31% 21%

McNary 85 1 (iO 57 0

Hood Park I pq 81 0

Madame Dorian 1 1 7 0 0

See Appendix A fu r def init ions of tnrms; See Technical Report for full develop-

4 iment of spacing preference information.

2Percentage of all preferred distance responses.Percentage of all preferred distance responses within the Planning Range.

Spuciny in the rin-e of group I) (80'-120' feet) is greatly dis-

talvore,! hv [ite Iampers s-reved at McNarv.

II

71

---

1_,. 1) o.I ,.:;{_is t/unp_ ,E;la t _oLxJ )"F elcL. - Tab I VS 18 and 19

ind at'> te ip.,' that di! lcrent -ac tors had on making the camping

.xpc r-i~'nc)I Ui,,lt esC L ,a1" f Llp le m t se, rs It the two areas surveyed.

'"Amnmilt of 1,i li ies" was the lactor which most ofton made the experi-

nt,tat lHood Park i-l lll asall. "L''aitlntenanco /convenienice of facilities"

wer. t UIlactLors which[ most oftt'en aCe tLhe experience at Madame Dorian

ttnp1lISI t. None ot the campers survoed indicated they would not

Tablc, - 20 arid 21 indicate the chanpos in Lire physiceal conditions

and J-Lup 10'. 511, of tie areas reported by campers from their previous

visit.

i .ii

II

* z*

Table 18

Reasons Making Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant--CampingHood Park

Percentage of Users Responding:

Reasons Pleasant Unpleasant Important

General Reasons

Characteristics and behavior of other people 92 4 4



Number and type of other activities occurring 81 19 -here ._ _

Fees charged 100 - -

Scenic views 100 -

Noise 96 - 4

Accidents or near accidents 92 4 -

Enforcement of rules/regulations 96 4 -

Car parking facilities 85 15 -

Theft 85 12 -

Vandalism 96 - -

Land-Based ReasonsVisual privacy from other people 88 12 -

Amount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 65 35 -

Convenience to facilities (restrooms, water, 92 8 -etc.) .,

Nearness to the water body 100 -

Steepness of slopes 96 4 -




Water-Based Reasons

Water quality 76 12 8


31

Table 19

Rtasons Makig Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant--Camping

Madame Dorian

Percentae of Users Responding:_ReasonsNotReasons Pleasant Unpleasant lmortant

General ReasonsCharacteristics and behavior of other peo le 89 11

Distance from other people 100 -


Number and type of other activities occurring 56 11 33here

Fees charged (Not Applicabic)

Scenic views 89 -

Noise 100


Enforcement of rules/regulations 100 - -

Car parking facilities 100

Theft 100 -

Vandalism 100 --

Land-Based ReaomsVisual privacy from other people 89 11 _

Amount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 78 22

Convenience to facilities (restrooms, water, 56 44etc.) 56_ _4

Nearness to the water body 67 33

Steepness of slopes 78 22

Maintenance of facilities 44 56

Condition of trees and landscape 100 -

Conditim of grass or soil 67 33

Wter- Based Reasons

W ater quaIl tv 67 1.1

*Percentages may not total 10W. because of those responding "Does Not Apply."

32

'Io

,,I- - c.

Table 20

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the Physical Conditionsof the Area - Items Mentioned by Campers

Area Positive Changes Negative ChangesBU

Hood Park "Bigger" (1) "Poor boating facilities" (1)

"More maintenance" (1) "More workers--more non-"Pretty now" )recreationists taking up

sites" (2)"More grills" "Should trim trees on en-

"Campsites" (3) trance way" (1)

"Better electricity" (2) "Flies from swamp are bad"(1)

"Bathrooms" (2) "Houses built up around

"A lot greener" (3) park" (1)

"Facilities" (1) "Dogs" (1)

"Landscaping" (1) "Gate locked at night" (1)

"Cleaning up the beach"(1) "Full hook-ups" (1"Grass is not as green aslast year" (1)

Madame Dorian "Fixed roads (wider)" (1) "Water fluctuations" (I)

"Mosquito control" (1) "Restrooms dirtier" (1)

"Bigger park" (1)

"Water/sewer" (1)

"Dump station" (1)


Table 21

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the People's Useof the Area - Items Mentioned by Campers


Hood Park "Well balanced - a lot of "Kids riding around" (1)pet though" (0) "Bathrooms" (1)

"Rangers patrol more" (1) "Dogs not leashed" (1)

'i I'"Skate boarders" (1)

Madame Dorian (None mentioned) "Not clean--litter" (1)


33

|i

-.. .,iim . . .. ... .. . .. . . . . . " ... . . . . .. . .' in i ,I

Acceptability of techniques - Table 22 indi ates the acceptability

of different techniques for solving problems to the campers surveyed at

McNary.



for 13 of tie 22 techniques. But even for those techniques which most




,i

I

34

-I

Table 22

User Acceptability of Techniques--CampingMcNary Dam

Levels of Acceptabilitya Percentage* of Users Responding:Techniques Very Mildly U

Acceptable Acceptable UnacceptableGeneral Planning TechniquesKeep.major recreation areas more separated 50 17 22

Make vehicle access to areas lessconvenient


Site Planning TechniquesRedesign area to accommodate fewer users 42 8 50



Change natural surface by hardening 71 29

Change natural surface by paving 31 25 44

Provide landscaped buffers 56 19 25

Management TechniquesProcedures:Require prior reservations 22 8 70







Reduce number of activities in same area 33 25 38

Limit number of people in visitor groups 25 14 61


I; Services:Provide more and better information 69 19 11




35

HIKING

Orientation

The recently built Wildlife Park Trail is an interpretive trail.

It is 3/4 mile long, 3-4 feet wide and meanders through a variety of

wildlife habitats. It has a gravel surface (somewhat noisy). Camera

blinds are located at several places along the trail. Only a few hikers

could be found using the trail during the User Survey.


on the User Survey. This survey obtained 3 responses from hikers at the

Wildlife Park Trail.

* 4

Pfi&)E1kG PAGE3 BLAM-~ Pni~wLD

37

6L.


Table 23 indicates the characteristics of the hikers surveyed at

) McNary.

Table 23

Hiker Characteristics

Percent of Group Percent of

Age Hikers Size Hikers

<18 100 1 0

18 - 25 0 2 33

26 - 40 0 3 - 4 33

41 - 55 0 5 - 8 33

56 - 65 0 9 -12 0

>65 0 >12 0

Travel Time to Percent of Visit Percent of

Project Area Hikers Duration Hikers

<15 minutes 33 1 - 4 hours 100

15 - 30 minutes 33 5 - 8 hours 0

30 - 60 minutes 0 1 day 0




>5 hours 33 5 - 7 days 0

>7 days 0

No. of Other Percent of

Activities Hikers

0 100

1 0

2 03 0

4 05 0

6 0

>6 0

38

I

User opinions

Spacing preferences -The preferred spacing responses of the three

hikers surveyed at McNary ranged from 150' to "out of sight" while the

iverage spacing was 225 feet.

Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience - Table 24 indicates

the impact that different factors had on making the hiking experience

pleasant or unpleasant for users at the Wildlife Park Trail. The "amount/

convenience of facilities" were the factors which most often made the

hiking experience at McNary unpleasant. None of the hikers indicated they

would not return to the area.

Table 25 indicates the changes in the physical condition of the area

reported by hikers from their previous visit. No changes in people's use

of the area were reported.

3,'1

39

Table 24

Reasons Making Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant-- hikingWildlife Park Trail

Percenta of Users Respondin2lIis i. . ..-. tN u

Reasons Pleasant Unpleasant Important

Ceneral ReasonsCharacteristics and behavior of othor people lo0 - -

Distance from othcr peepie 100 - -

Number ot people ill other visitor groups 100 - -

Number and typt of other activities occurring 0 0 0he re_____________

Fees charged

Scenic views 100 - -

Noise 100 - -


Enforcement of rules/regulations 100 - -

Car parking facilities 100 - -

The f t 10 - -

Vandalism 100 -

Land-Based Reasons

Visual privacy from other people 100 --

Amount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 67 -

Convenience to facilities (restrooms, water, 33 67 -

etc.)

Nearness to the water body 100 --

Steepness of slopes 100 --

Maintenance of facilities 100 --

,ondition of trees and landscape 100 --

Condition of grass or soil 100 -

Watur- Based Reasons

Water quality 100


40

!I

Table 25

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the Physical Conditionsof the Area - Items Mentioned by Hikers


Wildlife Park "Photo blinds" (1) "Starting to get over-Trail "More trail" (I) grown" ()


II.41

" - II iII II I II~.fl- I

A cc (:ib iliIv oi i iii wt,3 -. Tole 26 indicates tile acceptability

of .!iltervit ho.lvi~problunis to thle hikers surveyed at

fa, ctp' i'i I Mtno't te0iliiiquvs is very clear: dit least 60

C'. I I '-in une of the 3 levels of acceptabil ity

on 11) ot Lvi i I ot kv-n for those techiniq~ues which most

ru'~ u~cno t0 ~j LO , o33 pe ri ent. f uund them to be

u0I1 rt C[' I0.) j i 1 ~i, it 00iou1 cxpec t some1 oppos itio0n

CO ii tOJOI ~A

Table 26

User Acceptability of Techniques-- HikingMcNary Dam


Techniques Very Mildly Ua___Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

General Planning TechniquesKeep major recreation areas more separated 67 - 33

Make vehicle access to areas less 100convenient

Make area's existence less obvious 100

Site Planning TechniquesRedesign area to accommodate fewer users 67 33

Design for greater distance between people 67 - 33

Reduce number of parking spaces 100 -

Change natural surface by hardening -

Change natural surface by paving 100 -

Provide landscaped buffers 67 33


Procedures:

Require prior reservations - 100

Require permits -- 100

Charge/increase fees 33 - 67

Rules and Regulations:

Impose more rules 33 33 33

Provide stricter enforcement of rules 100 - -

Close areas when natural resource 100 - -

destruction reaches critical point


Reduce number of activities in samte area 67 - 33

Limit number of people in visitor groups 67 - 33

Keep unnecessary vehicles out 100 - -

Services:Provide more and better Information 67 33 _

Increase maintenance and restoration 100 - -

Reduce facilities and services 100 - -

*Percentages pv not ,)tal 100% because of those responding "Does Not Avp.y."43

IA

PICNICKING

Orientation

Picnicking at Hood Park is very popular. During the User Survey

the parking areas filled up and the area was full, but not overcrowded.

Perhaps more parking could be added, as well as more cooking grills.

The movable picnic tables seem to work well in reducing overcrowding and

overuse problems. The tables are moved to achieve preferred distances

and groupings, and by moving tables the amount of resource wear is evenly

distributed through the area.


on the User Survey. This survey obtained 39 responses from picnickers

at Hood Park.

145c.9 how


Table 27 indicates the characteristics of the picnickers surveyed

at Hood Park.

Table 27

Picnicker Characteristics

Percent of Group Percent ofAge Picnickers Size Picnickers

<18 5 1 318- 25 15 2 526- 40 69 3- 4 2641- 55 8 5- 8 3356- 65 3 9 - 12 10

>65 0 >12 23

Travel Time to Percent of Visit Percent ofProject Area Picnickers Duration Picnickers

* <15 minutes 31 1 - 4 hours 3115 - 30 minutes 36 5 - 8 hours 6730 - 60 minutes 15 i day 21 - 2 hours 13 2 days 02 - 3 hours 3 3 days 03 - 5 hours 0 4 days 0

>5 hours 0 5- 7 days 0>7 days 0

No. of Other Percent ofActivities Picnickers

4 0 3

1 8

2 59' 3 15

4 135 0

6 0

>6 2

46

'I

!I

- C.

User opinions


picnickers surveyed at Hood Park and elsewhere prefer.

Table 28


Sample Sample Range Mean Median ModeSampleSize

All Picnickers Surveyed 190 1 - a 62 50 50

McNary, Hood Park 28 30 - 2 73 55 100

*In feet; See Appendix A for definitions of terms.

a - response of "alone" or "out of sight."

Table 29

Preferred Distance Responses in Planning Range and

Preference Groupings*

% in Planning %inA2

% in B2

% in C1 % in D2Sample Rangel(20'-l00') 20'-39') (40'-59') (60'-79') (80'-100')

All Picnickers 93% 23% 42% 20% 15%surveyed

McNary, Hood Park 96 19 38 12 31

*See Appendix A for definitions of terms; See Technical Report for a full develop-

ment of spacing preference information.

2 Percentage of all preferred distance responses.* Percentage of all preferred distance responses in the Planning Range.

47

° ,

Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience - Table 30 indicates the

impact that different factors had on making the picnic experience pleasant

or unpleasant for users at Hood Park. "Car parking facilities," "scenic

views" and "noise" were the factors which most often made the experience at

Hood Park unpleasant. None of the picnickers surveyed indicated that they

would not return.

Tables 31 and 32 indicate the changes in the physical condition and

people's use of the area reported by picnickers from their previous visit.

48

Tabrle:~: 30 o

Reaon Making Recreation ExeinePesn rUnplfasant--PicnickingHood Park

Percentage* of User-s Responding:

Pleasant Unpleasant Nmortan

General ReasonsCharacteristics and behavior of other people 87 - 13



Numbe7r ndtype -of other activities Occurring 84 - 1here

Scenic views 82 13 5

Noise 77 13 10

Accidents or neair accidents 92 3 5

Enforcement of ru les/regulat ions 82 8 5

Car parking facilitics 86 14 -

The ft 87 3-

Vandal ism 82 5-

Land-Based Reasons

Visual privacy from other people 54 - 41

Amount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 87 8 3

Convenience to faclitie7 rsromwtr 82 12 3etc.)______________

Nearness to the water body 95 - 5

Steepness of slopes 85 - 10

Maintenance of facilities 92 5

Condition of trees and landscape 100 -

Cnndition of grass or soil 89 11

Water-Blas-ed Reasons*Water quality 87 10-

*Percentares may not total 100/ because of those responding "Does Not Apply."

49

*

Table 31

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the Physical Conditions Iof the Area - Items Mentioned by Picnickers


Hood Park "Nicer grass" (3) "Too much water" (1)

"Better facilities (rest- "A lot of flies" (1)

rooms)" (l) "Bigger and more crowded"(1)

"More shade trees" (i) "Moved dock closer to

"Well kept park" (1) land" (1)

"Cleaner" (5) "No beer drinking" (1)

"Moved swimming away "Drier grass" (1)from skiers" (1)

"Showers in camping

area" (2)

"Electricity" (1)

"Like all the roads forskateboarding" (1)

1"Swimming beach nicer" (1)

"More barbeque pits" (1)

"Like swimming roped-off close and conven-

ient" (1)

"Larger swimming area" (1)

"Landing improved" (1)

"Less trouble" (1)

NOTE: The number in parenthesis (#) indicates the number of times the

change was mentioned.

i

?I

50

'II

Fi

'1-

Table 32

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the People's Useof the Area - Items Mentioned by Picnickers


Hood Park "Most are family "People and their dogs" (1)people' (l) "Migrants during crop

"All pretty friendly" (2) season" (1)

"Less rowdy" (1) "Littering" (1)


51

I .,I1 "


of different techniques for solving problems to the picnickers surveyed

at Hood Park.



for 12 of the 21 techniques. But even for those techniques which most




5

52

I

'lTable 31

Ust r Acceptabi 1i Lv of TeChniq uts--Pi cni ckingMcNary Dam

S.Le-- - of Accetabil t

Pcrcentage* of Users Responding:

Techniques Very Mildly Unacceptable

AUcceptabla eptaable

General Planning Techoni picsKeep rnjjmj2r recreation areas mores rted ........t54 15 26Make vehicle access to areas less 18 18 64

converti ent


Site Plann i nj TechniquesRedesign area to accommodate fewer users . 8 13 59


Reduce number ot pirking spaces 35 19 46

Change natural surface by paving 10 10 77

Provide landsc:aped buffers 44 23 31

Management Techni]us

Procedures:Require prior reservations 10 - 90





Close areas when natural resource 79 18 3

destruction reaches critical point


Reduce number of activities in seam area 33 21 46

Limit number of people in visitor groups 10 3 85


Services:Provide more and better information 90 5 3




53

Im

I!

SUNBATHING/SWIMMING

Orientation

The sunbathing/swimming areas at Hood Park and McNary Beach are

heavily used but well balanced. Float lines and diving platforms are

provided. Sunbathers use the grass areas. Portions of beach area at

Hood Park are eroded as a result of large traffic, water fluctuation,

and waves from boaters. At McNary Beach, the new parking areas, the

establishment of an attractive lawn area, and the shore improvements

appear to be very successful.


on the User Survey. This survey obtained 59 responses from sunbathers

and swimmers at McNary (38 at Hood Park and 21 at McNary Beach).

PR E~L'G P"i BANK-NOT FIIAED

55

i,

User ch aractcristics

lable 34 indicates the characteristics of the sunbathers and swim-

mers survevd at McNary.

Table 34

Sunbather/Swimmer Characteristics

Percent of Group Percent ofAL- Sunbathers/Swimmers Size Sunbathers/Swimmers

<18 14 1 1718- 25 32 2 22

26 - 40 46 3 - 4 25

41- 55 8 5- 8 29

56- 65 0 9- 12 3

>65 0 >12 3

Travel Time to Percent of Visit Percent of_Project Area Sunbathers/Swimmers Duration Sunbathers/Swimmers

<15 minutes 44 1 - 4 hours 4115 - 30 minutes 39 5 - 8 hours 51

30 - 60 minutes 10 1 day 5



3- 5 hours 0 4 days 0

>5 hours 0 5 -7 days 0

>7 days 0

No. of Other Percent ofActivities S unba thers/Swimmers

0 3

1 5

2 29

3 10

4 3

5 0

6 0

>6 0

56

'F

User opinions


sunbathers and swimmers surveyed at McNary and elsewhere pr.fer.

Table 35


Sample Sample Range Mean Median Mode________________________ Size I___I

All Sunbathers surveyed 161 3- a 30 20 15, 20

11cNary 17 15- a 35 28 -

Hood Park 10 15- a 38 40 40

McNary Beach 7 15-60 31 20 15, 20

All Swimmers surveyed 120 2-200 25 20 20

McNary 25 5-200 34 35 40

Hood Park 16 5- 50 34 35 40

McNary Beach 9 20-200 33 35 30, 40

*In feet; See Appendix A for definitions of terms.

a - response of "alone" or "out of sight."

Table 36

Preferred Distance Responses in Planning Range andPreference Groupings*

% in Planning % in A2

% in B2

% in CZ % in D2

Sample Rangel(5'-50') (5'-14') (15'-20') (21'-30') (31'-50')

All Sunbathers 88% 27% 39% 20% 14%

surveyed

McNary 82 0 43 14 43

Hood Park 80 0 25 0 75

McNary Beach 86 0 67 33 0

Samle % in Planning % in Az

% in B2

% in C2

% in D2

Sample ... Rangel(5'-50') (5'-14') (15'-24') (25'-34') (35'-50')

A-11 Swimmersswiveer 90% 25% 41% 19% 15%surveyed

McNary 92 4 17 26 52

H Hood Park 100 6 13 31 50

M-Narv Beach 78 0 29 14 57

*See Appendix A for definitions of terms; See Technical Report for a full

Idevelopment of spacing preference information.

2 Percentage of all preferred distance responses.

Percentage of all preferred distance responses in Planning Range.

57

1'

Greater spacing is preferred more frequently by sunbathers and

swimmers at McNary than by those in the total survey.

Reasons for pleasant/unpleasant experience - Tables 37 and 38

indicate the impact that different factors had on making the sunbathing

or swinmming experience pleasant or unpleasant for users at the two areas

surveyed. "Car parking facilities," "enforcement of rules and regula-

tions," and "steepness of the slopes" were the factors which most often

made the experience at McNary Beach unpleasant. One user indicated that

he would not return (see Table 39).

Tables 40 and 41 indicate the changes in the physical condition

and people's use of the areas reported by sunbathers and swimmers from

their previous visit.

58

• ..

Table 37

Reasons Making Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant--Sunbathing/SwimmingHood Park

Percentage of Users Responding:ReasonsNotReasons Pleasant Unpleasant Important

General ReasonsCharacteristics and behavior of other people 89 - 8

Distance from other people 94 8


Nunber and type of other activities occurring 84 - 16

here

Scenic views 81 14 5

Noise 81 11 8

Accidents or near accidents 78 - 3

Enforcement of rules/regulations 97 3

Car parking facilitivs 81 19 -

Theft 86 -

Vandalism 86 -

Land-Based Reasons

Amount of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 89 11 -

Convenience to facilities (restrooms, water, 88 14 -etc.)




Water-Based ReasonsWater quality 84 14 3

Formal designation of places for your activity 81 -

People in areas they shouldn't be 95


59

Now

'Fable 38

Reasons Making Recreation Experience Pleasant or Unpleasant--Sunbathiug/SwimmingMcNary Beach

Percentage* of Users Responding:Reasons Pleasant Unpleasant NotImportant

General ReasonsCharacteristics and behavior of other people 100 - -


Number of people in other visitor groups 60 40

Number and type of other activities occurring 70 30here

Scenic views 100 -

Noise 80 20 -

Accidents or near accidents 80 20

Enforcement of rules/regulations 70 30 -

Car parking facilities 90 - 10

Th f t 100 - -

Vanda I ism 100 -

land-Based ReasonsAmoutt of facilities (restrooms, water, etc.) 85 15 -

Convviience to facilities (restrooms, water, 100etc.)

Maintenance of facilities 10

Condition of trees and landscape 100

Condition of grass or soil 100

Water-Based ReasonsWater quality 90 10

Formal designation of places for your activity 37 - -

People in areas they shouldn't be 90 10 -


60

j7

Table 39

Number and Percent of Users That Indicated They Would NotReturn to the Activity Area and Their Reasons

Numberand percent of users Reasons for not wanting

Area surveyed who indicated to return

they would not return

McNary Beach 5% "Enforcement of rules andregulations" (drugs)

61

Table 40

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the Physical Conditionsof the Area - Items Mentioned by Sunbathers and Swimmers


Hood Park "Cleaned up" (5) "Don't like seaweed" (2)

"Trees, landscaping" (3) "Beer bottles broken on

"Nice swimming area" () bottom" (4)

"Less broken glass in "Bugs" (1)

the water" (1)

"Ropes in closer" (2)

"Better facilities" (1)

"Better camping" (1)

"Cleaner restrooms" (1)

McNary Beach "More sand" (4) "Beach too narrow, not

"More parking" (3) enough sand" (2)

"Should have a concession"Res t rooms clean" (2) stand" (1)

"Better maintenance" (I)

"Like the grass andtrees" (4)


62

II

ITable 41

Positive and Negative Changes Noticed in the People's Useof the Area - Items Mentioned by Sunbathers and Swimmers


Hood Park "Result of cleaner "More people" (2)

area" (1)

"Nice people" (1)

McNary Beach "Cleaned after dogs" (1) "Drugs, pot" (2)

"Horses" (2)

"Kids who vandalize rest-rooms" (1)


63

AcceptabiLit ! ot t!chniques - Table 42 indicates the acceptability

of dii terent Lt'ChniL(JUS for solving problems to the sunbathers and

swi unmers surveyed at McNary.



for II of the 18 techniques. But even for those techniques which most




64

I

FablIe 42

Levels o cetblt

Maaem e h 1 ueVeysill

RcealII prmits ____cj~ I____ ______ 2

Charge/inc.)rleasreq fee C6 S sprtd 71 67

Rukes andcl Regulati o: s es1286

Mpse moa'resee less__ 7biu 9 77

Cloese narea when aturoa resorer 79 16 56

Coseg aoreatwen dithe nbce tooe fuol" 30 20 26

Reduce number of pacivitipaes 2smeaea 8 14 32

Kaaeet unecehsaryueilsot5 42

Srvcers:

Providuje permit and betrinomton88

Ihr/ncrease anenes an1etrto 6 20 14

Rue a ______ __ t__ ions:

Reduce facmb es andt svies Insm-ra 5 14 39

'2cenimtge nmayr ot teotale in0 because gofutse repndn "Doe No7Apl.

Keel unecesaryvehcle out56 4 2

RMU)IG PAUE BLANK~-NOT nloD

PART 3: ANALYSIS OF SELECTEDP ROBLEMS/S I TUAT I ONS

67

!1. . . . . .

... . I I I/

PART 3: ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PROBLIEMS/SITIIONS

This final section identifies and examines selected problems and

situations at McNary. The section is not intended to

provide solutions to all project areaj problems. Nor is it a substitute

for project area master planning. "fhe solutions! techniques are intended

to be only suggestions for furthLnr consideration by project area person-

net, for they are most familiar with the intricacies associated with

these problems.

In many cases, the project area staff is already aware of these

problems or situations and is in the process of dealing with them. And

in some cases, the solutions/techniques listed in Table 43 may not be

practical or possible because of management, budget, or other constraints.

Table 43

Analysis of Selected Prohlems/Situations

Possible

Area/Subject Problem/Si toation Solutions/Techniques

Madame Dorian Potential for oVeru1Se--bcaUse o provide hardened (gravel orCamping area of the dry climate and lock paved) camp pads or "impact

of hardened pad., and ircu- sites."

latio contols.o eliminate opportunities forrandom traffic movement.

o provide better campsite de-lineation.

o conIsider the feasibility ofproviding irrigation to thearea.

Hood Park Boat Overcrowding and congestion o designate parking spaces more

Ramp at boat ramp. formally.

o Utilize circulation controlsto reduce congestion and expe-

dite flow to and from the ramp.

o provide a longer and wider

ramp in deeper wter.

o consider establishing a no-

woke area in the vicinit of

the ramp.

69

pimiaii.O FAGE BLAm_-,iO Fnki&D

Analsisof Sleced Poblms/Stuaion

Posil

I

PossibleAt, !/SLubj,-ct Prob te./itSi t nation SO I Utions/Technqiues

o provide a courtesy (handling)dock.

o on holiday weekends, provideranger to help direct traffic

and circulation.

o Figure -L illustrates a hypo-

thetical launching ramp todemonstrate ways in which Lhecarrying capacity at a rampmight be increased.

McNarv ileacih Som,. problms noticed between o prohibit boats in and aroundswimmters and boaters on water swimming area.surf ace. o establish no wake zone around

the swimming area.

lood Park Picnic Appears to be a shortage of o provide additional parking andArea park ing and a shortage of monitor use.

gril aIso provide additional grills.

Cumplaints about dogs not o provide stri~t enforcement ofon their leashes. legulat ias (this will be good

1iubli c relations because it will

be favored by many users and

disfavored by relatively fewsel-s) -

Swllmainml bach Shorefine erosion caused h%- o provide shoreline stabiliza-areas water flIuctuation and waves. tio where appropriate.

o replenish sand periodically.

Watersiurface Occaslonally there are some a provide more information to

conflicts between water sur- users regarding their role inface users (at Hood Park, helping to assume an enjoyable>cNary Reach, and other recreation experience.developed recreation areas).

MI-road Vehicle There are nIo designated ORV o continU to protect resourcesIi hV ') iiim uareas at McNar%; there have by I using fences and other

been some prolems with O)RV's barriers., distujrhing, resources. lt conider the possibility of

providing- a designated area(s)for ORV riding.

H1iking "i' i 1i dli , Part Tr, iI may o make more people aware ofbe H11d0rl115.ll (few ,,s were these trails.ohpt. rvcd ,lovin,, tile lUser

o provide more directional signsSurvev). to the trails.

(,O nsider providing additanaltrails whic-b link activity areas

70 toet h r.

/

A

t4~ P

II

N I

I 7 1

71 APPENDI CES

II

APPENDIX A: KEY TERMS

1. Activity area - The specific area where an individual primary

activity occurs (e.g., a campground, the lake, a hiking trail, a picnicarea, etc.).

2. Capacity, recreational carrying - The capability of a recrea-

tioual resource to provide opportunity for certain types of satisfactoryrecreation experiences over time without significant degradation of theresource. Inherent in this view of carrying capacity are resource (bio-

physical) and social (psycho-social) capacities.

3. Capacity, resource - The level of recreational use of a resourcebeyond which irreversible biological deterioration takes place or degra-

dation of the physical environment makes the resource no longer suitable

or attractive for that recreational use.

4. Capacity, social - The level of recreational use of a resource

or area beyond which the user's expectation of the experience is notrealized and he/she does not achieve a reasonable level of satisfaction.

5. Carrying capacity guidelines - The levels of use and the methods

used to obtain and achieve them which are recommended in this report.

6. Factors - The characteristics and phenomena which influence

carrying capacity.

7. Indicators - The phenomena which can be used to identify or

measure the legree of overcrowding or overuse, and which can be used in

conjunction with a monitoring system to help predict when problems of

overuse and overcrowding will occur if preventive measures are not taken.

8. Management/site survey - The initial survey conducted at the

study project areas where resource managers, rangers, and maintenance

personnel were interviewed and a reconnaissance was made of "overused,""overcrowded," "underused," and "well-balanced" recreation areas. (See

Appendix S)

9. Mean - The measure of central value defined as the sum of all

observations divided by the number of observations.

i). Median - The measure of central value defined as the point on

the scale of observations which is the middle observation (if there is

an odd number of cases) or which is the mean of the two central observa-

ti.ns (It there Is an even number of cases).

I Mode - The measure of central value defined as the observation

wirl, the lirgest frequency.

i'l mnttorIn& - The peyiodic assessment of the impact that use

i,,., ,4t n the boal capacity or resource capacity of an area.

1ve rr<wdIt% - A condition where the user does not achieve a

, 1i rurretional experience because of too many people, inade-

. HI t e eeLl't biteti. etc.

Al

A

. ....-fI I I! " I- I

14. Overuse - A condition where (during the course of a season/year) degradation of the physical environmient makes the resource no longersuitable or attractive for recreational use.

15. .. anning range - he range of spacing distances for an activ-ity which satisfies the spacing preferences of the majority of recreatorsparticipating in that activity, which at the same time accounts for otherconsiderations (e.g., cost, safety, equity, etc.).

1b. Preference distribution - The set of preference groupings forall activity which can be modified to develop the social carrying capacityof an area.

17. Preference groupings - The range of spacing distances for anactivity which satisfies the similar spacing preferences of a group ofrecreators participating in that activity.

18. Primary activity - The major recreation activity which broughtthe visitor to the recreation area.

19. Project area - The land and water area of the total Corps ofEngineers Project.

20. Project management - The project area staff, district personnel,and other people involved with project area management.

21. Recreation area - Corps-managed areas specifically identifiedfor recreational use within the total Project Boundary; usually named.

22. Recreation day - A standard unit of use consisting of a visitby one individual to a recreation development or area for recreation pur-poses during any reasonable portion or all of a 24-hour period.

23. Recreation environment - An activity area together with itsvarious recreation settings.

24. Recreation resource - The land and/or water areas, with asso-ciated facilities, which provide a base for outdoor recreation activities.

25. Recreation setting - The physical, development/control, activ-ity/use relationship components of an activity area; taken as a whole, thevarious settings comprise a particular "recreation environment" for eachactivity area.

26. Recreation unit - A campsite, picnic table, boat, off-roadvehicle, user group, or other unit which when spaced together with otherunits represents a use level or density.

27. Representative recreation setting - The most typical recrea-ton setting for a particular activity.

28. Secondary activities - Incidental activities; activities which

are supplemental to the primary activity.

29. Study activity area - An activity area at which the managepent/site survey and the user survey was conducted.

A2

/

t1

30. Study project area - One of the ii project areas at whichthe management/site survey and the user survey were conducted. These

project areas are: Barkley Lock and Dam, Benbrook Lake, Hartwell Lake,McNary Lock and Dam, Milford Lake, New Hogan Lake, Lake Ouachita, LakeShelbyville, Shenango River Lake, Somerville Lake, and Surry Mountain

Lake.

31. Title 36 - Part 327, Chapter III, of Title 36 of the Code ofFederal Regulations which provides rules and regulations governing the

public use of water resource development projects administered by the

Army Corps of Engineers.

32. Underuse - A condition where use levels are significantly

less than their potential service level.

33. User survey - The survey that provided user preference infor-

mation used in developing social capacity guidelines; information was

obtained from users at the study project areas by means of a questionnaire

(see Appendlix.B).

34. Well-balanced use - A condition which exhibits just the right

amount of use to satisfy users and protect the resource.

A3

... *'', ; *;,.*.. =

APPENDLX B: EXAMPLE SURVEY FORMS

This Appendix includes on the following pages examples of the

survey forhs that were used during the Management/Site Survey and the

User Survey.

BI

Bi

I *1

-4 0

u

[-4 '-

"0

421

cktom (a8

C.)to

w 4)

ul

m 4)

0-4

CO to ~ w

Q) 0x I.

2B

CL 0

U1'.4 '4

0. *0 i

u V)a

.4 10

2-~~ '0W3 ,

W4. A14 U '-to

4 0

0

06 l 0

utn

ca

0 D0

00 -4

0o ^T

U 9.0ox4 ~U

~ ... 40UlB3

C:

w

'a'a

0

Ga'a

Cfl

C''SC'

4'4-)

Gaa-.'a'aSn0

U

'a'S0W a..'a ~"

3a-.oUz- a..0 00

'a.4-a

-i ~.J

0

0

Va

'0 0.o4a 0 L.~ an

* GJ'a.-4 ~ ai~* ~ a..i~i~ 4-)

~C'~a ~ L.J W 0

'a.-' z0 j

B4

a -

I- --- -

- C..

m~ -.4 1.0

'.4

~ 41$1m 41

04

9: 041 m4

4060 0 .v .4o4 V ~ I,4~

0.11

" 0444'44.

04

041

o 41>44

00

u4"0.m

03 iI'

'-4 ~.B5

0m

-4

10 0

) V) u a

0, 41owl UI U

00 'A (

.,4 0. 04 0c

10 >0 =~ w w0U U4) 4.) 4) 4 )4 4) ~ 0 4) ) 110 Iuh -j 10 10 C: >015. 4 0

*~~~~~C .G 0 14) 1 10' 1 1000h-h~~: L4 -44 ,. ~ 41 hhz ))0

0

00

4

00

43)

0:0'4 a .1 t

0.4- :1- C,4, (

(4 0)o0I

> .10 4 u V4

w -4 VO-tn C) 0 0

w4 W w4 ,u (a 3

.0 00W~0 04 .4 *t i1

.40 0 0 A 0

(4~ ~~ ~~~~ 7 - - 3.. "4 u

0 a

>

44

C 401

v 004

a, 44, c:

31 0

0i 0 bo w

*1 0- r 0 40

a 0 a 41-m 0

,.di 0 -

'3 0 0

00

0

00

UC

w-4 00 0 100 $ " m 91

W'- 44 u

44 0

0-0 0 m )0 w

o4 o 'm 4.' 0 0r ,4-7. -4 c0 m

0 0 0.. it. 4

w0 u ' J- 0 ~ w

0 0 o44 0 44 a 0

IC'

0 0

0 4u 4

00

4)10

C u

.4 0.u

IV'

6* 0..

4 Li 4V*U0-

C4 .

o 14*M

0. 0. co 40

-3

-m u

u6 w

4* 9.446 CD

i6

-~ ~ 4-'

~Adi~i5NT/ >JRVEYCAMP!I NG

0SE ARLA ANALYSIS SHEET

(ft-r URDC staff use)

l'rojuCL Area Name Field Analyst(s)________

K~raion Area antd/or Use Atca__ ____________

Weather

L,,e#Date ___ ______________

u COMMENTS:

S ignage Btenmi iha511 E (camping -and us ear ntne

Ar'RE r namie) I At use aica entrance ____ -

Exposure fIBLet ween -ma-in -hi-ghway and-NES of use LL-ea ent rince

Site At use area e ntrance ___

sip to [Distance to area from main

Mai1n highway

I Rad o stefrom -main1

Pav ( (_) orUnpavr(~

AiS R, ad Coridit Io I j'9

E G -

Corid itL ions -Road wit tfiAn_0 Wd-.....Pe CU r Ua g~~

F stin~it-dWith_jYe net~nt to rmal roads

kof aIIoa It 5%

f farea 10l%+ __

EXister ceof__n jue land form_____ilensits of t res

1.0ifES /.deoe _s__

I 1mderte

-§E [ _~~ Jnse - ___

V tN \egetat iono _11 'it ie or none

/jo ni, rate_

--------------------- itl I, r --- UnneGle eolnugh vitira I arcinen-

On th 1,,Ic fc a t ul's. Are it Ahtin(fll,- e oi f iuw IId1 fV

Wate-r fn t ni

NATURAL 8"; dlkffI

Is ll~ I t Seve re I - -

UI A , 0 ~ t u Ltanin g fb - t -ruc - edModerately

G ~ b goodte

MildlyU tindeic I abli, obs t rc ted

:L DI'I ION g" i Dea U r -t f affmle t -KI~e a Io (n 4tF & i l E v I d c e I, f t itk i t1

NA IURAI. So-- 1 L, 7nTa jwttA id I _Is -- _*E111 RES Dra inage Wtctr ifo 11 1 sufd itl& wate r

F. ro s ifE ;~ e LI if If ok-t~~

ki Iwlok -U ,

Iaiity -irewo IIId e

Servi ce Irtffingtiiwater o

Ftifffi tot lets

Vauf It to IletLS(S - Site ) I'lL tif lts____

FRICS -Di st tI buLed IUoapnp45stationf _____ IShfel Ltr____

C (efit ra- First aid stdtfofn ____

I Ii 2ed) -

i lic I tiig ( R - toad, P --- Parking

W -WAlk wayj:- - Comtifort area

ReraimiArea, fr equipment

-~t N ff0l at x I f

- is t aI IIe Mivv si -_ - _--:~ H vief Ia I mIif

ANNsINv I I t -e

C.-P114-1

-~''Net, I I i I

t~'f' t -- In a Q _

011.- V."_ -. .-

K il giI _

tt

t WV141 r Ni t I4.4 a I A ta (4 -n

.111' It s ill 1 lIik 4 j

RELIAIOINSHIP~ OF CAMWING USE AREA TO OTHER USE AREAS

acce4sibility Visibility Reasons forLsttmated LO othe~r use area to other use area accessibility

54dile't Istaice and/or'44"d from ca-ilaiJg Mo d- IDiffi- Ob- Semi-ob- Unob- visibility.u1, A~tivitv 4(440 area Ia., rte uL structed structed structed situation

ANALYST'S I'I.R(EPFION OF ACTIVITY AREA'S CARRYING CAPACITY

[JI- the. 4 0esourc-e/piye I d fac tors _____ ____________________

YOU4 feel most affect cartyIng,a4icatY~ oil this site _____________________

SIIIdresource/physical rarryilog

capaci41ty of this site be: h- ilgher ____lower same

I i~i pos Ibile techItIfL'I Which Might be used to Increase and/or to limit capacityo s

ot hsst!

)I

CORPS OF LNGINLERS USR LAPAC1TY SURVEY

D a t e lM:, l ' [ , i a n , , 5 . , . .

Ti me (tniur) . .i, 1 ir.5 _ ' 1 =. . . .

Wiat hP 1 rcc .t Are.. Name

[it o V tl' ,W het, ieat ion Atea Name,,

A. t Act i It v A -,, _U

ie ir,, cOl t ug rn i tl. i-liV ,i 1-[ t , ligi i-ts at selected Corps recreation areas

thr ughout t -i lu . 11 t1 ug'l , ttV s- 1 -W's . I I iscover ice. vis Lors feel about ov r-

Crowdi.l): niud stl' O of Fili', t rre-i in aicrc. VI: corps will use tiib inior.;atlon to help

rske dc) is ,' ut' ttt i u and 1rot.- 1, otf )t i ' reatioi areas. Woo] yin hi- wiyl iing bt

: 1 1 ' I-I I - , - I ii.11 to ,i::.. r I -i,.- I' ns -a ,l your vi- It ht-ret,

u+'. IC V . l ? I J! U Al,\: I I l I :I4. how long did it take

3. ia this your main you to travel here

11 wii.h aitt.-. 2. ji, ' I,.rgv I, destination or a fro& Your hrime Q_ (2) or

is vor I 1a -J '7ii? ,tupr.ver on a trip? last destination (2)?

I .utrdir [] 1 ] ,Main destination [] Under 15 mni:,ltes F]I, .' ] F]15-30 mmnutres 0]

-- - -+ 3- 4 F] Stopover on trip [] i(i tAn. - 1 hour [], s- 1i [7 I - 2 hours 1]

- 9-12 C-] 2 - 3 hours F]

ti l -vcer 0- 13+ El I- hours F]5+ hars F]

ViS[.' t'I~Pi'I' At o (N ,. How Many times have

You particillated in 7. How long areyo( this activity at your aI a. , |g

part i, ipat.r ilI tis !his I ake. on this visit?

La tI aV Ul-',. jut yI.dr2 c s Y

-t "-'" rt, ,st.ii, 7T_ a) Last_j_, ar? b Sotar La'tAhtIs 1_tl[ 1 - 4 hours F]F] t)]iiF 5 - 8 hours F

D L] 1- 2 7] 1- F] I day(overnight)F]

,- I, Fj 1- 4 4 1- 4 F 2 day, ]ii - :, F ,. ] _5- F i dlis ]

S- [2 il--lb ] i9-1i F 4 davs ]I', F] i-' .... ti1-)9 [3 5- 7 days ]

20n F] t1)4 0] 8 or more days

.4. 1,cj -,u partitip.ttid ir this activity a thi specific location aiivrsti betore this visit'

i.( [ J 'to.P i st il. 'lui 1 i-s -cil ) l. rioti , -' 1) tlit- poysiral cundii ion ot

'U;,, , "1. ;i , I" it i11 1 i, -l -it 5L, ii Lit Art-a.01

I a ,, I -aI .l t ion P em le'ause ,f tite area:

'I i' i o - - - -v,.F ] .[ it i ye -.. . . .

S' , ,t ,.- [-- ~Nl, It i vv

. ii, ,l .- -t, ,unh T ,t w', i l w it, f, N partl 1pa ling in tl J i'tfI itv irt:

iti

//

I[

... . ..4 V . . . . ..'J . . .. 1 . . -

* .4.......... ... ' . .tI. .i., .. .. . ........ .... ........ . o

• . . - • ........................................... .......

~~.. . . ..... I"....................... .. . i

o.4 ; ... .. . . ........ ... ... .. F -- . . -

.. . . . .... . .. .... [

, . . , . .! ............ .......... ..... . .. F F-]. . .'--. . - . .

C-

........................ ............................. .. . . _

.. . .. ' .I ...... 4.4. . . .. . . . . . . . . 1 ". . . I . . .. 4-

. . .. . ]-- t .. . . ti4

.. ..i* .. i. .... r . . . j

. . . .. . . . . . .4 . . . . l .. [-

44, ,4 4. .' , . . . .44 .. ~ 4 4 . . . . .

I' ' i

12. It recreartion atv-.s hlave tLo MAny peopl e for va It to, vrjoy the a.- tivi ty or If at eaable cs datudge. - :Y too( much us150, tli,,ro are sine solut i.'s for rvdii, trig that _lvrcrowdingor ,.vei .se. Pt ease Indicate which of the fol lowing posit. t sol ut tons you would findveU_ acc Ltabje. rtildly_ acceptablo,, or unaerat for reducing crowding and/or natral

rest it: d-s t root I in in th is lccat Ion . (If this 1,;cation Is nor ovrcrowde-d or overubed.

Very Mildly Un- Ne

Accept- A c :e p t- accept - No tP0SSIBJtil- SOLIT YIONS P01< oVEKR0WiDI Ni; ok OVFRIJSF able able ab 1 t AjI v

Pt'Bl it 4WAi?!5F*./tASF OF ACCESS iiOLU UN3

mak. , "t,: Ic ess to ireais lust, ronvvetlnt .. ........... . .. LII . . ..4j 1a' !,, .. r.-.. ! xst 1n.. 011 eIss obvi ous to thle general pkth-I ic

oI..vr atn:..td dircctions) .........I iraidei It I i,, tt,, infornma l Oilo loLw LO u-;e the area .*. 0.......I

t. tI c I.-i at lo t at tIv I c tevs tinire. se 1 a ra red Ifrolt otne

Red RIt, to ilrdlicr I .iit rIt act iviti,,% ocurrtig Itt the

!itmc. ro--------- ------------------------- - _0 n [.- -L]5. 1 .It i hr I- -,tI.L.r ili Sttee I I CtW- c pooplc)J I C.............El.......0- - I ]

lii rt I tiotier 01 tevp I e in eal g1 rot;: 0 E -~-- ED D('111, ii otg L :,t i I SorIt CS b. by ia rdco Iie, t 11'1t to WitLhstIand ukre

9. 1 tt, o,,,. a ltttttti -vnc tjd r-s t o rstt ini to aI ,Iow mt re use E] -- ~0 ]

P1,PNN. Nt; N is- SOliXi';N

io. k-!-~. te to1

miibero of Iot I itl-i andt servi, es piovided i. 0- -0 ..

IlI. Kec. ciiecsnr VMLCIVtS out Of at ea:, ..---. 0--'I------0 Fl12. ketto, iittib, r~ t rkli,; spacs to I imlt number of users . ...... [I. 4

I. iesl~ie 11111lc f ht..-r bt..-tl vie ior grooups to IncreaseI

14. ReCde ign arcoaroz,4 .'-vvn-I, fewe-r U.serIS.............- fj -0 . . -.

t). lqv, e1 l-t a ct,-mt regi tiat~ii it ..-- . 0-- . LI- - -1 ___ - -0-1 K Rt q I r1 , o -st-riv a Ioi,; t o itse a re as . . . .......... Li- f -- -F

1M Pitcrt p.-rntlts to use, treas El~-- ------- - 0--- ~ -r---0

1I . (It-stc owtn -treas wlhen rtrural resotit- e destruct itn reaches

2t1. ierpeccvr in. re.se t. c;t now charged --.- --- CI0- ]-Ct liise x 't W'Oi: 31- I- get "too tll I.................- . .. ............. I.)

:VL1 _j-

1 1i 17)c fit K ~

A ,L VIL t h tt .t h Ir .1-, ,, 1 t II- i2'I'

- -. - [ - L. ... . . .. .. I . .. ...... . .......

.] . . .. . . . . . . .. - . ... .* .. . . . . E ] . . . . . ]L i -. 7 . .

-L D --- --- Li

.. .. . .. . .. L

I,. I..I.............................. ... ........ ............. ] ...

:. .... ..i , ,,,. . 3J. . . . ] . . . . .. .. . . ........... J ....

..... L:J ......... ..- --- H

i1 i 1" 0_ad

- ,- - . . . . . . . . .

I. I k. . -

iit - ad2' :.'. :. l'u'i .. vi i',.q -- Veliih t' R"id l_ u

.r.. F, ... ' a! 'raIl biMO. ti

I, .. I,, A vi, i,,bin) £9 M utor'ytl l,,

''iW b.i Din,. buggy1i 01..,,1 1,, 2_1 4-whet'I vi.V [d i

(2.)',f h i, ' 0 £7

.. 1

- c

)7

RLPLACLMENT QUESTIONS TO ASK DURINU bOAT LAUNCHING INTERVIEWS! (l~l It,' ,Lx. illd1 , ou , ,I l ita :, dlive t 1'+ M 1 t Ilk' i1.cl M tV, v Ill~terv i,.-w Shec*t)

;t .t I-il ., ' [ I t tic t ilc it to I mi vo Io yur hoAt d.t tht bS.I q f l I",

.... ... .. . otJ-bI • [T jub right L

(Apprt,, x itcly how long do It t.k. o Iaunh your boa t at this tamp?

Ac t t.iI t eot Imatud t ll t o Lo 1, t'Lvcorded by iitcr vI ewer

b) ibiw b,.; would you preter" It to take;

iatu a little twice as thret tiMeS mare than three

taStut LI rst DI faster 0 t imes faster LI

) halt could be doie t(I exIed ite boat Iciunchlfg at thil ramp; i

/I

-77

AP1PENDIX C: PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

McNary

l.0ota IL i on1

M'cN -~y lock and Damn and Lake Wall Ilia (W a Ila Walla District)

ar-i 1 acated on the Columbia R~iver , 292 miles from the Pacific Ocean.

1het 1'ashingtoii cities of Richl and, Kennewick, and Pasco hol der the lake.

T'- di~ii is located 30 miles nort-hwest of Pendleton, Oregon, and 45 miles

-otthwost of Wa [la Wal la, Washington.

Alao hezat ion anld 01n rPase

the McNary Lock and Dan) Project was authorized ,under Lte River

ajnd llarbor Act of 1945 for the purposes of navigation improvement, hydro-

cle t r ic power generat ion, and irrigation.

Kn ej e a SI~ ilc i ca ~ ilJo , t 11 1oiii io

a C I'e . At the normal recreation pon1 elevation, lake Wallula cox-ors 35,922

isl -; It I 2t) co-(t IlUL' at it> t I at dul nueirLthe ds it, ,III, has,-

r st tie o i 1,1ii i I it it- at t he pi ojos t il ud the nlay1-

i I11Lk 111d pesei/ClIoiisl2, Ilit sjpil I v aiV1,11, ;t 1 .ii r oIi fish laiddersi,

'In -iiti h ind ri-R kil i -a ihIi sieit a

Iwo ()I I ies c liar VeiiS1 'iunt Mu~ii Ii i ty for thL pi re L.,ct

.rc (:rtseriul i l ode hydreutle~t 1Lii )i- ionIs 1' IrSnOMIC ,and1

SrrI cd an L)t onI a 11 con t I ai S.

!), thIl tWit--illird-s 1 the Il;Ind heldi 11 ig 1A ke Wit I 111 i S

11 rai r, I C I- il L- I; StLe 1)1 1S, i ItL 1 111 L e i loi I h IColo' I( (01 mbia J can11yn 1)1),1hklV e Lth1e

Ht NiclY Diil Site is geiacl ~lv flie two t,, Iive miles in widLil, and its

waJ~l a r s tramk I tow lohilred1o~ i co(t to ats lilch as 1-100 feet above Lte

r iVL-r led. Wit I he'i(. -\itpt ions (11 lti lupper sniake ind lower Yalkima

i ve, I ti I i ,I et ,I thle t ribiitar% ';tiearns arie ge-nerail I i Arrow.

Cl

* .v.l~ -i *. . ,**I d* co Ii P I~ 1 Oh ( i ji L Liiit L I i ii i oi

c~~~~~ t ,'.-t]iLL ,I

| :1

CII-

~~~~~. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. l'

-..... ...... .. '

I .. , t I * I,, i' Siu . I. ' I i I it I I k-tL t I t-dILL Li ': I

,i I/ 1 0 L U i I L I I

! .. 'i :; I I. l .. + . , [1) I1~ rd ,s,' i I iIW ,lc 1) v<l~ , hlt 'l il L , I I li

i t' i 1.,. ,1 I. .w Ii it], ! U p Ii .:tI~ ' i ,: l J t ~ t ~ ~ ) li t . i l l i I I-

't < v'L <it! \ .i <'i '< 11 t. ,i it :, ' i I t " ,l 'i , t)td' c h ul-i' l + I i+. I~ c t i ~ l i

,~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ I- i t, S ,t.l . ll : ++';, I+ , t !ti

seyc-v d -,1--10 1a,-co:: - i-b I i-t v

T1I.h o j CC t SI C C Ie t i 0 11 1 fc I jut i C L srVi- x iSt l. 0 r~ .- )iAl

'X t rol L2 in, r- cI it. inl northeaC~st 0rA 11 gOn and oiitliCJ~ Lst ril IWasilill't on.1

I h 1 nine 111 IV.~h ilIQ, COilIL on l; Of Ill L-gon Anld tue 15 lcirA t. St Cotlil icl. ill

Wvh ltonl clI illj i S Llt Are:~ trIolil whichl most of the visi tor-S orijltc

t 1113t i 1 A 1i i A1J1 WI I IA. Wal IA An d Ir I- Ci t it;: . 170A 0 t PJASC0 Kvntiv -

w i o. Iin'Ix I ch 11 n11 inl WIArl i iaj ton. U.i I I a Wa I a Z; popilaIo Ill 1 wais

A lp oxinliiltcI V .4 , 0 0 ,.111,1 thc -oopuI At. [01l % i th t I hI 1r1li' i-Cit its-- i a S

m.~ ~ Th I l Str l i tiS 11 t ,l :I'SC ti IOUW t It OI. 0. Cl'i ThwI I . Sporo (I i

~ ( ii Ohl.l\ 1) is hit hout I i I \v usel il I 011. t I o ur i I t I"A\'uI

tI toil !t 10 l 0.1t ild wes;t HOC 11 0 1 e t lk V!St L'r'1 nl We0St tn k? or 1- 1Sike1

Ilia is t.. a, c ss ib 1)1 Ic. I' to 11 1 gh C A l' I th1 e o i t I

, 1 I I li I I I. t IllXLI 111. 'lrc I r v I 1iT 1 1. 1

t i .LI Ill IIp lI .- p,1.

I1 1,5 , Ili I,~ h ... '. it , til lIt' 1\\i0 Ici Ii ci I he

itttil &,,iII- V '1 CIV 1 ) t 1.% 1 l

11 . i 1 ik I I011

t ! I I

In accordance with letter from DAEN-RDC, DAEN-ASI dated22 July 1977, Subject: Facsimile Catalog Cards for

Laboratory Technical Publications, a facsimile catalogcard in Library of Congress MARC format is reproduced

below.

Urban R.esoarch Pevolopmvcnt Corporati on.Recreation carrying capaci tV facts ald co1si deral ion

Report 0: McNary Lock and [am, Lake WallIila Project Area /by Urban Research and Development Corporation, Bethlehem. Pa.Vicksburg, liss. 11. S. u;!terwa -1 Px7)erin?1W t stat ion ;Springfield, Va :; available from National Technical l0'orNa-tionl Service, 1980.

iv, 73, 1251 p. : ill. ; cm. (i, cclII ni ori: 000cr -1. .Army Engineer Waterways LVperiniemnt Stzition --0- Report 6)

Prepared for Office, h icf of Fncinc-ers, I. . \rm, Wosh-ington, 1). C., unader Cointrict .No.AP.;\ -78-P-O)9u.

Proj ect map of McNary Lock and 0:au, lake Wallula, in po ketat end of report.

I. Carrying capac ity. 2. klc arv Proiect. . . ,on itoring.. Overcrowding. Recreation. 6,. Pecreation reqosrcc '

planning. 7. Recreational areas, S. Recreation;il focilities.9. Iltilization. I. Ilnited States. Arm. Corps of Ingineurs.II. Series: Jn i ted States. Waterways Ixper i mn St 1: ion,\icksburg, Mi N. Miscellaneous papcr R-S-I, Report 0.IA-. WS-lm lo.R-MO- 1 Report o

I!

III

McNary Lock and Dam - Lake

LESLIE R. GROVES PARK ic h 'a n HOWARD AMON PARK

LCHIAWANA PARK 35 PORT OF PASCORIVRHVE SACAJAWEA ST

YAKIMA RIVER DELTA,, Pasco

TWO RIVERS PARK

14 PHOVER PARK

WASHINGTON SHORE OREGON SHOREBOAT LAUNCHING RAMP BOAT LAUNCHING RAMPS

PLYMOUTH PARK McNRY D (orpSMcNARY D M(otr.,MPS)McNAY BEACI

,. Plymouth ..,73.0. g

U7 0c SAND STATION

UMATILLA MARINA PARK3McNARY WILDLIFE PARK HAT ROCK STATE PARK

HATR ROKATAERAR

McNARY PARK SPILLWAY PARK

F.AAO9 876 URBAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORP BETHLEHEM PA P/6 13/2

RECREATION CARRYING CAPACITY FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS. REPORT 6--ETC(U)

' BJUL 80O DAC3978C-0096UNCLASSIFIED WES-MP-R-80-1-6 NL

ke, Wallula, Oregon and Washington

OF PASCO 0 2 4

WEA STATE PARK miles 11111 Illl1111

LOUST GROVE, J ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM

HOOD PARK & BOAT BASINCORPS OF ENGINEERS Z g

RECREATiON AREAS

~~MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE HOOD PARKUL -

McNARY WILDLIFE RECREATION AREA LAE W AUL

BURBANK SLOUGH McNARY DAM (boat ramps) 0 0 0

McNARY WILDLIFE PARK--312 MADAME DORlON PARK --

Wallula MADAME DORION PARK 0 denotes activity offered in rec1hMoNARY WILDLIFE RECREATION AREA *denotes interviews conducted

NMCorps recreation area 01312dam

12othsr recreation area L.~ lake shorelinegovernment-owned land highway

PORT OF WALLA WALLA municipal boundary secondary road

-- _______h prepared by Urban Research and Development Corporation -Beth

PORT KELLEY

VTION

.,~- w

in.

ngt on

0 2 4 8 12

miles

ERS

0 • e 0 e _ 1

* 0 00 _

mpG) 0 0 . 0 1 0

ARK SRK L 0

tes activity offered in recreation areates interviews conducted in activity area

area Mes damarea (-.O lake shorelinei land highway

secondary road

and Development Corporation - Bethlehem, Pa.

I nllnnllnlnlnl mhhhhhhhihm mmmnmmmmmmEnmE … · 2014-09-27 · RECREATION CARIBYING CAPACITY...

Documents

Transcript of I nllnnllnlnlnl mhhhhhhhihm mmmnmmmmmmEnmE … · 2014-09-27 · RECREATION CARIBYING CAPACITY...