Visitor Use Monitoring of Pennsylvania’s State Forests: Year 4 Report … · S. B. Elliott)....

Visitor Use Monitoring of Pennsylvania’s State Forests: Year 4 Report – Elk and Moshannon State Forests

by

Alan Graefe

Andrew Mowen

Maxwell Olsen

Tom Mueller

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management The Pennsylvania State University

and

Donald English USDA Forest Service

Final Report Submitted to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

August, 2016

Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................3 Organization of this Report ..................................................................................................4 Recreation Use Estimates ....................................................................................................5 Survey Results ...................................................................................................................12 Trip Visitation Patterns ................................................................................................13 Demographic Characteristics .......................................................................................16 Activity Participation ...................................................................................................17 Satisfaction Addition .........................................................................................................19 Satisfaction Ratings .....................................................................................................19 Importance Ratings ......................................................................................................20 Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings ...............................................................................22 Overall Satisfaction ......................................................................................................22 Crowding Ratings ........................................................................................................23 Economics Addition...........................................................................................................24 Visitor Expenditures ....................................................................................................26 Experience Addition ..........................................................................................................29 Forest Access ...............................................................................................................29 Recreation Experience .................................................................................................30 Place Attachment .........................................................................................................31 Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest ......................................................33 Visitor Response to Potential Facilities and Services ..................................................34 Information Services ....................................................................................................35 Visitor Response to Questions about Marcellus-Shale Related Activity .....................36 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................40 Appendices .........................................................................................................................44 Appendix A – Visitor Responses to Open-ended Questions ........................................45 Appendix B – Zip Code Analysis of Moshannon and Elk State Forest Visitors ..........77 Appendix C – Survey Instrument .................................................................................85 Appendix D – List of Survey Sites ...............................................................................94

List of Tables

1 Description of the Sampling Sites .....................................................................6

2 Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites ............8

3 Recreation Use Estimates for the Moshannon and Elk State Forests .............11

4 Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests ....................................................14

5 Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors ....................................16

6 Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors ................................................18

7 Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests .....18

8 Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests .....21

9 Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes .............................22

10 Overall Satisfaction of State Forest Visitors ...................................................22

11 Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings ......................................................23

12 State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) .........................25

13 Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors .........................27

14 Amount Spent for Various Categories of Trip Expenditures ..........................28

15 Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests ................................................29

16 Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes .......................30

17 Most Important Reason for this Visit to the State Forest ................................31

18 Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items ....................................................32

19 Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests ..........33

20 Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services ......34

21 Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services ..........................35

22 Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity ......36

23 Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Use of the Forest .............................................................................................37

24 Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Use of the Forest .............................................................................................38

25 Responses to How Marcellus Shale-related Activity has Changed your Recreation Experience at the Forest ................................................................38

26 Responses to Why Marcellus Shale-related Activity has not Changed your Recreation Experience at the Forest ................................................................39

1 Recreation Use on the State Forests Introduction

Introduction

Resource managers in the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources have identified a need to better understand the recreational visitors who use the State

Forests and State Parks. This need includes understanding visitors’ use patterns, as well as their

expectations, spending patterns, desires and satisfaction levels. Relevant questions asked by

managers might include:

i) Who are our customers?

What are the primary customer segments and sub segments?

What is the profile of each segment and sub segment?

What are the patterns of use, trip characteristics, purpose of visit, and

demographic characteristics of our visitors?

What is our market niche?

What is the average number of vehicles entering/exiting State Forest/Park sites?

What is the average number of people per vehicle?

ii) What are our customers looking for?

What are their expectations and satisfaction levels?

What gaps exist between expectations and satisfaction levels?

What do they want in terms of information/interpretation, services, and amenities?

What kind of experience do they desire?

What are their preferences for facilities?

How well are we performing in key areas (service, facilities, law enforcement,

information/interpretation, resource protection, and visitor experience)?

What is an acceptable level of services/maintenance given existing and projected

budget constraints?

What are the barriers to participation?

iii) What is the economic impact of State Forest/Park visitors?

How are State Forest/Park visitors impacted by oil and gas drilling operations on

and surrounding State Forests and State Parks?


Purpose

The purpose of this study is to develop a long-term, systematic approach for answering

such questions about Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park visitors. The study will survey

visitors at selected State Forests and Parks over a five year period to measure recreational use

and gather data to provide a profile of recreational visitors. Sampling will be designed to

measure and describe recreation use on two State Forests and six State Parks per year over a

five-year study period. In total, 10 forests and 30 parks will be surveyed during the five-year

duration of the project. After the initial study period, additional surveying may be conducted.

This report provides results from the fourth year of the project. Specifically, surveys

were conducted in the Moshannon State Forest (District #9) and the Elk State Forest (District

#13) to measure recreation use and develop a profile of State Forest visitors and their use

patterns. Concurrently, surveys were conducted in six State Parks located adjacent to or near

these two State Forests (Bendigo, Elk, Clear Creek/Cook Forest, Black Moshannon, Parker Dam,

S. B. Elliott). Results from the State Park surveys are presented in a separate report.

This project builds on earlier surveys and will incrementally create a database that can be

used to better understand State Forest and State Park visitors and provide a longitudinal database

for tracking trends in State Forest and State Park use. For example, results can be used to

compare participation patterns and visitor characteristics for different individual forests and

parks. As the database grows, findings can be extrapolated to the entire state systems and will

ultimately represent all State Forests and State Parks within the Commonwealth by the end of the

five-year study.

Objectives 1. To conduct surveys of visitors to selected Pennsylvania State Forest and State Park areas and

develop a visitor profile, including information on the origin of visitors (e.g. local, non-local resident, out of state), trip context and purpose (e.g. day versus overnight visitor, primary purpose versus casual visitor), length of stay in the area, spending patterns, size and type of visiting groups, previous visitation history, activities pursued, and different patterns of visitation across seasons.

2. To measure overall recreation use and specific visitation patterns within the selected State

Forests and State Parks, including the number of visitors per vehicle and the distribution of use across different types of sites within the given State Forest/Park.

3. To develop a demographic profile of visitors at the designated State Forests/Parks.


4. To identify visitor expectations and levels of satisfaction with various aspects of their visit. 5. To examine visitor opinions about possible future management practices occurring in State

Forests/Parks and facility development decisions.

6. To examine visitor reactions to oil and gas activities and the impacts these activities have on recreational visitation patterns and visitor experiences.

7. To measure visitor expenditures and extrapolate these to determine their level of economic

impact on surrounding communities.

Methodology

Data were collected through the use of on-site interviews and use measurements at a

stratified random sample of the forests’ developed sites and dispersed areas open for recreation.

The overall survey methodology and sampling design is directly comparable to and consistent

with the procedures established for the U.S. Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring

(NVUM) program. Details for the sampling and analysis approach for that program can be

found in a report by English et al. (2001), available on the USDA Forest Service website for the

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program.1 A detailed sampling schedule, which identified the

site, day, and time of day for on-site interviewing, was established for each forest in consultation

with Bureau of Forestry personnel. Prior to the survey, meetings were held with the district

forester and key staff in each forest to identify the range of sampling locations for each forest.

The potential survey sites were visited by project personnel to confirm their suitability for the

study and identify an optimal protocol and design of the sampling station for each site. A sample

site inventory was created, with input from each forest’s staff, to categorize the use levels for all

designated sites and days of the year. From this matrix, a detailed random sampling calendar

was developed by Dr. Donald English, manager of the NVUM program for the USDA Forest

Service. The sampling schedule provided for a total of 200 sampling days per forest, allocated

over various sampling strata per forest, and distributed throughout the calendar year.

Sampling for the survey was designed to obtain a database that accurately describes

overall use of the forests, as well as use of selected types of sites and individual areas of

particular interest within the State Forests. All on-site interviewing, data entry, and analysis

were conducted by trained project staff. Concurrent with the visitor survey, area use patterns

1 English, D. B. K., Kocis, S. M., Zarnoch, S. J., & Arnold,. J. R. 2001. Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring Process: Research Method Documentation. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum


were measured through traffic and trail counters and observations of vehicles using the area.

Both the visitor count data and visitor survey data will later be used to validate and calibrate

visitor use monitoring methods for future application in the State Forests.

On-site face-to-face interviews were used to obtain data from a sample of recreationists

visiting the Moshannon and Elk State Forests. The on-site survey took approximately 5-15

minutes to complete, depending on which survey version was used in the interview.

Approximately one-third of the visitors were interviewed with the basic version/experience

addition, another third received the basic/satisfaction addition and the remaining third completed

the basic/economics addition.

All of the sampling for this study followed a detailed sampling schedule and took place

between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm, during a morning shift or an afternoon shift. The morning

sampling period ran from 8:00 am to 2:00 pm, while the afternoon sampling period ran from

2:00 pm to 8:00 pm.

Organization of this Report

This report summarizes the results of visitor surveys conducted on the State Forests

during the period October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. The results are organized by

topic area, with different sections corresponding to different versions of the survey. Each section

follows a consistent format, with the results reported separately for each forest. Appendices to

the report include responses to open-ended questions in the survey and a copy of the survey

instrument used.

Recreation Use on the State Forests Recreation Use Estimates

5

Recreation Use Estimates

Following the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) protocols, recreation use of the

State Forests was estimated through a process of obtaining mechanical traffic counts, calibrated

by observation and on-site interviewing, at the sample of recreation sites and days scheduled

throughout the study year. Mechanical traffic counts were obtained for a 24-hour period on the

targeted sample days. Interviewers were on site for a 6-hour period. During that time, they both

visually calibrated the mechanical counter by observing and counting exiting traffic, and

interviewed a random sample of exiting visitors. State Forest sampling sites included all

potential places that recreation users could exit the forests, and were classified by types and use

levels (Table 1). Most of the sampling days were conducted at general forest area (GFA) sites.

Such sites provide access to the forest without concentrating use at the site itself, and include

trailheads, river put-in and take-out points, forest roads, etc. Other sampling categories include

day use developed sites (DUDS) such as picnic areas, scenic overlooks and the like, overnight

use developed sites (OUDS) including camping areas, cabins, resorts, etc., and “special areas.”

The latter category includes designated “natural” and “wild” areas of the state forests, and is

analogous to the designated Wilderness areas within the national forests. See Appendix D for a

listing of sampling sites included in these forests in each of these categories.

In addition to these categories, field personnel spent several days in each Forest at “View

Corridor” sites. The view corridor sites were located on higher volume paved roads in each

Forest (Routes 504, 322, 153, 555, Beaver Road, Cassanova Road, and Quehanna Highway in

the Moshannon and Routes 555, 872, 120, 46, 155, and Quehanna Highway in the Elk). The

intent of sampling at those sites was to estimate the volume of scenic driving through the

respective State Forests, above and beyond that occurring on the forest roads already included in

the sampling of GFA sites. Since traffic on these state routes includes all types of vehicles (work

and commuting vehicles, etc.) and cannot all be considered scenic driving in the State Forest, the

total traffic counts were adjusted to estimate the number of vehicles that could be considered

participating in sightseeing or scenic driving to any degree. As for the other types of sites,

mechanical traffic counts were obtained after 6 hours and 24 hours. Simultaneously, traffic was

observed and counted in hourly intervals and categorized as regular vehicles and commercial

vehicles during the 6-hour field visit. The visual counts were used to validate the 6-hour

mechanical traffic counts. No interviews were conducted at these sites due to safety concerns

related to the higher speed and volume of traffic. The proportion of scenic driving was estimated


6

using data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring study conducted in the Allegheny National

Forest, and validated with the activity participation data collected in the current State Forest

study.

Since most recreation use of the State Forests is dispersed rather than focused at

developed day use or overnight use areas, GFA sites accounted for the greatest number of

sampling days across both forests. Sampling of State Forest sites was also stratified by level of

recreational use, including three use levels as estimated by Bureau of Forestry personnel (Table 1

and Appendix D). More specifically, the sampling strata were defined by best available

estimates of the daily volume of exiting recreation traffic at each site, and classified as Low,

Medium, and High. These estimated recreation use levels were based on relative criteria for

each type of site and based on the collective knowledge and experience of Bureau of Forestry

personnel.

Table 1. Description of the Sampling Sites.

Moshannon Elk Percent of

Sampling Days Percent of Interviews

Percent of Sampling Days

Percent of Interviews

Site Type General Forest Area (GFA) 57.8 69.3 49.7 27.3 Day Use Developed Site (DUDS) 14.9 19.7 18.4 64.7 Overnight Use Developed Site (OUDS) 11.4 4.9 19.6 6.5 Special Area 10.4 6.1 7.8 1.5 View Corridor 5.5 0 4.5 0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Use Level Stratum High 18.4 26.9 18.7 52.0 Medium 32.1 34.3 26.3 30.7 Low 49.5 38.8 55.0 17.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Stratification was designed to reduce the overall variance of the visitation estimate, and to

ensure an adequate representation of varying levels of recreation throughout the study year.

More sampling days were allocated to lower use general forest areas, but in the Elk State Forest

particularly, more interviews were completed at the more popular developed sites and during

higher use periods due to the greater number of visitors contacted. Survey results were weighted

to the population of days in each stratum to correctly represent the use distribution across the

various types of sites within the State Forests.


7

Pneumatic traffic counters were used to measure vehicular use at suitable locations such

as forest roads and parking lots. Field personnel recorded counts at the end of each 6-hour

sampling period and again after 24 hours had elapsed. Comparing the mechanical and

observational counts at the end of the 6-hour period provides a calibration that can be used with

the 24-hour mechanical counts to obtain an estimate of total daily exiting traffic. Survey

screening questions were used to determine the proportion of exiting traffic that was completing

a recreation visit, as well as the proportion of recreational visitors compared to other users of

forest sites. Non-recreational forest users included those who were working or commuting to

work, just passing through, or there for some other reason. Additional survey questions were

used to convert vehicle counts to visitor estimates, based on the number of people per vehicle.

The 6-hour mechanical traffic counts ranged from 0 to 206, with a mean of 15.9 vehicles

counted on the Moshannon and 15.5 vehicles on the Elk (Table 2). A significant number (9-

14%) of these counts were zero, reflecting no traffic during the 6-hour sampling period. The 24-

hour counts ranged from 0 to 579, with a mean of 45.2 on the Moshannon and 44.0 on the Elk.

The hand tally counts for the 6-hour sampling periods averaged 6.4 and 6.2 on the Moshannon

and Elk State Forests, respectively. These counts were naturally lower than (about half of) the

corresponding 6-hour mechanical counts because the observational counts included only one-

way (exiting) traffic while the mechanical counters recorded traffic moving in both directions.

The 6-hour counts obtained via the hand tally clickers and mechanical traffic counters showed a

very high degree of correlation (.87 on the Moshannon and .83 on the Elk), lending additional

validity to the estimates of visitor use levels.

Results from the traffic counts and completed surveys were used to estimate total

recreational use of the State Forests. Data were extrapolated from the sampled site-day

combinations to all site-days within each stratum and totaled for the entire forest. The results

include two measures of recreational use per forest: 1) the total number of individual site visits,

and 2) the total number of recreational forest visits. Since many visits to the State Forests tend to

include visits to more than one different site during each visit, the total site visits are

considerably higher than the number of forest visits.


8

Table 2. Summary of Mechanical and Observational Counts at Sampling Sites

Moshannon Elk Pneumatic Traffic Counter 6-hour Traffic Counts (Percent) 0 9.2 14.0 1 - 2 7.8 16.6 3 - 5 13.7 13.2 6 - 9 16.4 21.5 10 - 30 38.5 24.0 31 or more 14.4 10.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 15.9 15.5 24-hour Traffic Counts (Percent) 0 3.6 2.5 1 - 5 1.4 15.5 6 - 10 8.7 14.8 11 - 25 30.2 22.9 26 - 40 19.4 18.1 41 - 60 16.6 10.6 61 or more 20.1 15.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 45.2 44.0 6-hour Hand Clicker Counts (Percent) 0 14.7 16.2 1 – 2 20.3 28.9 3 – 5 26.0 29.5 6 – 10 20.9 13.4 11 or more 18.1 12.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 6.4 6.2

A State Forest recreation visit is defined as “one person entering and exiting a State

Forest for the purpose of recreation” (English et al., 2001). A single visitor may participate in

any number of activities and visit any number of sites within a single visit. Also, a single visit

can last multiple days or might be one person or group visiting a single site on a day trip for any

amount of time. Site and forest recreation visits were estimated using the following process and

data shown in Table 3. First, 24-hour traffic counts were used to measure the number of vehicles

leaving the forest on any given day (Table 3, column 1). The vehicle counts within each stratum

were multiplied by the percentage of exiting traffic whose purpose for visiting the forest was for

recreation (column 2). To avoid double counting visitors who may be traveling to and from a

site within the day, the next step was to multiply the number of vehicles on recreation trips by


9

the percentage of visitors reporting they were leaving the site for the last time that day (column

3). To convert the units from vehicles to people, the next step was to multiply by the average

number of people per vehicle for each site-use stratum (column 4), resulting in an estimate of

total daily recreation visits for each site-use category (column 5).

To convert daily recreation use measures to total forest use for the entire calendar year,

the average daily use estimates were extrapolated to the population of site days (or total number

of days at all sites for each site type and use level) in the year, shown in column 6. The results of

this calculation represent the total yearly recreation site visits for all sites in each site type-level

category (column 7). Finally, one additional variable was used to estimate the number of State

Forest visits for each stratum: the number of sites visited within the forest during the current

visit. Visitors reported visiting an average of 1.7 sites in the Elk and 1.6 sites in the Moshannon

during their current visit. The number of site recreation visits was adjusted by the number of

sites visited by each respondent, resulting in the estimated number of Forest visits (column 8).

The Elk State Forest received an estimated 166,750 recreational visits during the study

year (October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015). These forest visits included a total of 289,398

individual site visits, or about 1.7 site visits for each State Forest visit. The Moshannon State

Forest received an estimated 240,257 recreational visits and 393,404 individual forest site visits

during the same period (about 1.6 site visits per forest visit).

These recreation use estimates are typical of recreation use levels in other State Forests as

shown in previous study reports. However, there is an important caveat to the interpretation of

the numbers reported above for the Elk State Forest in particular. This caveat results from the

popularity of wildlife/elk viewing and the existence of the Elk Country Visitor Center within the

Elk State Forest near Benezette, Pennsylvania. This center is a major tourist attraction operated

as a partnership between the Pennsylvania DCNR and the Elk Country Visitor Alliance. The

numbers of visitors to this facility are measured using a permanent traffic counter and included

in statistics maintained by the DCNR Bureau of State Parks. Since this site is managed by

another entity and has its own visitor use measurement, it was not included in the calculation of

total recreation use on the Elk State Forest in this report. Thus, the use numbers reported above

and shown in Table 3 for the Elk State Forest underestimate the total recreational use of the

forest. These estimates represent use of all State Forest sites other than the Elk Country Visitor

Center.


10

For this study year (October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015), the Elk Country Visitor

Center recorded a total of 344,596 visitors. This volume of use exceeds the numbers recorded

for all of the other forest sites combined, and should be considered another estimate of recreation

use of the State Forest. It would not be appropriate to simply add the Visitor Center numbers

and our site use estimates to calculate a total use measure for the Elk State Forest, as there is

some overlap between these user groups. Many respondents in our survey reported visiting

multiple elk viewing sites during their visit to the Forest and thus would be included in our use

estimates and the Visitor Center counts as well. But it is appropriate to recognize the relatively

large number of people using the Elk Country Visitor Center versus the more typical numbers

visiting the other sites within the State Forest.

In addition to these recreation visits to the State Forests, the number of scenic driving

visits was also estimated via the sampling procedure described above for the “View Corridor”

locations. From the observational counts conducted, the number of vehicles per day ranged from

201 to1,472 total vehicles in the Elk (average = 534 vehicles) and from 125 to 1,472 in the

Moshannon (average = 435 vehicles), and the proportion of non-commercial traffic averaged

89% for the different highways in these Forests. From these traffic counts and data from the

visitor surveys on activity participation and number of people per vehicle, the total number of

“viewing” or “sightseeing” visits was estimated to be 2,939,777 visits for the Elk State Forest

and 2,287,974 visits for the Moshannon State Forest. These viewing use estimates are much

larger than those for other State Forests studied previously for two reasons: first, the popularity

of elk viewing in these Forests contributes to the high volume of sightseeing use; and second,

these two Forests included a larger number of scenic routes than many of the other State Forests

(6 in the Elk State Forest and 7 in the Moshannon State Forest). These annual visitation

estimates might be considered another form of more passive or secondary use of the State

Forests, above and beyond the primary recreation use measured in the visitor surveys conducted

at the various sites throughout the Forests. While we have no data on how much sightseeing or

other recreation activities these people may be doing, they are traveling through the Forests and

may be partaking of their scenic or other values.


11

Table 3. Recreation Use Estimates for the Moshannon and Elk State Forests

Elk State Forest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Type and Use Strata

1-way Traffic Count

% Recreation

Visits

% Leaving for Last

Time

People per

Vehicle

Recreation Visits per

day

Site days in

year

Total Site

Visits

Total Forest Visits

GFA–High 23.82 0.705 0.782 2.24 29.41 36 1059 591 GFA-Medium 19.18 0.789 0.596 2.38 21.47 1386 29,752 16,904 GFA–Low 12.34 0.533 0.816 2.35 12.61 14912 188,001 111,243 DUDS–High 230.67 0.828 0.604 3.08 355.30 27 9,593* 4,100 DUDS-Medium 75.34 0.650 0.846 2.82 116.82 73 8,528* 3,467 DUDS–Low 16.50 0.313 1.000 3.20 16.53 265 4,379* 2,190 OUDS-High 12.80 0.745 0.286 2.54 6.93 198 1,372 635 OUDS-Medium 12.80 0.745 0.286 2.54 6.93 98 679 314 OUDS-Low 4.72 0.733 0.636 2.09 4.59 463 2,127 1,013 Special-High NA Special-Medium NA Special–Low 11.22 0.571 0.857 3.13 17.19 2555 43,908 26,292 Forest Total 289,398* 166,750

Moshannon State Forest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site Type and Use Strata

1-way Traffic Count

% Recreation

Visits

% Leaving for Last

Time

People per

Vehicle

Recreation Visits per

day

Site days in

year

Total Site

Visits

Total Forest Visits

GFA–High 32.41 0.625 0.620 2.16 27.12 297 8,056 4,853 GFA-Medium 32.41 0.625 0.620 2.16 27.12 1594 43,234 26,045 GFA–Low 19.52 0.514 0.664 2.08 13.85 18724 259,395 168,438 DUDS–High 27.91 0.495 0.918 2.45 31.07 230 7,147 3,722 DUDS-Medium 27.91 0.495 0.918 2.45 31.07 320 9,943 5,179 DUDS–Low 26.61 0.439 0.957 2.93 32.76 1640 53,720 25,827 OUDS-High 10.16 0.545 0.400 2.08 4.60 78 359 211 OUDS-Medium 10.16 0.545 0.400 2.08 4.60 20 92 54 OUDS-Low 3.22 0.500 0.400 2.00 1.29 1362 1,752 876 Special–High NA Special-Medium 14.50 0.444 1.000 2.5 16.10 365 5,875 3,456 Special–Low 12.50 0.28 1.000 3 10.50 365 3,833 1,597 Forest Total 393,404 240,257

* Total site visits for the Elk State Forest do not include visits to the Elk Country Visitor Center. Visitation of this facility is monitored separately through a permanent traffic counter. Use of the Elk Country Visitor Center for the study year (October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015) was estimated by the Bureau of State Parks to be 344, 596 visitors.

Recreation Use on the State Forests Trip Visitation Patterns

12

Survey Results Overall, a total of 1,370 State Forest visitors were surveyed. Among these, 78% were

willing to participate in the interview. Of the unwilling visitors, 32 were people who had already

completed the survey and were screened out. Thus the overall response rate, reflecting the

proportion of selected visitors who were willing to complete the survey, was 79%.

One of the initial screening questions in the survey asked the visitors, “What is the

primary purpose of your visit to this site?” Responses included: recreation, working or

commuting to work, just stopping to use the bathroom, just passing through/going somewhere

else, and some other reason. Among these forest visitors, the majority (62%) stated they were

visiting the forest for recreation. Only those respondents who were visiting the forest for

recreation were included in the estimates of recreation use and descriptions of visitors in this

report. Most of the remaining individuals in the sample were working or commuting to work

(19%), just passing through (11%), stopping to use the bathroom (5%), or there for some other

reason (3%). “Other” reasons mentioned by respondents included travel to residences or private

cabins, firewood collecting, letting the dog out, and just turning around.


13

Trip Visitation Patterns on the State Forests

Most of the visitors contacted (91% in the Moshannon and 77% in the Elk) were repeat

visitors to the State Forest.

Among those who were repeat visitors, many in both Forests had made their first visit to the Forest prior to 1980 (44% in the Moshannon and 32% in the Elk). About 20% in both Forests made their first visit during the 1980s or 1990s. The remaining were relatively new visitors, with 13% in the Moshannon and 21% in the Elk reporting their first visit between 2000 and 2015.

Moshannon State Forest visitors reported visiting the forest more often than Elk State Forest visitors.

About half of the Moshannon visitors (52%) versus one-fourth (27%) of the Elk visitors indicated that they typically make between 0 and 5 visits to the State Forest per year.

The average number of reported trips to the forest per year was about 19 for the Elk and 32 for the Moshannon.

About one-fifth (19% of the Moshannon visitors and 16% of the Elk visitors) contacted indicated that they typically make between 0 and 5 visits to other forest areas each year (these could include other State Forests or any other public or private forests the respondent visited), and the average number of trips to other forests per year was about 24 and 26, respectively for the Moshannon and Elk State Forests.

The majority of visitors sampled in both forests were day users.

However, Moshannon visitors were much more likely (48%) than Elk visitors (36%) to be on overnight trips to the state forest.

Of those respondents who were overnight visitors, the average length of stay was slightly longer in the Moshannon (3.5nights versus 2.7 nights in the Elk).

Nearly two-thirds of the visitors in the Moshannon (66%) indicated that they used no day use facilities during their visit, while three-fourths in the Elk (70%) used one or more day use facilities on this trip. The greater use of day use facilities in the Elk State Forest reflects the presence of the large visitor center and other elk viewing areas in that Forest.

About two-thirds (62-71%) of the respondents in both Forests had just one or two people in their vehicle on this trip. The average number of persons per vehicle was 2.3 in the Moshannon and 2.8 in the Elk State Forest.

About one-fourth (22-25%) of the respondents in both Forests reported that they had at least one child under the age of 16 with them.

The most common group type in both Forests was family groups (42% in the Moshannon and 58% in the Elk), with smaller proportions coming in groups of friends and groups containing family and friends.

Less than one-fifth (14-17%) of the visitors in both Forests came to the Forest alone.


14

Table 4. Trip Visitation Patterns in the State Forests

Valid Percent* Moshannon Elk Previous Visitation History First Time Visitor 8.8 23.5 Repeat Visitor 91.2 76.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Year of First Visit Prior to 1980 43.5 31.7 1980-1989 4.7 12.5 1990-1999 15.3 10.6 2000-2009 23.6 24.0 2010-2015 12.9 21.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Visits to This State Forest in Typical Year 0-5 26.7 51.5 6-10 20.0 10.9 11-20 10.0 11.9 21-50 27.7 20.7 More than 50 15.6 5.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 32.2 18.5 Number of Visits to Other Forests in Typical Year 0-5 18.6 16.1 6-10 27.1 20.7 11-20 25.7 25.3 21-50 20.0 31.0 More than 50 8.6 6.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 23.9 25.8 Length of Stay Overnight Visitor 36.4 48.3 Day User 63.6 51.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of Nights Spent (Overnight Visitors) 1 16.5 21.6 2 37.4 41.0 3-5 33.9 30.2 6 or more 12.2 7.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 3.5 2.7 Number of Day Use Facilities Used During This Trip 0 66.4 30.1 1 21.5 37.5 2 or more 12.1 32.4 Total 100.0 100.0


15

Valid Percent* Moshannon Elk

Number of People in Vehicle 1-2 70.8 61.9 3-4 24.5 27.8 5 or more 4.7 11.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 2.3 2.8 Number of People Less than 16 Years Old in Vehicle 0 77.7 75.5 1 12.4 11.1 2 8.2 7.8 3 or more 1.7 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Type of Group Alone 16.7 14.0 Family 42.2 58.1 Friends 22.5 14.7 family and friends 18.6 13.2 Other 0 0 Total 100.1 100.0 *Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.

16 Recreation Use on the State Forests Demographic Characteristics

Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors The majority (65-77%) of the respondents in both State Forests were males.

About one-fourth of the visitors surveyed in the State Forests (26-29%) were between the ages of 36-50, while another one-third (36-38%) were between 51 and 64.

The average age of visitors was about 50 in the Moshannon and 52 in the Elk State Forest.

Almost all of the State Forest visitors surveyed reported their race/ethnicity as White/Caucasian.

Other ethnicities reported by visitors included Asian, African-American, and American Indian/Alaskan Native.

Elk State Forest visitors were more likely to include a person with a disability in their household (14%) than Moshannon State Forest visitors (5%).

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of State Forest Visitors Valid Percent* Moshannon Elk Gender Male 77.1 65.0 Female 22.9 35.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Age 18 to 35 19.2 16.2 36 to 50 29.4 26.2 51 to 64 35.6 37.9 65 or older 15.8 19.7 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean 49.5 51.7 Ethnicity Caucasian 99.0 98.7 Other 1.0 1.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Income Under $25,000 6.2 4.0 $25,000-$49,999 27.8 24.1 $50,000-$74,999 26.3 28.7 $75,000-$99,999 23.8 26.0 $100,000-$149,999 13.9 13.4 $150,000 or over 2.0 3.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Does anyone in your household have a disability? Yes 4.9 14.0 No 95.1 86.0 Total 100.0 100.0 *Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.

17 Recreation Use on the State Forests Activity Participation

Activity Participation

The basic survey administered to all visitors included a detailed list of recreational

activities. Respondents were asked to identify each activity that they had participated in (or

planned to participate in) during their visit, as well as their primary activity on this trip (Table 6).

The first column for each forest (activity participation) shows the range in numbers of visitors

participating in the various activities, while the primary activity column reflects what the visitors

considered their most important purpose for visiting the forest on this trip.

The majority of all State Forest visits included various viewing and sightseeing activities, and many people reported such activities as their primary recreation activity on the State Forests.

Nearly half of Elk State Forest visitors (43%) reported viewing natural features as their primary activity, compared to 12% on the Moshannon State Forest.

About one-third (31%) of the Moshannon State Forest visitors sampled reported consumptive activities (fishing and hunting) as their primary activity at the Forest, compared to just 14% of Elk State Forest visitors.

Hunting was more common as a primary activity (21%) than fishing (9%) on the Moshannon State Forest and was the most common primary activity among all activities on the Moshannon State Forest.

Hunting (12%) was also more common than fishing (2%) as a primary activity on the Elk State Forest.

Nearly half of the sampled visitors in both Forests (42% in the Moshannon and 48% in the Elk) did some hiking or walking during their visit.

About one-tenth of the sampled visitors in both Forests reporting hiking or walking as their primary activity during their visit.

Relatively few of the Forest visitors surveyed reported any type of camping as their primary activity.

Aside from driving for pleasure on roads, few of the respondents in either Forest reported motorized pursuits as their primary activity.

Snowmobiling was a popular motorized activity on the Moshannon State Forest, with 6% reporting it as their primary activity during their visit.

18 Recreation Use on the State Forests Activity Participation

Table 6. Activity Participation of State Forest Visitors (during this recreation visit)

Moshannon Elk

Consumptive Activities Activity

Participation*Primary Activity+

Activity Participation*

Primary Activity+

Fishing—all types 18.9 9.1 12.2 2.4 Hunting—all types 26.7 21.4 17.6 11.8

Viewing, Learning about Nature & Culture Viewing natural features such as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. 54.4 11.7 83.3 42.5 Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas 7.8 0 11.7 0 Nature study 9.8 0.3 16.5 0.4 Visiting a nature center, nature trail, or visitor center 12.7 0.8 39.8 1.3

Nonmotorized Activities Hiking or walking 42.2 8.9 48.3 10.0 Horseback riding 0.5 0.3 2.4 1.7 Bicycling, including mountain bikes 5.4 2.6 4.4 0.4 Nonmotorized water travel (canoeing, sailing, kayaking, rafting, etc.) 3.1 0.8 1.5 0.2 Downhill skiing or snowboarding 0 0 0 0 Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0.8 0.5 0 0 Other nonmotorized activities (e.g. swimming, games & sports) 3.4 2.3 0.7 0.2

Motorized Activities Driving for pleasure on roads 42.2 9.9 52.8 7.2 Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas (non-snow) 3.1 1.8 3.0 1.3 Snowmobile travel 6.5 5.7 0.2 0 Motorized water travel (boats, etc.) 0.5 0 0 0 Other motorized activities (enduroevents, games, etc.) 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.2

Camping or Other Overnight Activities Camping in developed sites (family or group sites) 5.4 2.6 7.8 2.2 Primitive camping (motorized) 3.6 0.8 5.9 1.7 Backpacking or camping in unroaded areas 1.3 0.8 2.4 0.9 Resorts, cabins, or other accommodations on State managed lands

13.7 2.3 9.6 0.4

Other Activities Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products 9.3 0.8 8.3 0.2

Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. 0.71 13.8 47.8 12.4 Picnicking and family gatherings in developed sites (family or group sites) 8.8 0.8 10.7 0.2

Other 4.4 1.8 5.4 2.2 *Percentages do not equal 100% because respondents could report more than one activity. +Percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding.

19 Recreation Use on the State Forests Satisfaction Addition

Satisfaction Addition

This section of the survey asked forest users about the importance they attached to, and

their satisfaction with, thirteen customer service attributes in the State Forest they visited.

Respondents were provided with the opportunity to choose “not applicable” for any attributes

that they did not experience during their visit. Additional satisfaction-related questions were also

sked in the basic survey that was administered to all visitors and in the experience addition.

Responses to those questions are also included in this section.

Satisfaction Ratings

The State Forests were generally rated highly on each of the thirteen satisfaction attributes, with the most common responses in the “very good” or “good” categories.

State Forest visitors were most satisfied with the scenery and attractiveness of the forest landscape (>90% good/very good).

The items that received the most not applicable (N/A) responses included helpfulness of employees and cleanliness of restrooms (over 30% N/A). Generally these responses reflect the fact that the visitors did not encounter staff during their visits, and that restrooms are usually only present in developed areas in State Forests.

Table 7. Satisfaction Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)

Moshannon State Forest Poor Fair Average Good Very Good

Not Applicable

Meana

Scenery 0 0.9 5.2 27.0 67.0 0 4.6

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 1.8 0 3.5 28.1 66.7 1.4 4.6

Feeling of safety 0 0.9 6.1 26.3 66.7 0 4.6

Helpfulness of employees 0.9 1.7 2.6 13.0 31.3 50.4 4.5

Condition of the natural environment 0.9 0.9 8.7 30.4 58.3 0.9 4.5

Availability of parking 1.7 2.6 11.3 29.6 52.2 2.6 4.3

Condition of developed recreation facilities 0 2.6 11.4 25.4 31.6 28.9 4.2

Parking lot condition 1.8 6.1 13.2 28.9 42.1 7.9 4.1

Condition of Forest trails 0 3.5 12.3 33.3 27.2 23.7 4.1

Adequacy of signage 2.6 6.1 20.9 31.3 35.7 3.5 4.0

Cleanliness of restrooms 4.3 0.9 3.5 11.3 15.7 64.3 3.9

Availability of information on recreation 4.3 6.1 16.5 29.6 35.7 7.8 3.9

Condition of Forest roads 3.5 7.8 16.5 40.0 31.3 0.9 3.9


Elk State Forest Poor Fair Average Good Very Good

Not Applicable

Meana

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 1..4 1.4 17.7 78.7 0.7 4.8

Scenery 0 1.4 1.4 21.4 75.7 0 4.7

Feeling of safety 0 0.7 5.7 21.4 72.1 0 4.7

Helpfulness of employees 1.4 0 2.1 12.9 53.6 30.0 4.7

Condition of the natural environment 1.4 2.1 2.1 24.8 69.5 0 4.6

Condition of developed recreation facilities 0 3.5 7.1 22.0 61.0 6.4 4.5

Parking lot condition 0.7 1.4 9.9 27.0 57.4 3.5 4.4

Condition of Forest trails 0.7 0.7 5.7 27.0 34.8 31.2 4.4

Availability of parking 0 4.3 12.8 29.8 51.1 2.1 4.3

Adequacy of signage 1.4 1.4 17.0 27.0 51.8 1.4 4.3

Condition of Forest roads 2.1 2.8 12.1 27.7 48.2 7.1 4.3

Availability of information on recreation 0.7 2.1 12.9 25.7 47.9 10.7 4.3

Cleanliness of restrooms 0.7 0 9.2 17.7 34.0 38.3 4.3

aResponse Code: 1 = "Poor" through 5 = "Very good”

Importance Ratings

Visitors were also asked how important they found each of the listed attributes or services.

Importance ratings for the customer service attributes generally followed the same pattern as

the satisfaction ratings across the attributes.

The condition of the natural environment (mean = 4.8 in both Forests), attractiveness of the forest landscape (mean = 4.8 – 4.9 in both Forests) and scenery (mean = 4.8 – 4.9 in both Forests) were the most important attributes to the State Forest visitors.

The least important items included parking lot condition and availability (mean = 3.8 – 4.2 in both Forests).


Table 8. Importance Ratings for Customer Service Attributes in the State Forests (Percent)

aResponse Code: 1 = Least Important through 5 = Most Important

Moshannon State Forest 1 2 3 4 5 Meana

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 0 2.7 13.3 84.1 4.8

Condition of the natural environment 0 0 3.5 13.9 82.6 4.8

Scenery 0 0.7 4.3 15.1 79.9 4.7

Feeling of safety 1.7 2.6 3.5 20.0 72.2 4.6

Condition of Forest trails 1.8 2.8 9.2 25.7 60.6 4.4

Condition of Forest roads 2.6 0 13.2 22.8 61.4 4.4

Adequacy of signage 2.7 0.9 12.5 26.8 57.1 4.4

Helpfulness of employees 5.2 6.3 8.3 18.8 61.5 4.3

Cleanliness of restrooms 4.3 3.2 12.8 27.7 52.1 4.2

Availability of information on recreation 5.5 3.6 17.3 19.1 54.5 4.1

Condition of developed recreation facilities 5.6 3.7 14.8 28.7 47.2 4.1

Availability of parking 8.0 4.4 15.0 35.4 37.2 3.9

Parking lot condition 8.2 7.3 16.4 36.4 31.8 3.8

Elk State Forest 1 2 3 4 5 Meana

Attractiveness of the forest landscape 0 2.2 0 7.9 89.9 4.9

Scenery 0 0.7 0 9.9 89.4 4.9

Condition of the natural environment 0.7 1.4 0.7 10.7 86.4 4.8

Helpfulness of employees 1.5 3.1 5.3 14.5 75.6 4.6

Feeling of safety 1.4 2.1 5.7 15.0 75.7 4.6

Condition of Forest trails 3.1 2.4 6.3 15.7 72.4 4.5

Condition of Forest roads 1.4 1.4 8.6 21.6 66.9 4.5

Cleanliness of restrooms 1.7 2.5 12.5 20.0 63.3 4.4

Availability of information on recreation 2.3 3.0 9.8 22.6 62.4 4.4

Adequacy of signage 2.1 2.9 9.3 21.4 64.3 4.4

Condition of developed recreation facilities 2.2 3.6 10.2 22.6 61.3 4.4

Availability of parking 2.2 5.1 16.8 24.8 51.1 4.2

Parking lot condition 4.4 7.3 17.5 23.4 47.4 4.0


Other Visitor Satisfaction Ratings

Respondents for the experience addition were asked some additional questions about how

they would rate the quality of various aspects of the State Forest.

Most respondents indicated very favorable ratings (mean of 4.2 or above) for all of the items rated.

Table 9. Visitor Satisfaction Ratings for Various Forest Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent N/A Meana


Natural environment 2.0 0 6.9 22.5 68.6 0 4.6

Safety and security 0 2.0 4.0 22.8 69.3 2.0 4.6

Responsiveness of staff 1.0 1.0 4.9 15.7 35.3 42.2 4.4

Sanitation and cleanliness 1.0 2.0 11.8 23.5 61.8 0 4.4

Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

1.0 2.9 15.7 14.7 39.2 26.5 4.2

Elk State Forest

Natural environment 0.7 0 1.5 14.7 83.1 0 4.8

Responsiveness of staff 0.7 0 2.9 12.5 43.4 40.4 4.6

Safety and security 0 0.7 7.4 21.3 69.1 1.5 4.6

Sanitation and cleanliness 2.2 0 5.9 22.1 68.4 1.5 4.6

Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

0 2.9 7.4 23.5 50.0 16.2 4.4

a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent)

Overall Satisfaction

Overall satisfaction scores tended to be high, with around three-fourths of the respondents in

both Forests reporting that they were “very satisfied” with their visit to the State Forest.

Table 10. Overall Satisfaction of State Forest Visitors Valid Percent Moshannon Elk Very Dissatisfied 1.1 1.1 Somewhat Dissatisfied 1.5 1.1 Neither Dissatisfied nor Satisfied 3.7 2.7 Somewhat Satisfied 22.7 18.9 Very Satisfied 70.9 76.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Meana 4.6 4.7 a Response code: 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied”


Crowding Ratings

Crowding scores tended to be relatively low, with nearly half of the respondents in the Moshannon and about one-third in the Elk choosing 1 or 2, reflecting that they encountered “hardly anyone” during their visit.

Very few respondents in either Forest indicated conditions near the “overcrowded” end of the scale.

Conditions appear to be slightly more crowded in the Elk State Forest. The average crowding score on the 10-point crowding scale was 3.8 among the Elk visitors and 3.1 among Moshannon State Forest visitors.

Table 11. Summary of Perceived Crowding Ratings (Valid Percent). Perception of Crowdinga 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Moshannon 32.3 14.2 13.4 13.4 16.5 3.9 3.1 1.6 0.8 0.8

Elk 23.3 9.3 18.0 11.3 18.7 6.7 6.7 2.7 1.3 2.0

a Response code: 1 = “hardly anyone” to 10 = “overcrowded”

24 Recreation Use on the State Forests Economics Addition

Economics Addition

About one-third of the survey respondents were asked about their monetary expenditures

during their trip to the State Forest. Additional questions in the “economics addition” focused on

the respondents’ trip itinerary (Table 12). These questions were asked to establish a context for

evaluation of the reported trip expenditures.

When asked what they would have done if, for some reason, they had been unable to go to the State Forest on this visit, the responses differed between the two forests.

o The most common response in the Moshannon (58%) was that they would have gone somewhere else to pursue the same activity.

o The most common response in the Elk (32%) was that they would have stayed home. This finding is consistent with other survey results suggesting that a significant group of Elk State Forest visitors are very committed to viewing the wildlife (especially elk) on the State Forest and would be less likely to visit the Forest for any other reason.

Likewise, visitors in the Elk State Forest were about twice as likely (17%) as those in the Moshannon (9%) to indicate they would have come back another time.

Few visitors in either Forest (11% in the Moshannon and 15% in the Elk) would have gone elsewhere for a different activity.

Overnight visitors were mostly on trips of 1-2 days (57 % of visitors in the Moshannon and 58% of visitors in the Elk).

Day visitors were most likely to be away from their home for 6 hours or more (44% in the Moshannon State Forest and 58% in the Elk State Forest.

The vast majority of visitors (78% in both Forests) were visiting only that State Forest on this particular trip.

Most of the visitors who reported multiple destinations for their trip (60% in the Moshannon and 74% in the Elk) indicated that the State Forest was their primary destination.

When queried about how many people their reported expenditures were covering, the most typical response for both Forests was two people (41% in the Moshannon and 48% in the elk).

Besides the detailed economic questions about various spending categories, visitors were asked to estimate how much money everyone in their vehicle spent on the entire trip, from the time they left home until they return home. The total amounts spent in both State Forests were different, averaging $122.33 in the Moshannon and $233.67 in the Elk.


Table 12. State Forest Recreation Trip Profile (for economics section) Valid Percent Moshannon Elk What Visitor Would have done if Unable to Visit SF Gone elsewhere for same activity 58.1 31.8 Gone elsewhere for different activity 11.0 14.5 Come back another time 9.0 17.3 Stayed home 16.8 32.9 Gone to work at your regular job 3.2 2.9 None of these 1.9 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Time Away from Home (Days) 1-2 57.4 57.7 3-5 31.7 28.9 6 or more 10.9 13.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Time Away from Home (Hours) 1-2 19.3 9.7 3-5 36.4 31.9 6 or more 44.3 58.3 Total 99.9 99.9 Single or Multiple Destination Trip Visited State Forest only 77.6 77.5 Visited other places 22.4 22.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Was State Forest Primary Destination for Trip Yes 60.0 74.4 No 40.0 25.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Number of People Covered by Expenses 1 22.1 11.9 2 41.4 47.8 3 17.9 10.1 4 or more 18.6 30.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Estimated Total Trip Expenses for Group $25 or less 42.9 23.1 $26-$50 9.7 11.6 $51-$100 19.2 13.3 $101-$200 10.3 20.8 More than $200 17.9 31.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Mean $122.33 $233.67


Visitor Expenditures

In the economics addition, visitors were asked how much they spent on this trip for ten

categories of expenditures within 50 miles of the site visited (Tables 13 and 14). The results

shown below provide the proportion of visitors reporting spending any money on their trip

within 50 miles of the forest, the percentage reporting expenditures in each category, and the

average amount spent in each category.

Over two-thirds of the respondents in both forests indicated that they did spend some money within 50 miles of the forest on their current trip. Elk State Forest visitors were more likely than Moshannon State Forest visitors to spend some money during their trip to the Forest (85% in the Elk versus 69% in the Moshannon)

Many respondents, however, indicated that they spent no money on many of the specific expenditure categories listed on the survey instrument.

Few visitors in either Forest reported any spending for local transportation, camping fees, outdoor recreation and outfitter-related expenses (including guide fees and equipment rentals).

Significant proportions (35-36%) of visitors in both forests reported some trip expenses for groceries.

Visitors in the Elk State Forest were much more likely (56%) than those in the Moshannon State Forest (35%) to report spending money in restaurants and bars.

The majority of the Moshannon State Forest visitors (61%) and Elk State Forest visitors (60%) reported buying gas or oil during their trip. This is not surprising since many visitors in both forests live within 100 miles of the State Forest visited and would not necessarily need to purchase gas during their trip.

o However, Moshannon visitors spent slightly less on gas and oil, as they generally travelled shorter distances to visit the State Forest than Elk State Forest visitors. The average distance from home to the Forest was 92 miles for Moshannon visitors and 115 miles for Elk visitors.


Table 13. Summary of Trip Spending Patterns of State Forest Visitors

Moshannon Elk

Proportion of visitors spending any money within 50 miles of this state forest

68.6% 85.0%

Economic Expenditure Items Proportion of Visitors Spending Something in Each Category (percent)

Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. 10.5 22.5

Camping Fees 2.1 1.7

Restaurants & Bars 35.1 56.1

Groceries 35.8 34.7

Gasoline and oil 60.5 59.5

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.)

0 0

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals)

0 1.2

Outdoor Recreation and Entertainment (park fees, movies, mini-golf, etc.)

0 2.9

Sporting Goods 4.9 5.2

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. 3.5 21.4

The first column for each Forest in Table 14 shows the average amount spent among only

those visitors reporting spending something in each category. These numbers cannot be totaled

because they are based on a different number of individuals making the various types of

purchases. The second column for each Forest in Table 14 shows the average amount spent

among all visitors in the survey. These averages include those spending nothing in various

categories, and therefore can be totaled to indicate the average total amount spent for all

categories.

For example, money was spent on motels, lodges, or cabins by about 11% of the visitors in the Moshannon State Forest, and the average amount spent was $138.33. More visitors in the Elk State Forest reported expenses for motels, lodges, or cabins (23%), and they spent on average nearly twice as much, or $253.03. for their lodging accommodations.


Table 14. Amount Spent by State Forest Visitors for Various Categories of Trip Expenditures

Economic Expenditure Items

Moshannon Elk

Average Amount Spent - Among

Visitors Spending Something in

Each Category

Average Amount Spent – All

Visitors

Average Amount Spent - Among

Visitors Spending Something in

Each Category

Average Amount Spent – All

Visitors

Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. $138.33 $14.51 $253.03 $57.04

Camping Fees $31.67 $0.66 $70.00 $1.21

Restaurants & Bars $63.75 $22.40 $85.64 $48.02

Groceries $82.40 $29.51 $78.75 $27.31

Gasoline and oil $50.12 $30.36 $55.62 $33.12

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.)

0 0 0 0

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals)

0 $60.00 $0.69


0 $57.20 $1.65

Sporting Goods $72.86 $3.57 $212.78 $11.07

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. $26.00 $0.91 $60.41 $12.92

Total NA $101.92 NA $193.03

In general, the categories showing the highest expenditures included gasoline and oil, groceries, and restaurants and bars.

In total, the visitors in the Moshannon State Forest reported spending about half as much on average ($101.92) for all the expenditure categories included in the survey as those in the Elk State Forest ($193.03). Both of these averages are slightly lower than the overall trip spending reported at the bottom of Table 12 because the frame of reference for these individual expense categories focused on spending within 50 miles of the State Forest, while the overall trip expense estimate included spending by all party members during the entire trip regardless of where the money was spent.

29 Recreation Use on the State Forests Experience Addition

Experience Addition

This section of the survey asked a series of additional questions of interest to managers of

the Pennsylvania State Forests. As was the case for the “satisfaction” and “economics”

additions, about one-third of the respondents were asked these questions. Some of the questions

enhanced other sections of the basic survey and have been reported earlier (e.g. previous

visitation to the forest and group composition were reported with other visitor trip characteristics

in Table 4). The results presented below focus on visitor motivations, feelings towards the

Forest, and opinions about various topics in the Pennsylvania State Forests.

Forest Access

Most respondents in both Forests indicated favorable ratings for access to the State Forests by both roads and trails (mean of 4.3 – 4.5).

There were no significant differences in the accessibility ratings between the two State Forests.

Table 15. Visitor Ratings of Access to the State Forests (Percent) 1 2 3 4 5 Meana


By roads 1.0 2.0 9.8 38.2 49.0 4.3

By trails 3.5 0 9.4 38.8 48.2 4.3

Elk State Forest

By roads 0.7 2.9 9.6 34.6 52.2 4.4

By trails 1.1 2.1 2.1 31.9 62.8 4.5

a Response scale = 1 (poor) to 5 (very good)


Recreation Experience

Most respondents also indicated favorable ratings (mean of 4.4 or above) for all of the recreation experience items rated.

Most visitors in both Forests perceived the opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded and without conflict from other visitors.

Most visitors who encountered Forest employees or people in surrounding communities reported positive interactions.

Table 16. Visitor Ratings for Various Recreation Experience Attributes (Percent) Awful Fair Good Very Good Excellent Mean a


Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 0 2.0 9.1 16.2 72.7 4.6

Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

0 1.2 7.1 24.7 67.1 4.6

Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 0 1.0 6.0 25.0 68.0 4.6

Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 1.6 3.1 6.3 20.3 68.8 4.5

Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 0 4.1 15.3 15.3 65.3 4.4

Elk State Forest

Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 0 1.1 7.6 15.2 76.1 4.7

Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

0 0.9 7.8 22.4 69.0 4.6

Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 0 1.5 9.6 17.0 71.9 4.6

Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 0 1.5 11.9 14.1 72.6 4.6

Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 0 1.5 12.0 24.1 62.4 4.5

a Response scale = 1 (awful) to 5 (excellent)


Place Attachment

Visitors were asked to choose their most important reason for visiting the State Forest

from a list of alternative choices.

Visitors in both Forests were most likely to report “I enjoy being in the forest” as their most important reason for visiting the State Forest (33% in the Moshannon and 42% in the Elk).

About one-quarter of the visitors in both State Forests (21% in the Moshannon and 25% in the Elk) stated their most important reason for visiting was because it’s “a good place to spend time with friends/family.”

Among the activities listed, visitors in the Moshannon State Forest were more likely to report that they came to the Forest because it’s a good place to hunt (21% in the Moshannon versus 12% in the Elk).

o This difference between forests is consistent with the activity participation results show earlier in this report (page 17).

Table 17. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the State Forest?

Valid Percent Moshannon Elk

I went there because I enjoy being in the forest 33.3 41.9

I went there because its a good place to spend time with friends/family 20.6 25.0

I went there because it’s a good place to:

Hunt 20.6 11.8

Hike 6.9 5.9

Bike 2.9 0

Fish 4.9 2.9

Horseback ride 1.0 1.5

Other Reason 9.8 11.0


Visitors also responded to a set of statements designed to measure the extent of place

attachment to the State Forest.

The vast majority of respondents (90-91%) agreed that the State Forest they visited “means a

lot to them,” with about half strongly agreeing.

Most visitors also reported that they enjoy recreating in the State Forest more than at other places, and get more satisfaction out of visiting the State Forest than from visiting other places.

Table 18. Summary of Place Attachment Scale Items (Percent)

Place Attachment Items Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither

Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly

agree

Meana


This place means a lot to me 0 0 8.8 40.2 51.0 4.4

I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit

0 2.0 17.6 32.4 48.0 4.3

I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 0 4.9 18.6 38.2 38.2 4.1

I am very attached to this place 2.0 5. 9 22.5 26.5 43.1 4.0

Elk State Forest

This place means a lot to me 1.5 0.7 6.6 44.1 47.1 4.4

I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit

0 2.9 19.1 40.4 37.5 4.1

I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places 3.7 2.9 20.6 36.0 36.8 4.0

I am very attached to this place 2.2 5.9 27.2 33.3 31.6 3.8

a Response Code: 1="Strongly Disagree" and 5="Strongly Agree”


Motivations/Reasons for Visiting the State Forest

Visitors’ most important motivations (reasons for visiting) the State Forest were to be outdoors and to experience natural surroundings.

Visitors also attached great importance to the opportunity to relax and get away from their regular routine.

Moderately important motives for visiting the Forest included the social motives of family recreation (mean = 4.2-4.3) and being with friends (mean = 4.1) as well as physical exercise (mean = 3.8- 3.9).

The least important motivations in both Forests were to develop my skills (mean = 3.3-3.6) and challenge or sport (mean = 3-5-3.8). Moshannon State Forest visitors attached slightly more importance to these motives than Elk State Forest visitors.

Table 19. Summary of Motivations/Reasons for Recreating in the State Forests (Percent)

Reasons for Visiting Not at all important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

Meana


To be outdoors 0 0 5.9 18.6 75.5 4.7

To experience natural surroundings

0 0 8.8 21.6 69.6 4.6

To get away from the regular routine

1.0 0 8.8 18.6 71.6 4.6

For relaxation 1.0 1.0 5.0 21.8 71.3 4.6

For family recreation 2.0 4.0 12.9 26.7 54.5 4.3

To be with my friends 2.0 6.9 17.6 23.5 50.0 4.1

For physical exercise 3.9 3.9 26.5 25.5 40.2 3.9

For the challenge or sport 6.9 6.9 23.5 26.5 36.3 3.8

To develop my skills 8.8 4.9 30.4 27.5 28.4 3.6

Elk State Forest

To experience natural surroundings

0.7 0.7 2.9 13.2 82.4 4.8

To be outdoors 0.7 1.5 1.5 16.9 79.4 4.7

To get away from the regular routine

0 0 5.2 17.0 77.8 4.7

For relaxation 0.7 0.7 3.7 18.4 76.5 4.7

For family recreation 5.9 6.6 9.6 18.4 59.6 4.2

To be with my friends 7.4 3.7 15.4 22.1 51.5 4.1

For physical exercise 5.9 7.4 26.5 22.8 37.5 3.8

For the challenge or sport 11.0 10.3 26.5 19.1 33.1 3.5

To develop my skills 16.9 6.6 30.9 19.9 25.7 3.3

a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”


Visitor Response to Potential Facilities and Services

Visitors surveyed were asked what facilities/services in the State Forest are most

important to them.

The respondents in both Forests attached great importance to wildlife viewing areas or opportunities (mean = 4.1 – 4.6).

Visitors also attached relatively high importance to signs directing them to recreation facilities (mean = 3.8 – 4.0) and printed interpretive information (mean = 3.5 – 3.8).

Visitors on both forests expressed more interest in hiking, biking, and horse trails (mean = 3.4-3.5) than in motorized ATV or snowmobile trails (mean = 2.0-2.6).

Table 20. Visitor Importance Ratings for Various Types of Facilities and Services Not at all

Important Somewhat Important

Moderately Important

Very Important

Extremely Important

Meana


Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities 4.9 4.9 19.6 18.6 52.0 4.1

Signs directing me to recreation facilities 9.8 10.8 18.6 24.5 36.3 3.7

Parking 8.9 7.9 30.7 24.8 27.7 3.5

Hike, bike & horse (non-motorized) Trails 16.7 5.9 18.6 32.4 26.5 3.5

Printed Interpretive Information 10.8 7.8 30.4 24.5 26.5 3.5

Picnic areas 15.7 9.8 35.3 13.7 25.5 3.2

ATV Trails 40.2 13.7 11.8 10.8 23.5 2.6

Snowmobile Trails 42.2 9.8 14.7 11.8 21.6 2.6

Elk State Forest

Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities 4.4 1.5 2.2 14.7 77.2 4.6

Signs directing me to recreation facilities 10.3 5.1 10.3 24.3 50.0 4.0

Parking 5.1 8.8 21.3 25.7 39.0 3.9

Printed Interpretive Information 10.3 5.1 16.9 29.4 38.2 3.8

Picnic areas 11.1 14.1 23.0 22.2 29.6 3.5


Hike, bike & horse (non-motorized) Trails 21.3 4.4 12.5 34.6 27.2 3.4

ATV Trails 49.3 17.6 11.0 8.1 14.0 2.2

Snowmobile Trails 60.3 12.5 7.4 8.8 11.0 2.0

a Response Code: 1="Not at all important" and 5="Extremely important”

Information Services

State Forest visitors were asked a series of questions about their use of various types of

forest information.

A minority of the visitors reported that they had obtained information about the area they visited during or in preparation for their trip.

o However, Elk State Forest visitors were almost twice as likely (41%) as Moshannon State Forest visitors (23%) to obtain information about the area.

Visitors in both Forests were most interested in obtaining State Forest maps. Fewer visitors sought other types of information such as trail maps or the Pennsylvania Visitors Guide.

The majority of visitors in both Forests (59% in the Moshannon and 66% in the Elk) obtained information before leaving home rather than after arriving at the Forest.

Nearly all of the visitors who sought information reported that the information obtained was helpful in planning their trips.

Table 21. Visitor Responses to Questions about Information Services

Valid Percent Moshannon Elk Did you obtain any information about this area during this trip or in preparation for it?

No 77.5 58.8 Yes 22.5 41.2 What type of information did you obtain? State Forest map 69.6 57.1 Trail map 30.4 30.4 PA visitors guide 17.4 39.3 Other 26.1 35.7 When did you receive information? Before leaving home 59.1 66.1 After arriving here 40.9 33.9 Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip?

Yes 86.4 96.4 No 13.6 3.6


Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity

Forest visitors were asked several questions about how Marcellus shale-related activity

had affected their use of the State Forest and their enjoyment of their recreation experience at the

State Forest.

The vast majority of visitors in both Forests (88% in the Moshannon and 92% in the Elk) reported that Marcellus shale-related activity had not affected their use of the State Forest.

Visitors were slightly more likely to report that gas-related activity affected their recreational experience at the Forest than their use of the Forest. However, again, most visitors in both forests (85% in the Moshannon and 88% in the Elk) reported that Marcellus shale-related activity had not affected their recreation experience at the State Forest.

Table 22. Visitor Responses to Questions about Marcellus Shale-Related Activity Valid Percent Moshannon Elk Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest?

Yes 12.3 7.7 No 87.7 92.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest?

Yes 14.6 11.6 No 85.4 88.4 Total 100.0 100.0

Follow-up questions probing the reasons for the visitors’ responses to the initial yes/no

questions revealed the following major themes. These responses are summarized in Tables 23-

26 and listed in full detail in Appendix A.

Based on the minority of visitors reporting that their use of the State Forest had been changed due to Marcellus Shale-related activity, there were fewer open-ended responses to the initial “yes” (use was affected) responses than to the “no” (use was not affected) responses.

Among those reporting that their use of the State Forest had been impacted by shale-related operations, the most common responses reflected various major themes.

The most prevalent theme in both Forests involved various forms of visitor displacement, or changes in visitors’ destinations or activities due to area/road closures or fracking activity.


Table 23. Responses to, How has Marcellus Shale-related activity changed your use of the Forest?

Type of Comment Number of Comments

Moshannon Elk Displaced/closed areas 13 4 Traffic-related concerns 10 3 Wildlife/Hunting-related concerns 9 6 General environmental concerns 5 4 Noise and visual impacts 1 3 Positive impacts/statements 3 9

Many respondents also mentioned various traffic-related, wildlife or hunting-related concerns.

The most frequently mentioned traffic concerns included increased road traffic, especially truck traffic and noise pollution.

The most common hunting-related issues were that the drilling activity affects the way game act or reduces/changes their places to hunt.

Visitors expressed several environmental concerns, including natural habitat destruction and changes in landscape and aesthetic quality.

A few respondents also expressed positive impacts of the shale-related activity.

These comments focused on the creation of economic benefits or new access roads or trails providing better access to the Forest.

Those visitors who stated that their recreational use of the Forest had not been affected by

Marcellus shale-related activity were also asked to explain why not. Their responses also

reflected several dominant themes, which were grouped into topics reflecting awareness-related

issues and general acceptance of the drilling activity (Table 24).

The most common responses in both Forests were statements indicating that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their use or doesn’t affect their activities.

Many visitors in both Forests indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit.

Another common comment was that it had not changed their use yet.

Some visitors stated that they had not heard of or did not know much about the Marcellus Shale phenomenon.

A few visitors expressed support for the drilling activity, based on the opinion that it does not have a negative effect, is controlled, or is good for the economy.


Table 24. Responses to why Marcellus shale-related activity has not changed your use of the forest?


Moshannon Elk No effect on use 76 77 Don’t notice/Haven’t seen any activity 31 95 Not drilling here (or in areas I care about) 19 21 Not yet (implies concern for future) 3 8 Don’t know about it 1 10 Pro-drilling 7 8

Forest visitors were also asked to explain the reason why Marcellus shale-related activity

had or had not affected their recreation experience at the State Forest. As in the case of the

previous question, many of their responses did not refer specifically to experiential impacts, but

rather expressed a variety of types of opinions about the drilling operations (Table 25).

The experiential impacts tended to reflect the same themes as the answers to the questions about the impacts of shale-related activity on visitors’ use of the Forests.

Road/traffic related issues were the most common responses to the question about how drilling-related activity had affected visitors’ experiences at the State Forest, while visitor displacement and other issues were mentioned less frequently.

The responses to how Marcellus shale-related activity had affected their recreation experience at the State Forest included more impacts to the quality of the recreation experience, such as a change in the character of the area or experience and noise or visual impacts.

As in the case of the previous question about impacts of drilling on visitors’ use of the forest, some respondents mentioned positive impacts such as better access when asked how their recreation experience had been affected.

Table 25. Responses to, How has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at the Forest?


Moshannon Elk Road/Traffic issues 12 13 General concerns 4 9 Displaced/Closed areas 8 2 Impacts on the environment 4 3 Noise and visual impacts 1 4 Wildlife/Hunting-related concerns 1 2 Positive impacts/Better access 6 9


Responses by those visitors who stated that their recreation experience at the Forest had

not been affected by Marcellus shale-related activity also reflected the same awareness-related

and general acceptance of drilling activity themes as their previous explanations for why the

shale-related activity had not affected their recreational use of the Forests (Table 26).

Again, many visitors in both Forests reported that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their experience, or doesn’t affect their activities.

Many visitors in both Forests reiterated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit.

The next most common acceptance-related comment was that it had not changed their experience yet.

Some visitors stated that they were not aware of, or had not even heard of, the Marcellus Shale phenomenon.

Finally, a small number of respondents voiced pro-drilling sentiments or mentioned positive benefits of the gas drilling activity, such as improved roads or access to the Forest.

Table 26. Responses to why Marcellus shale-related activity has not changed your recreational experience at the forest?


Moshannon Elk Don’t notice/Haven’t seen any activity 38 96 No effect on experience 30 51 Not drilling here (or in areas I care about) 15 15 Not yet (implies concern for future) 3 14 Don’t know about it 3 6 Pro-drilling/Positive impact 7 7

40 Recreation Use on the State Forests Conclusion

Summary and Conclusions

The results published in this report are a compilation of the data collected at numerous

State Forest recreation sites during the period of October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015

(n = 1,370 interviews with Forest visitors). Besides the basic visitor use survey, three

supplemental surveys were used to query visitors about their satisfaction levels, economic

expenditures, and recreation experiences.

This report provides a summary of the characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes of visitors

to the Moshannon and Elk State Forests, located in the north-central area of Pennsylvania. The

results indicate that most of the State Forest visitors are repeat and frequent users, and have many

years of experience in the forests. About two-thirds of the Moshannon State Forest respondents

(64%) reported making their first visit to the Forest before the year 2000. The Elk State Forest

showed a higher proportion of more recent visitors, with almost half (48%) making their first visit

since 2000 and one-quarter (23%) reporting their first visit in the past five years.

Several notable differences were noted in the use patterns and characteristics of recreation

visitors in the two Forests. First, the Moshannon State Forest has more “frequent visitors,”

showing an average of about 32 visits to the Forest per year versus 19 visits in the Elk.

Conversely, the Elk visitors reported slightly more trips to other forest areas (26 days on average

compared to 24 for Moshannon Forest users). Thus, the Moshannon State Forest may have a

slightly larger loyal group of regular users who allocate more of their outdoor recreation trips to

the Forest, while the Elk State Forest visitors include regular frequent users along with a greater

percentage of occasional visitors coming to the Forest for wildlife viewing.

Secondly, visitors in the Moshannon were more likely (48%) than those in the Elk State

Forest (36%) to be overnight users. Overnight visitors in the Moshannon State Forest also stayed

longer, averaging 3.5 nights in the Forest compared to 2.7 nights for Elk State Forest visitors.

Group size was one of the biggest differences between these two Forests. Elk State Forest

visitors showed an average of 2.8 people per vehicle versus 2.3 people in the Moshannon. The

unusually large number of people per vehicle in the Elk State Forest is consistent with DCNR

records for groups visiting the Elk Country Visitor Center, which accounts for a large proportion

of recreation use on the Elk State Forest.

The recreation activities pursued on the Forest also differed between the two Forest

districts, reflecting differences in the facilities present on the two Forests. Consumptive activities


(hunting and fishing) were more prevalent on the Moshannon, while hiking was popular on both

Forests. The Elk State Forest was unique in the extreme popularity of wildlife viewing, with over

80% of visitors reporting participation and over 40% reporting “viewing of natural features such

as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc.” as their primary activity on the Forest.

Regarding satisfaction levels, most respondents in both Forests were clearly satisfied with

their recreation experience and with the satisfaction attributes listed on the survey. State Forest

visitors were most satisfied with the scenery and attractiveness of the forest landscape. They also

reported very high feelings of safety while in the Forest and gave very favorable reviews of the

helpfulness of employees. Some of the satisfaction items such as cleanliness of restrooms,

provision of information for recreation, adequacy of signage, and condition of forest roads

received slightly higher ratings on the Elk State Forest, reflecting the effects of the modern

facilities present in the Forest, especially the Elk Country Visitor Center.

The economics section of the study asked visitors about their monetary expenditures in

and near the State Forests. Results of this section differed greatly between the two Forests. Over

half of the Moshannon State Forest visitors (58%) indicated that they would have gone

somewhere else to do the same activity if they had not been able to visit the State Forest.

Conversely, only 32% of Elk State Forest visitors would have pursued the same activity

elsewhere, and one-third would have stayed home if they had been unable to visit the Forest.

Most of the respondents (69% in the Moshannon and 85% in the Elk) indicated that they spent

some money within 50 miles of the forest on their current trip. The largest expenditures reported

were for gasoline and oil, food/drink at restaurants and bars, and groceries. Visitors of the Elk

State Forest tended to spend about twice as much (average of $193.03) across all of the spending

categories for their trip as Moshannon State Forest visitors (average of $101.92).

The experience section of the study was given to about one-third of the visitors, providing

rich data about visitor attitudes, motivations, perceptions, and management preferences. The data

clearly shows that State Forest visitors are interested in experiencing the outdoor natural

surroundings available in the forest areas. Relaxing out of doors, getting away from the routine,

and other nature-based social activities are very important to these recreationists. Only slight

differences in motivations were observed between these two Forests. For example, Moshannon

visitors attached slightly more importance to the motives of challenge and sport and skill

development, perhaps reflecting their greater participation in fishing and hunting activities.


Visitor responses about the importance of facilities and services in the Forests were

examined to ascertain support or opposition to various management alternatives. Visitors in both

Forests expressed the greatest interest in wildlife viewing areas or opportunities. Visitors’

interest in various types of trails tended to reflect their activity pursuits. For example, although

many visitors showed little or no interest in specific types of trails, such as ATV or snowmobile

trails, those kinds of trails were very important to certain segments of visitors interested in

motorized activities. Respondents also attached relatively high importance to signs directing

them to recreation facilities and printed interpretive information.

A minority of visitors obtained information about the area they visited during their trip or

in preparation for it. Elk State Forest visitors, however, were more likely to obtain information

(41%) than Moshannon visitors (23%). Information was more likely sought by first-time users,

and visitors in both Forests were more likely to seek information before leaving home than after

arriving at the Forest. In both Forests most of those who sought information found it helpful in

planning their trips.

The vast majority of visitors in both forests reported that Marcellus shale-related activity

had not affected their use of or recreation experience at the State Forest. Among those reporting

that their use of or experience at the State Forest had been impacted by shale-related operations,

the most common responses reflected various types of visitor displacement, or changes in

visitors’ destinations or activities due to area closures or fracking activity. Respondents also

expressed some general environmental concerns including habitat destruction and threats to

water quality as well as changes in landscape, noise pollution, and loss of a relaxing and serene

environment. Traffic-related issues and concerns with wildlife and hunting were also mentioned.

Among those reporting that gas drilling activity had not affected their use of the State Forest,

many indicated that they had not noticed the activity or had not noticed it in the areas they visit,

or that the drilling activity doesn’t bother them, hasn’t changed their use or doesn’t affect their

activities.

This report provides a representative snapshot of recreational use in two Pennsylvania

State Forests. It thus contributes to building a profile of Pennsylvania State Forest visitors.

Surveys are currently continuing in other forests and the overall database will include a total of

ten forest districts by the completion of the five-year project. Future reports will provide yearly

summaries of the individual forests studied as well as comparative and targeted data analyses


aimed at assisting Bureau of Forestry managers in their efforts to meet the needs of their

recreation constituency.

44 Recreation Use on the State Forests Appendix

Appendix A

Visitor Responses to Open-Ended Questions


If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do?

Moshannon State Forest, 291 responses Note – Some single responses addressed multiple topics and are coded in multiple categories No Suggestions (62) Keep Up the Good Work (27) Doing good Doing good right now Everything is good (4) Everything is good so far Everything is in good shape to me Everything is okay Everything seems fine Everything well kept Good I really enjoy this place so far I really like this state forest I think it’s well managed (2) I think this forest is managed well I think this place is being managed well I this this place is managed well I’m happy with everything It is clean and beautiful, my favorite place It’s all great Generally everything is great This is one of the best spots I’ve visited They are doing okay This park is clean and managed well We like this place. Well managed Improve Information and Maps (20) Maps (7) Better and more maps… Just more information Forks trail was not findable based on current maps. Maps need to be updated Need a map with trails I was looking to grab that trail map, but they are out… I’ve never ridden on these trails so I was coming to see if I could. The map would have been nice More map information


More paper maps Paper maps Recreational Signage (9) Improve trail signs and Map. Improve road signed to make finding trail heads easier Better signage letting us know where we can bike More signage on the snowmobile trails indicating where food and fuel. Kind of like how the road signs do it More signs (2) More signs and directions on trails. Maybe it is also possible to provide trail maps More signs and maps for trails More signs for trailhead More signs, better signs for scenic areas, include mileage on signs. Educational Signage (3) Given that we are naturalist idiots, identify markers for flora and fauna would be amazing. Some good history around here. Robber David Lewis? Who is that? More information about local plants and animals More information about local fauna Improve Road Conditions (40) Road Maintenance (35) Better maintenance of the forest road… Ruts in them from vehicles getting stuck and spinning wheels Better road work Better winter maintenance, like remove obstructions like trees Black top Loosey Road The road is a little rough down there… They could fill it in Clean up the roads, hard on cyclists Clearing of debris Don’t let them plow the roads when they are logging. You know leave half the road unplowed Draw up bond on road for loggers to improve road Finish bridge Fix road down into Brown Springs Fix the road Fix the roads (3) Fix the roads, keep maintenance Fix the roads… This one is in bad shape down there Fix Tower Road Fix up some of the dirt roads Improve the road Improve the roads Improve the roads… Sandrock is always pretty tough Less gravel Maintain muddy roads


Maintain roads A lot of loose gravel… Bad for biking Plow roads in the wintertime Roads Service road Smooth the roads out Some of the back roads need restored Some of the road is very bumpy. Pave it for easy access The road… Some nasty rivets and ditches The roads a bit rough back there The roads have gotten really bad… This grant trail road has been terrible. Grade the roads Other (5) ATV shouldn’t be on this road but they are here all the time, and we can’t even have a tractor for hauling wood at our camp Bloom Road should be open Little more trail and road access… I can’t get my jeep to my lease 10 miles up the creek. I know a way but I’m not allowed to use it Open up logging roads Stop building as many side roads Improve Recreation Facilities (70) Facilities (26) Bathroom at Shagger’s Inn Better maintenance on vending machines Boat launch at Hick’s Run Bummer that restrooms are closed in winter Bathrooms need regular cleaning Garbage cans could be nice. Although I guess people abuse it Garbage cans Generally just more shower facilities and stuff for the kids… like playgrounds or sandbox The women’s room is a mess and needs toilet paper Keep the restrooms here cleaner Ladies room could use more toilet paper Make the boat launch more accessible Maybe more picnic tables and toilets Maybe more restrooms and washrooms in campground Maybe renovate restrooms in the forest (clean them up and make more restrooms available) Maybe set up some benches and picnic tables More bathrooms Dangerous dead trees at day use sites Playground for kids at the park… More stuff for the youth Restroom is not available Running water for the dog Septic system at cabins


Set up more trash bins throughout the forest. Maybe at trailheads Restrooms at Shagger’s Inn Trashcans. A wash station in the restroom Want another swimming hole again Camping (3) Better management of campsite (e.g. fire rings, picnic tables, trash dumpster) Fire ring in campsite More camping facilities Trail Maintenance/Access (19) Better marked trails… There are a few that could be a little better Better trail system Gated roads to be open in the summer for scouting and hiking and ATV’s allowed on forest roads Get more trail maintenance Keep the trails clear and in good shape Let back into Winslow Hill More access to area More hiking trails More mountain bike trails More mountain biking trails More trails Open all DCNR roads for hunting Open the gate on George Road… Especially during the doe season for youth and old folks… Probably more ski trails and picnic areas for pit stops Put bridge back over Mosquito Creek on Quehanna trail. Trail Maintenance (stinging nettles) Open some gates for hunting. Currently locked for snowmobiles Trail around pond Trail maintenance Work on the trails Snowmobiling/ATV (21) Allow ATV ATV and bikes on state land trails Besides more snow… connect our trails to go somewhere, you know, like long distance rides. I also feel like we shouldn’t have to buy a permit to snowmobile on rails to trails Designate some roads as non-snowmobile so that jeeps can use roads without worrying about snowmobiles Hope to manage better for snowmobile trails Keep the ATV’s out Let ATV on trails Let the snowmobile season open earlier It would be nice to block some of the trails off from vehicles… Especially after they’ve been groomed


Make some areas less accessible to ATV… Just more walking access, I’m not a fan of the motorized bikes and stuff More ATV trail, maps, access to gas More ATV trails More dirt bike trails More groomed trails More grooming More motor-cycle trails, open up more roads, more restrooms Connecting these isolated trail areas Run the groomers more when people are out Open more ATV trails Open up more state forest roads for licensed ATV’s more access Open up the rod to ATV’s Other (1) Provide more diverse winter sport programs for kids Fish, Streams, and Pond Management (14) Habitat Health (5) Better trash management alongside the creek Litter around the water should be taken care of Maybe clear up some broken trees in the creek Well, was always hoping to plant White Ash. Hemlock Wooley Adelgid will kill all our

hemlocks, making streams warmer. Do something about it Stocking and Policy (9) Hope to see more fish (2) More fish Pick up litter, Stock fish Stock more fish (4) Stock the fish more often Wildlife Management (30) Game Management (30) Add some food plots Bring more elk in, transfer elk to Pine Creek Close some areas to doe hunting for a while Cut back on DMAP’s Cut back on hunting to increase deer Cut down on doe tags Cut out doe season Deer population increase Improve feed lots Improve grouse habitat


Increase deer herd Not kill the doe Leave more deer Maybe food plot up on the hill Maybe put in some more feeds plots More deer More DMAP More food for game, shrubs and etc. More food for wildlife More food plots More management for wildlife in area More varied food plots More viewing sites and distribute the elk population north into more counties More wildlife Quit selling extra doe tags Put out food plots Stop the doe hunting Take off antler restrictions Ticks, cut back on the doe tags. Let here grow Unsatisfied with Game Commission releasing coyotes Forest Management (36) Timber Harvesting (26) Better timber management, harvest more trees Conscious tree planting Cut down trees for viewing Cut trees and log more for habitat for animals benefits Allow more logging Leave as natural as possible Leave it alone (2) Less timber activity Lumber during the summer Maintain natural area, don’t develop things, Control invasive More controlled burns More clear cut areas More berry bushes More tree management (2) Needs timbered Prescribe burn in the forest Quit logging Quit cutting the trees down… leave some of them standing Replant trees. Chop up some of the wood laying around the forest. Put the money back in the forest Seems to be a lot of wood cutting- keep it looking nice Stop logging


Stop timber cutting Stop tree cutting Thick shrubbery/ suggest controlled burning Marcellus Shale (3) Keep selective harvesting, less drilling Clean the water, the fracking is polluting Stop injection wells Enforcement/Other (7) Create jobs Enforce littering and vandalism Put more efforts to pick up trash in the forest Keep the forest clean and safe Also someone was out there shooting, must have been 500 shots up by where Upper Jerry and Dutchman Road… I don’t know what the regulations are but it seemed inappropriate Stay out of it. Don’t change things like they do. Don’t throw camps out. Leave roads the way they are. Less restriction on road access Trash/Beer litter


If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do?

Elk State Forest, 337 responses Note – Some single responses addressed multiple topics and are coded in multiple categories No Suggestions (115) Keep Up the Good Work (51) All good Alright the way it is Doesn’t know thinks it’s nice Doing a good job, less well though Doing a good job as is Everything is decent Everything is fine Everything is good Everything is good and the staff is kind Everything is good Everything seems good Everything was good Generally good Good (2) Good how it is Good job (2) Good job new access road bypassing Benezette Happy with the little improvements seen I like how they manage I like it as it is! I think DCNR is doing excellent to keep this place clean and beautiful It is clean and safe. I like this forest It’s all pretty good It’s clean and pretty good It’s pretty good and do a lot with the money they do have Keep on doing what they are doing Keep up the good work Leave up to them… nothing Let’s leave it up to them… Maybe some more clearings Good job rotating displays at visitor center So far, everything is okay So far, everything is good They are doing a good job They are doing great and taking care of everything They are kind and informative (2)


They do a good job and send letters to inform They do well They like it because of the rustic areas Think they’ve done a nice job Thinks everyone’s doing a good job Thinks it has improved over the years Thinks it’s made improvements since started coming Thinks they’re doing well Thought everything was pretty good Thought it was good Very clean and impressive We like it how it is Wouldn’t do anything different, appreciates the viewing areas that are on back roads Improve Information and Maps (32) Maps (7) Better maps and better signage Map hiking trails More accurate trail information More detailed maps More trail kiosks/maps of the entire forest Update the maps Wanted more maps and information on viewing areas. Though it would be nice to have more knowledgeable staff at the visitor’s center Recreational Signage (19) Signage, animal warning signs Better signage Better signage, especially on backroads Better signage off the main road Better signage on 555 Better signage on trails. Got lost on trails because of old map Directional signs Have quiet signs around viewing areas because it’s too noisy Make the trail marks more visible More signage for road directions More signs and maps More signs for snow warning More trail markers Put more signs for trail or set up a map on trails Put more signs on porcupine road that it’s a dead end. The signs are bad for people who don’t know where they’re going Signs for snow-covered roads


…Plus there is no signage along the trail saying what type of use is allowed. And they haven’t had any maps in their box in years. DCNR never talks to the local land owners about what is going on in the area. We haven’t seen an employee down here since the first year we bought our cabin. But I will say they (DCNR) have done a better job at controlling the quads… They aren’t really an issue anymore. Blazes for trail need better marked on Elk Trail Educational Signage (3) More interpretive information on trails. More education and maps Keep up with interpretive information Provide more information about wildlife in this area Internet Information (1) Better accessible information off internet about camping info Lodging/ Camping (2) Better advertising for places to stay. Wants every place to be advertised. Wants a better map of locations to hike, used to be one but stopped being made More information on lodging and places to stay Improve Road Conditions (25) Road Maintenance (20) Better road maintenance Better road management during winter Cut down the dust from road, less clear cuts Eliminate the traffic Road drainage and style have become modernized and aren’t preserving the natural look Fix the potholes, put in outhouses Improve road conditions and grade the dirt roads and make them wider Improve road Improve Straight Creek road Improve the roads Improvement of quality of pull offs and parking lots. Add more Keep the dust down Maintain roads Make the roads wider, fix the road coming into Winslow Hill Manage roadway traffic, install pull offs for viewing More gravel on the road Some areas the roads could be better The roads and access roads The roads between here and Williamsport, widen There has been no maintenance on this road (Trout Run) and trail (Elk Trail) since we’ve owned our cabin (3yrs), if the DCNR provided the shale, the cabin owners out here would be happy to fix the pot holes. They just need to make it easier to meet us half way. The road


keeps getting wider because people are trying to avoid the pot holes Access/Other (5) Better access to some of the area… At the tops of the mountains Too many duplicate roads paralleling each other More access to gated roads Open more of the back roads. Too many gates. Less gravel That sign at the bottom of the hill blocks the view of on-coming traffic Improve Recreation Facilities (88) Facilities (46) Add electric hook ups to the sites Add more viewing areas to see elk Addition of rural restrooms for hikers Bathroom maintenance, trees limit viewing of elk especially at old site on Winslow Hill Better picnic tables, trash pick-up, more vegetation, natural view areas (animal baiting), road maintenance, call boxes Better upkeep of restroom facilities Bleachers at the Winslow visitors center for senior citizens Cell phone service for emergencies. Want it for safety Clean women’s bathrooms better More restrooms available (modern and clean) Put in outhouses Flush toilets General maintenance Horse manure disposal such as compost I hope to see more restrooms available I like trails in this forest, keep it clean Increase number of viewing areas because it is too crowded Keep it natural and help people with ailments walk around Larger viewing sites Lodging areas that aren’t camping, like hotels Look outs could be elevated to be able to look out from because hard to see it Maintenance of bathroom (4) Maintenance of restrooms and enforce littering laws Make facilities more accessible for people who have trouble walking and make it known that there are available wheelchairs inside for people who need them Make things more accessible to people with disabilities Manure pit like the one at Kelly Pines Maybe restroom with shower More trash receptacles (2) More viewing access More viewing areas (2) Outside water faucets Plow viewing area, winter maintenance


Put in bird viewing areas More accessibility for people who have trouble walking Sell firewood at Rangers Station Some bathrooms could be maintenance The amphitheater was crowded and it was hard to hear over children talking. There was not good lighting going down in to the front row and need a line marker to manage crowds There should be a fireplace in the center It would be a good idea to have a clipboard to record elk activity so people knew whether or not they were coming to those spots Visitor center ground should stay open longer. Don’t mind if the store closes at 8 but it would be nice if the grounds were open later. Regulate bear hunting to not have hunters kill immature bears Visitor Center should have a snack bar Camping/ Picnic Areas (13) Add manure pit in camp grounds. Less trails on road because of safety issues, make woods trails Add manure pit at Gas Well Equestrian camp Cut back some of the trees to make it easier for RVs to get out, and take down some of the widow makers to make it safer… and taking out some of the trees might dry out the campground too… It can get pretty swampy in here Cut the grass at Hick’s Run viewing area near the parking lot Maybe new picnic tables in the campsite Dumpster at Hick’s Run camp More camping areas More camping areas! Mow grass at Hick’s Run camp Mow grass, police campers who reserve but do not show up Need horse manure pit in camping areas even if need to start charging fee for it Open Quehanna to primitive style camping Shower available at campsite Trail Maintenance/Access (9) Better trails More developed hiking trails More hiking trails More paths to walk to see walk More trails (2) Talk to horse people about where to put more trails. Do not care for road riding. Do not like the fact of state game lands being closed. Need manure pit here. And there is trash in the creek sometimes. Horse traffic is an issue… they don’t use their designated trails and go on private property. Elk Trail is in terrible shape because of the riding use. Tree down on Elk Trail off Dents Run needs cut because people are cutting around


Snowmobiling/ATV (10) All dirt roads should be ATV accessible. Fire wood cutting in previously logged areas Designate more areas for ATV’s Encourage more ATV rides More ATV access More ATV trails More trails for motorized vehicles Open more trails for ATV and snowmobile use Probably develop more recreational trails for dirt or motor bikes Reduce number of ATV, certainly don’t expand the system Ride Four wheelers Parking/Pull-offs (5) Add pull offs for people to view elk and add signage so they aren’t stopping in the middle of the road or on private property More parking More pull-offs for parking More pull offs on the road so don’t disturb natives Needs to have more pull offs on the highway for viewing and selling drinks in the building Other (5) Allow pets Allow Side-by-Sides Better accommodations, not happy with local accommodations, especially because they’re usually over bars. Lodges aren’t for small families or couples. Would like pet friendly cabins Limitations on visitors More programs for kids (wildlife demonstration, trail guide, etc.) Fish, Streams, and Pond Management (2) Access (1) Designate the creek right near the campsite as child only access Stocking and Policy (1) Quit stocking over the wild trout. Less stocked fish in streams. Continue dirt and gravel roads movement to keep mud out Wildlife Management (23) Game Management (22) Bring more elk in! Cut out DMAP tags Deer management


Deer management is my primary concern. Understand that there is a balance that needs to be struck but wildlife conservation is my biggest concern. There are too few deer on our state leased land. Drinking water would be good here too. Eliminate doe hunting… focus on deer herd instead of elk Get rid of rattlesnakes, wondering about increases in ticks Has trouble with the hunting permits and thinks should be easier Have officers hunt, not harass us Hunting, deer population declining I’d question their deer management and I think there are way too many rattlesnakes. The rattlesnakes, in certain areas are my big concern… Especially with the kids running around Increase game habitat Keep the no hunting on Sunday More elk (2) More deer More elk or food places so they come No, but don’t like that they allow hunting Not a fan of the commercialization of the elk tourism thing Open up more area for elk hunting Put some tracking collars on elk so public can locate them Restrict doe license Stop killing so many doe… I guess that’s more Game Commission but they work together I guess Fencing (1) Less fenced in areas Forest Management (27) Timber Harvesting (19) Better management of the state forest system and timber management Clear out brush so we can see into the woods more Cut trees out of the creek of Dents Run. Better signage Leave forest alone, let them grow naturally Leave it the way it is. Keep area clean. Leave more oak stand, plant more. Beech blight management Leave some trees Leave the forest and animals alone Minimize land clearing More timbering Maybe some timbering Over cutting of hardwood cherry. If continues the population will diminish for future generations. Stop spraying roundup People are da gone picky. Nothing wrong here. There would be more game if there was more timbering to let light to the forest floor Quit cutting the woods down


Removal of fenced in areas that do not need to be there Manage the tree line around Hick’s Run Some tree trimming… get rid of some of these widow makers… Electric would be nice, but not if they charged a fee Timber management, stop clear cuts Too many improvements that are taking away from the nature of it. Too populated Marcellus Shale (3) Cease drilling in State Forests Not open up State Forest land to Marcellus Shale drilling No more drilling Enforcement/Other (5) Enforce cycling rules Lot of people in September I like these more primitive and less crowded sites… Make more of these Too many tourists Too many tourists, concerned about habitat and tree canopy


Marcellus Shale Open-Ended Responses by Forest

Moshannon SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this State Forest? n = 350, Yes = 43, No = 307 178 total open-ended responses If yes, why? (43 open-ended responses) Road/Traffic (10) Affected our camp. Road is way bigger higher traffic. Gas well site I can’t ride the roads because they plow and cinder them… They’re not supposed to do that… at least that’s what DCNR tells us Mainly when we mountain bike and we ride the forest roads, we cross paths with the trucks… and sometimes it is too much truck traffic for us to ride so we have to call it a day Plow some of the snowmobile trails… They are allowed to drill but we can’t ATV Shuts roads down and busy Traffic Traffic trucks Traveling route gets interrupted Yeah some trails we made because of the roads around here Yeah, the truck traffic can be heavy on the forest roads. I try to avoid where I know they are Displaced/Closed Areas (13) Have closed many of the snowmobile access roads I am less inclined to go certain places In the way It restricts snowmobile access in some areas Portions of the forest yes… I have to change locations for fishing and hunting Preventing us to go further north… We heard they were closing roads up there Put a pad where I used to hunt Road blockage Some area is restricted to access Some areas are not available for public. It limits my recreational use Some snowmobile trails are restricted They have closed some areas and you need to be more careful with the truck traffic Took some of the nice hunting areas away Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (9) Herbaceous opens attract wildlife. Traffic is inconvenience I like to spend time in the woods, I like to hunt… In some way it helps and hurts… It opened up some areas that were too remote for folks and now there are a bunch of people back there Less fish Makes new areas for snakes, new roads


Ruin deer trails and they make trails into roads. Block stuff off Ruin hunting grounds Took away part of the hunting area Took some of our hunting areas away… It’s just rock piles now instead of forest Use a lot of hunting area General Environmental Concerns (5) When it first started, but now it hasn’t really Disturbed the natural areas I am concerned about natural environment It cuts trees in the forest Stripped the forest… Looks terrible…But improved the roads Noise and Visual Impacts (1) Louder in areas he was hunting Positive Impacts/Statements (3) Easier to navigate Made the trails better More wildlife hunting and viewing… With feed plots and openings If no, why not? (135 open-ended responses) No Effect on Use (76) Does not bother Doesn’t bother at all Hasn’t interfered It doesn’t affect me It doesn’t bother me It has no direct effect on me Just driving Little more gravel N/A (5) Never encountered it hiking No (2) No comment No evidence (5) No evidence of it No problem with it, hasn’t bothered ecology No, but bring own water None (5) Not affecting me (9) Not affecting our family I don’t think it affects me (2)


I don’t think it affects us I don’t think so (8) Not affecting us Not affecting us to enjoy this forest Not bother me Not bothering me Not for recreational use Not for us Not in the way Not in this area Not in this forest Not particularly (5) Not really (6) Not related to my recreation They don’t bother me at all Trails didn’t have impact here Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (31) Don’t see it Don’t see them First visit Hasn’t seen anything Have not seen any Haven’t been close to them Haven’t experienced any drilling Haven’t noticed it Haven’t run into it Haven’t seen any Haven’t seen any indication Haven’t seen any wells Haven’t seen anywhere they were Haven’t seen evidence Haven’t seen the impact Haven’t used before no comparison I haven’t seen it It has other places Not noticed Not seen (10) Seem to be taking care of what they are doing Unnoticeable Not Drilling Here or in Areas I Care About (19) Depends on area Didn’t drill out here Haven’t seen it here Haven’t seen them out here


I hate it, but my use areas aren’t by the drilling. We should have learned from our mistakes with the coal industry I don’t see any drilling or construction in this area I don’t see it here Never seen it here It isn’t affecting this place, but affects other places Not at all here Not drilling here Not seen here (2) Not here (2) Not here but for other state forests Not this one, but other ones Nothing around here Really haven’t done anything in our part of the forest We don’t really have a history Not Yet (implies concern for future) (3) Not around yet Not yet (2) Don’t Know About It (1) Not familiar Pro-Drilling (7) A way of life Clean Do an excellent job of monitoring their business Electric lines get fixed more readily I think it is important for local economy. It is not affecting me to enjoy this forest Road is nice Works for Marcellus Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this State Forest? n = 350, Yes = 51, No = 299 142 total open-ended responses If yes, why? (44 open-ended responses) Road/Traffic Issues (12) A few times trucks have been frustrating A lot of truck traffic Generally more negative when we see those trucks I used to mountain bike on the roads but now I don’t want to with my kids because of the heavy truck traffic


Large vehicle traffic on narrow roads negatively affected experience Overall it’s not pleasant… But those trucks kick up a ton of dust in the summer. That just makes it all the worse Road blockage Roads are more dusty Rough road conditions Some trucks driving through, but there is timber back there too. I don’t really like the idea of it being here Too much noise and trucks and clear cutting Stripped the forest… Looks terrible… But improved the roads Noise and Visual Impacts (4) On the mid-state trail there were compressor stations and development. Changed character of area Visually Forest smells like gas It’s just disrupting… I just don’t want to see it and hear it General Concerns (4) Just don’t like it Just less enjoyable Negative… and it’s bad in other places too Negatively Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (1) Took some of the nice hunting areas away Displaced/Closed Areas (8) They have closed some areas and you need to be more careful with the truck traffic Areas they are doing the well is avoided Can’t access favorite areas Can’t go to one particular area I used to hunt Changing routes because of landscape change Don’t visit camp as much Limited access for hunting and snowmobile Same reasons, snowmobiling harder to access areas or not allowed Impacts on the Environment (4) Disturbed natural areas Just drove past one of those trucks and was talking to my wife about how the fracking probably isn’t so great for the environment Knowing that it occurs - don’t like that it is ruining habitat and preventing restoration of habitat Yeah there was a spill and I can’t drink the water from the public spout Positive Impacts/Better Access (6) Roads are better


Good for opening up area for the deer I have noticed them opening up some more places but nothing really affecting me good or bad Improved deer and turkey habitat More deer We get income from the industry that lets us have more free time If no, why not? (98 open-ended responses) No Effect on Experience (30) Doesn’t bother First time (2) First visit Haven’t been around It almost needs to be done… Not a big deal Just the logging N/A (8) No No encounters No impact (2) None (7) Not affecting Not in the way Nothing really I understand it as a short term inconvenience for me but good for everyone else No problem with it, hasn’t bothered ecology Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (38) Didn’t see any effect Doesn’t seem to be around Don’t see it Don’t see them Haven’t experience any drilling Haven’t experienced any here Haven’t had to deal with it Haven’t noticed it Haven’t seen any Haven’t seen them I don’t really see it happening I haven’t really noticed it I haven’t really seen any effects on the roads I just haven’t seen it around too much Just don’t see it really No evidence (5) No indication Not noticed Not really familiar with the area… Haven’t seen any


Not really relevant to us Not really… I mean we stick around here for the most part Not seen (9) Unnoticeable We don’t really get out enough to see it We just don’t typically notice anything Yeah I don’t really get out in areas where they are drilling You don’t see it much down here Not Drilling Here (or in areas I care about) (15) I haven’t really seen any here… I’m not sure if there is any Just don’t see it where I go Just not here, at least not where we go I haven’t really seen it in this area I just haven’t seen it where I go Didn’t drill here No here Not around here Not here Not here that he knows of Not here that he’s aware of Not out here or on the trails They’re not here Wasn’t here Not Yet (implies concern for future) (3) It hasn’t but I am worried Not yet but it might in the future There’s some activity here and there but I’ve not been effected by it yet Don’t Know About It (3) I didn’t even know it was out here I didn’t even know they are doing it up here Not familiar Pro-Drilling/Positive Impact (7) I support it and we don’t really see it here I think it’s a good thing I think they are pretty thoughtful about their practices Let them keep drilling baby The roads are wider and nicer… like four mile They take care of the land Works for Marcellus


Elk SF Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this State Forest? n = 413, Yes = 32, No = 381 264 total open-ended responses If yes, why? (32 open-ended responses) Road/Traffic (3) Roads, vehicles, water trucks Truck traffic, noise, disrupted forestry Water truck activity affecting roads Displaced/Closed Areas (4) Changed cabin area Changed route due to drilling in area Close off roads for snowmobiling Roads are closed sometimes, Noise Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (6) 40 Wells and truck traffic affect hunting Areas where they are at used to be hunting grounds Hunting around the new gas line put in It changes the way the game act Opened up a lot of heavy undergrowth and helped wildlife Roads intrusive to hunting grounds General Concerns (4) Could have an impact Doesn’t want to discuss because sees so much from where they’re from and irritated with it Sampling because of Marcellus shale Wells near where staying and where they live Noise and Visual Impacts (3) At the campsite they use the well nearby runs all the time and it takes away from the quietness Commotion that goes on Not as quiet Positive Impacts/Statements (9) Gas is cheaper to travel here Have a piece of land that has leased to company, has large contract with the company and gets to say what they do and don’t do I think it is good for state economy and creates more jobs I think it would be helpful for local economy and forest conservation Make more money for the area


Noticed the wells but thought it was an improvement It has impacted positively Thinks it’s improved a little Want to place a pipe through their land If no, why not? (232 open-ended responses) No Effect on Use (77) Always been here Because they don’t affect us Can still go walking Did put in well but doesn’t affect usage Didn’t start traveling to areas where it’s been until after the mining began Does not affect them Doesn’t bother him Don’t care Don’t see any reason for it to change recreation activities First time here and do not see it Has seen evidence but hasn’t changed their experience Hasn’t changed anything Hasn’t disrupted any recreational activities Hasn’t impacted it Hasn’t noticed and doesn’t pay attention to it Haven’t affected anything Haven’t had issues Hunting activities haven’t been effected I do not think so I don’t mind it I don’t think it affects me I don’t think so I see it but actually not affects me It doesn’t bother me. It may help local economy Just hiking Knows we need fossil fuels so it doesn’t matter to his recreation use No comment Need to do it No No but don’t think they should be doing it No but has changed where they’re from No but questioned the spotting from trucks on Winslow Hill No comment (10) No doesn’t seem to affect anything No effect No evidence


No it hasn’t (2) No hasn’t changed the experience but does work in the industry No hasn’t done anything detrimental to this area No interference Nope, no reason Nope, first time visiting Not affected Not affecting me (3) Not affecting us (2) Not at all Not for me Not for us Not from this area Not in the way Not making a big impact Not much activity Not really Not so much now, but the heavier truck traffic in the beginning was bad Not that they noticed Not the first but local roads Not them particularly Not today Not too much, just well sites Nothing for recreational use Nothing going 100% No Seen, but unaffected They plow the snowmobile trails in the winter… Down to the bone… They don’t care Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (95) Are not going deep into woods to see it Did not encounter Did not notice any activity Didn’t encounter it in elk SF Didn’t hunt those areas Didn’t see it Do not see it Doesn’t see much evidence Don’t see it (8) Hasn’t seen any (2) Hasn’t see any evidence Hasn’t seen any in the forest Hasn’t seen how it has Hasn’t seen it (3) Hasn’t seen the impact Hasn’t witnessed any activity


Have not run into it Have not seen any vehicle traveling Haven’t been exposed to many Marcellus shale sites or activity Haven’t come across any activity Haven’t come in contact with it Haven’t encountered Haven’t noticed it (5) Haven’t seen a change Haven’t seen any Haven’t seen anything Haven’t seen impacts Haven’t seen it (5) No evidence yet just getting started No hasn’t seen any Not recreating in drilling locations Have not seen it (4) Not seen (41) Too far from home. Not seen Not Drilling Here or in Areas I Care About (21) Avoid it Hasn’t seen at this site Haven’t really seen it here, not like home Haven’t seen it here (2) Not seen it here Haven’t seen it in elk state forest, but see it at home in Ohio I haven’t really noticed it here I haven’t seen it where I go Does not think it is here Not out here where I go Does not think they drill on state game lands Here, no. I don’t think it affects here I don’t think they are drilling here No active here No impact here Not here Not in the area Not in this area, not from this area They have it around the area and you can’t see it here


Not Yet (implies concern for future) (8) I just know they closed some snowmobile trails… It hasn’t affected me yet but it might in the future It has not affected me yet Not at this point Not around yet Not yet Not yet at least Not yet but not happy about it Not yet it hasn’t Don’t Know About It (10) Doesn’t know what it is (3) Don’t know Don’t know about it Don’t know where they are drilling Hasn’t heard of it Haven’t heard about it Isn’t informed Not sure about how much has happened here Pro-Drilling (8) Did improvement to their driveway No husband works for company No, they think it is a positive to the area No, they work in the business Not here but thinks they have done a good job keeping it cleaned up Not here, pipeline helps travel Not hurting anything… it’s good for jobs Possibly beneficial, creates new habitats


Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this State Forest? n = 413, Yes = 48, No = 365 242 total open-ended responses If yes, why? (45 open-ended responses) Road/Traffic Issues (13) Commotion and lack of privacy Have to be very careful on roads because of the tankers, noise pollution disruptive Just a little bit because of the truck traffic Lots of trucks really cut back on our enjoyment Restricted use of roads Road conditions are worse, with all the heavy truck traffic Roads affect the peace that comes with hunting Saw some trucks on highways Traffic Traffic, more trucks on the road, kills rattle snakes Truck traffic (2) Truck traffic during viewing Noise and Visual Impacts (4) It’s different. Not the same as it used to be, relaxing and quiet. Altered landscape. It is a major difference Loss of quiet, liked when roads were not used much Noise, less pleasurable to know it happens Wells near campsite General Concerns (9) Removal of survey ribbons Disturbing to know that it happens Doesn’t agree with it Don’t like that it’s happening in the state forests and not being taxed so it bothers me to know about it happening Haven’t seen them but haven’t been affected by that. However feel that loggers are more disruptive because it disrupts hunting (the way deer run) and they’re not allowing people to take the leftover firewood Knowing that it happens in state forest bothers her Knowing that the land is being disturbed changed experience and enjoyment Yeah, I just don’t like the idea of it being around Ruined Parker Dam and disapproves Effects on Wildlife/Hunting (2) Interfered with wildlife in the evening Some areas used to hunt in no longer favorable


Displaced/Closed Areas (2) Can’t get where we need to sometimes Changed routine Impacts on the Environment (3) Cut in the stream, had to move down stream to sample I don’t like it and I don’t think it is good for the environment Scars the land Pro-drilling/Positive Impacts (9) Does well for the economy I support it Improved the road, more traffic Improvement In contact with a company Made it better Money for the community Pipeline improves trails Yes, noticed the wells and has helped If no, why not? (197 open-ended responses) No Effect on Experience (51) Always been here Does not bother him Doesn’t agree with it Doesn’t bother him Doesn’t bother them Doesn’t affect their trip Encountered but was not bothered Has seen it but not bothered by it Hasn’t impacted her Hasn’t impacted him Hasn’t impacted it Hasn’t impacted their trip Hotel s room full during week I don’t see the big fuss about it Just hasn’t influenced our experience Just see the well sites N/A No (2) No, but doesn’t agree No comment (16)


No interference Not impacted things I do in forest No problem None (2) Nope Not affected Saw them working but it didn’t seem to interfere Seen, but unaffected Slower getting in and out Still uses That doesn’t bother me Unavailable Wants state forest to remain the same Was not an interference Don’t Notice/Haven’t Seen Any Activity (96) Can’t see it Didn’t notice anything yet Didn’t see any Do not see it Doesn’t pay attention to it Don’t really see it Don’t see it (6) Hasn’t experienced it Hasn’t seen any (2) Hasn’t seen it Hasn’t seen the impact where they visit Haven’t encountered Haven’t noticed it Haven’t noticed it but opposed to it. They hope that they haven’t voted to stop water skiing where they’re from in their park because it’s important to have and the accident that happened wasn’t related to the condition of the creek Haven’t seen it (5) No didn’t see anything No evidence no bothering No evidence (6) Not seen (56) Not seen anything Not seen it (2) Not seen much Haven’t come across any activity I haven’t really noticed it here We haven’t really seen it You know I haven’t really seen anything… and I don’t know if it is a good thing or a bad or something in between


Not Drilling Here (or in areas I care about) (15) Haven’t seen it here (2) Haven’t encountered here I don’t even see the trucks running up here I haven’t really noticed it here I haven’t really seen it where we go Haven’t noticed it here Haven’t noticed it around here (2) No impact here Not encountered here Not here There is no activity around Benezette that I’m aware of… That’s all further north Not in this area, not from this area Not Yet (implies concern for future) (14) Not today Hasn’t changed experience but worried about changes in the future Have not caused disasters yet here No but afraid of water level because of other parks Not visible in area as of yet Not yet (6) Not yet but afraid of how it will affect wildlife, community and water Not yet, I just hope they don’t do as much up here as they do at home Think it will affect it Don’t Know About It (6) Didn’t know what it was Doesn’t know if it’s changed Hasn’t heard of it Isn’t informed Not aware Not sure about how much has happened here Pro-Drilling/Positive Impact (7) Actually thinks it good Has helped the area It is beneficial I think it’s a great opportunity for PA No he works for them No they work for them Love that it is taking place


Appendix B

Zip Code Analysis of Moshannon and Elk State Forest Visitors


2014-15 Pennsylvania Visitor Use Monitoring - ZIP Code Data

Each of the three versions of the survey asked for the respondent’s home ZIP code as part

of the socio-demographic data. These ZIP codes were then uploaded into ArcMap GIS software

(ESRI, 2012). A basic spatial analysis was conducted for each forest to determine the geographic

distribution of the respondents. Straight-line distances were computed from the respondent’s ZIP

code to the forest headquarters. Additionally, a breakdown of respondents by state and

Pennsylvania County was performed. The results are shown below, segmented by forest. Maps

illustrating the geographic distribution of visitors are included at the end of this section (Figure 1

and Figure 2).

Moshannon State Forest Highlights The average straight-line distance from the respondents’ home ZIP code to the

Moshannon State Forest Headquarters was 92.4 miles.

29.2% of respondents’ home ZIP codes were within 25 miles of the Moshannon State Forest Headquarters, 74.4% were within 100 miles (Table 1).

Respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 9 states; 96.2% of the respondents reported a

home ZIP code in Pennsylvania (Table 2). The Pennsylvania respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 46 different counties (Table 3).

The top three counties were Clearfield (13.8%), Centre (10.2%), and Lancaster (7.7%).

Table1.Straight‐LineDistancefromZIPCodetoMoshannonStateForestHeadquarters(n=357)

Distance(miles)NumberofResponses Percent*

Lessthan25 104 29.2%25‐49 56 15.8%50‐99 105 29.4%100‐199 80 22.3%200+ 12 3.4%

*may not add up to 100% due to rounding


Table2.MoshannonStateForestResponsesbyState(n=371)

StateNumberofResponses Percent*

Pennsylvania 357 96.2%Virginia 6 1.6%Ohio 2 .5%Colorado 2 .5%Florida 1 .3%Illinois 1 .3%NewYork 1 .3%SouthCarolina

1 .3%


Table3.MoshannonStateForestPennsylvaniaResponsesbyCounty(n=357)

CountyNumberofResponses Percent*

Clearfield 49 13.8%Centre 36 10.2%Lancaster 28 7.7%Indiana 18 5.1%York 18 5.1%Westmoreland 13 3.6%Blair 13 3.6%Jefferson 11 3.1%Lycoming 11 3.1%Elk 11 3.1%Clinton 9 2.6%Franklin 9 2.6%Allegheny 9 2.6%Cumberland 7 2.0%McKean 7 2.0%Mifflin 7 2.0% Northumberland 7 2.0% Butler 5 1.5% Clarion 5 1.5% Erie 5 1.5% Huntingdon 5 1.5% Adams 5 1.5% Perry 5 1.5% Cambria 4 1.0% Cameron 4 1.0%Lehigh 4 1.0%


Armstrong 4 1.0%Beaver 4 1.0%Bedford 4 1.0%Berks 4 1.0%Union 4 1.0%Venango 4 1.0%Montgomery 4 1.0%Carbon 2 .5%Columbia 2 .5%Crawford 2 .5%Juniata 2 .5%Fulton 2 .5%Bucks 2 .5%Tioga 2 .5%Washington 2 .5%Mercer 2 .5%Montour 2 .5%Northampton 2 .5%Potter 1 .3%Schuylkill 1 .3%

*may not add up to 100% due to rounding Elk State Forest Highlights The average straight-line distance from the respondents’ home ZIP code to the Elk State

Forest Headquarters was 115.0 miles.

49% of respondents’ home ZIP codes were over 100 miles away from the Elk State Forest Headquarters, 15.7% were within 50 miles (Table 4).

Respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 12 states; 92.7% of the respondents reported a

home ZIP code in Pennsylvania (Table 5). The Pennsylvania respondents’ home ZIP codes represent 62 different counties (Table 6).

The top three counties were Clearfield (4.6%), Lancaster (4.6%), and York (4.6%).


Table4.Straight‐LineDistancefromZIPCodetoElkStateForestHeadquarters(n=451)

Distance(miles)NumberofResponses Percent*

Lessthan25 19 4.2%25‐49 52 11.5%50‐99 160 35.5%100‐149 202 44.9%150+ 18 4.1%


Table5.ElkStateForestResponsesbyState(n=451)

StateNumberofResponses Percent*

Pennsylvania 418 92.7%Ohio 13 2.9%NewYork 5 1.1%NewJersey 4 .9%Florida 2 .4%Indiana 2 .4%Michigan 2 .4%DistrictofColumbia 1 .2%Minnesota 1 .2%Texas 1 .2%Virginia 1 .2%WestVirginia 1 .2%


Table6.ElkStateForestPennsylvaniaResponsesbyCounty(n=407)

CountyNumberofResponses Percent*

Clearfield 20 4.7%Lancaster 20 4.7%York 20 4.7%Blair 18 4.4%Butler 16 3.7%Westmoreland 16 3.7%Centre 15 3.5%McKean 15 3.5%Jefferson 13 3.0%Allegheny 12 3.0%Dauphin 11 2.7%Berks 11 2.7%Indiana 10 2.3%


Lycoming 10 2.3%Franklin 10 2.3%Armstrong 9 2.3%Cambria 8 2.0%Clinton 8 2.0%Elk 8 2.0%Erie 8 2.0%Huntingdon 8 2.0%Chester 7 1.7%Beaver 7 1.7%Venango 7 1.7%Northumberland 7 1.7%Potter 7 1.7%Clarion 5 1.3%Cumberland 5 1.3%Juniata 5 1.3%Luzerne 5 1.3%Bedford 5 1.3%Warren 5 1.3%Washington 5 1.3%Mercer 5 1.3%Montgomery 5 1.3%Perry 5 1.3%Schuylkill 5 1.3%Somerset 5 1.3%Lawrence 4 1.0%Bradford 4 1.0%Bucks 4 1.0%Tioga 4 1.0%Cameron 3 .7%Lehigh 3 .7%Union 3 .7%Mifflin 3 .7%Sullivan 3 .7%Carbon 1 .3%Columbia 1 .3%Crawford 1 .3%Lackawanna 1 .3%Lebanon 1 .3%Delaware 1 .3%Fayette 1 .3%Forest 1 .3%Adams 1 .3%Susquehanna 1 .3%Monroe 1 .3%Montour 1 .3%


Northampton 1 .3%Pike 1 .3%Snyder 1 .3%

*may not add up to 100% due to rounding References ESRI 2012. ArcGIS Desktop. Release 10.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research

Institute.


371)


451)


Appendix C

Survey Instrument


Moshannon/Elk State Forest: 2014 - 2015 Recreational Use Survey

Interviewer:_________________ Site: ___________ Date: _____________

Time of Interview: ___________ Vehicle Axle Count: ____________ Clicker Count: _______

Hello, my name is ________, I’m from Penn State and we are doing a survey of State Forest visitors. The information collected will help the DCNR better serve their visitors. Your participation is voluntary and all information is confidential. May I have a few minutes of your time to complete this survey? ___ Yes (If refusal, thank them for their time.)

Section 1 (Screening Questions)

1. What is the primary purpose of your visit to this site?

Recreation—CONTINUE INTERVIEW

Working or commuting to work (stop interview)

Just stopped to use the bathroom (stop interview)

Just passing through, going somewhere else (stop interview)

Some other reason (specify)________________________________________________

Complete 2 and 2a for DUDS and OUDS ONLY 2. Are you leaving (site name) for the last time today or will you return later?

Leaving for last time today

Will return later

2a. When did you first arrive at (site name) on this visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________ Complete for GFA ONLY 3. Are you leaving the Moshannon/Elk SF for the last time today or will you return later?

Leaving for last time today

Will return later

Section 2 (Basic Information) Now I want to ask you some more questions about where you went on your whole visit to the Moshannon/Elk SF, which includes the use of this area and other portions of the Moshannon/Elk SF.

1. Did you spend last night in the Moshannon/Elk SF? No Yes

If yes, how many nights in a row did you spend in the Moshannon/Elk SF? __________

2. When did you first arrive at the Moshannon/Elk on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________

Same as site arrival time

3. When do you plan to finish your visit to the Moshannon/Elk SF on this recreation visit? Month______ Day______ Year______ Time (military)___________

Same as site arrival time


4. What other areas did you visit, or do you plan to visit in the Moshannon/Elk SF for recreation on this trip? (List sites or areas visited) 4a. Lodging facilities include campgrounds, cabins, hotels and lodges. How many different overnight lodging facilities will you use during this State Forest visit? Number______________

4b. How many developed day use sites (like picnic areas or visitor centers), not including trailheads, will you use on this trip to the Moshannon/Elk SF? Number______________ 5. In what activities on this list did you participate during this recreation visit at the Moshannon/Elk SF? (Can choose more than one)

6. Which of those is your primary activity for this recreation visit to the Moshannon/Elk? (Choose only one)

Question 5 answers Question 6 answer Fishing—all types Hunting—all types Viewing & Learning Nature & Culture Viewing natural features such as scenery, wildlife, birds, flowers, fish, etc. (circle one) Visiting historic and prehistoric sites/areas (circle one) Nature study Visiting a nature center, nature trail, or visitor center (circle one) Nonmotorized Activities Hiking or walking Horseback riding Bicycling, including mountain bikes (circle one) Nonmotorized water travel (canoeing, sailing, kayaking, rafting, etc.) Downhill skiing or snowboarding (circle one) Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing (circle one) Other nonmotorized activities (e.g. swimming, games & sports) Motorized Activities Driving for pleasure on roads Riding in designated off-road vehicle areas (non-snow) Snowmobile travel Motorized water travel (boats, etc.) Other motorized activities (endure events, games, etc.) Camping or Other Overnight Camping in developed sites (family or group sites) Primitive camping (motorized) Backpacking or camping in unroaded areas Resorts, cabins, or other accommodations on State managed lands Other Activities Gathering mushrooms, berries, firewood, or other natural products Relaxing, hanging out, escaping heat, noise, etc. Picnicking and family gatherings in developed sites (family or group sites) OTHER (fill in activity) __________________________________________________________


7. Including this visit, about how many times have you come to the Moshannon/Elk SF for recreation in the past 12 months? Number______________

7a. How many of those visits were to participate in the main activity you identified a moment ago? Number______________ 8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this visit to the Moshannon/Elk State Forest? ______________

(1) Very dissatisfied

(2) Somewhat dissatisfied

(3) Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied

(4) Somewhat satisfied

(5) Very satisfied

9. What is your home ZIP code or Canadian postal code? ______________

Visitor is from a country other than USA or Canada

10. How many people (including you) traveled here in the same vehicle as you? Number____________

10a. How many of those people are less than 16 years old? Number______________ 11. What is your age? Age______________ 12. Gender? Male Female

13. Which of the following best describes you? Black/African American

Asian

White

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Spanish, Hispanic or Latino

Other ______________________________

14. Information about income is important because people with different incomes come to the forest for different reasons. Into which income group would you say your household falls? Under $25,000

$25,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000-$149,999

$150,000 or over

___ Don’t Know

___ Refused to Answer


Economics Addition

1. If for some reason you had been unable to go to the Moshannon/Elk SF for this visit, what would you have done instead:

Gone elsewhere for the same activity

Gone elsewhere for a different activity

Come back another time

Stayed home

Gone to work at your regular job

None of these: _____________________________________________________________

2. About how much time, in total, will you be away from home on this recreation trip?

Days ________________ or

Hours _______________

3. On this trip, did you recreate at just the Moshannon/Elk SF, or did you go to other State Forests, parks, or recreation areas?

Just the Moshannon/Elk SF (skip question 4, go to question 5)

Other places (go to question 4)

4. Was the Moshannon/Elk SF your primary destination for this recreation trip?

Yes No

5. Did you or other members of your party spend any money on this trip within 50 miles of this park? ___ Yes (Go to Question 6) ___ No (Skip to Question 7)

6. For the following categories, please estimate the amount you (and other members of your party) will spend within 50 miles of here on this trip. Motel, Lodge, Cabin, B&B, etc. $ ___________

Restaurants & Bars $ _______________

Groceries $ __________

Outfitter Related Expenses (guide fees & equipment rentals) $ _______________

Sporting Goods $ _______________

Camping $ ___________

Local Transportation (bus, shuttles, etc.) $ _______________

Gasoline & Oil $ ___________


$ _______________

Souvenirs, Clothing, Other Misc. $ _______________

6a. How many people do these trip expenditures cover? _____ group members 6b. In total, about how much did you and other people in your vehicle spend on this entire trip, from the time you left home until you return home? Dollar Amount_______ 7. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)_______________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_____________________________________________________________________ 8. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)_______________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_____________________________________________________________________


Satisfaction Addition

1. This section asks you about your satisfaction with the recreation services and quality of the recreation facilities in the Moshannon/Elk SF. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest. Also rate the importance of this attribute toward the overall quality of your recreation experience here. Rate importance from 1 (=not important) to 5 (=very important) in terms of how this attribute contributes to your overall recreation experience.

Poor Fair Average Good Very

Good N/A Importance

Scenery 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of parking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Parking lot condition 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of restrooms 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of developed recreation facilities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of Forest roads 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Condition of Forest trails 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of information on recreation 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Feeling of safety 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Adequacy of signage 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Helpfulness of employees 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Attractiveness of the forest landscape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Please rate your perception about the number of people at this area today. Use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means there was hardly anyone else there, and 10 means that you thought the area was very overcrowded?

HARDLY ANYONE

VERY OVERCROWDED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

5. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________


State Forest Experience Addition

1. Is this your first visit to the state forest?

Yes No

[If no] In what year did you make your first visit to the state forest _______ year In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating in the state

forest? _______ days

In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating at other forest recreation sites outside of the state forest?

_______ days

3. Overall, how would you rate the quality of each of the following at the state forest: Awful Fair Good Very

Good Excellent Not

applicable Sanitation and cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 NA Safety and security 1 2 3 4 5 NA Condition of latrines, picnic pavilions & other facilities

1 2 3 4 5 NA

Responsiveness of staff 1 2 3 4 5 NA Natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 NA

6. Does anyone in your household have a disability?

Yes No

6a. [If yes] Please tell us if you believe our facilities are adequate

2. Which of the following best describes the composition of your group? [check only one]

Alone Family

Friends Family & friends

Commercial group (group of people who paid a fee to participate in this trip)

Organized group (club or other organization)

Other [please specify]_________________________________________________________

4. Which of the following was the most important reason for this visit to the state forest? [Please check only one] _____ I came here because I enjoy being in the forest _____ I came here because it is a good place to spend time with friends/family _____ I came here because it’s a good place to : _____ Hunt _____ Hike _____ Bike _____ Horseback ride _____ Fish _____ Other reasons for visit (e.g., cabin owner, private inholding):

5. On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you feel about access to the forest: [1 poor, 5 very good] By roads 1 2 3 4 5 By trails 1 2 3 4 5


7. Here is a list of possible reasons why people recreate at outdoor recreation sites. Please tell me how important each of the following benefits is to you as a reason for visiting a state forest in Pennsylvania. [one is not at all important and five is extremely important] [N/A does not apply to this question. Should be able to answer for each] REASON

Not at all Important

Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important

To be outdoors 1 2 3 4 5 For relaxation 1 2 3 4 5 To get away from the regular routine 1 2 3 4 5 For the challenge or sport 1 2 3 4 5 For family recreation 1 2 3 4 5 For physical exercise 1 2 3 4 5 To be with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 To experience natural surroundings 1 2 3 4 5 To develop my skills 1 2 3 4 5

8. If you could ask the state foresters to improve some things about the management of the forest, what would you ask them to do? _____________________________________________________________________________________________

9. We are interested in knowing what facilities/services in the state forest are most important to you. Please tell me how important each of the below listed items is to you.

Not at all Important

Somewhat Important


Very Important

Extremely Important

No Opinion

Wildlife viewing areas or opportunities

1 2 3 4 5 x

Picnic areas 1 2 3 4 5 x Parking 1 2 3 4 5 x Signs directing me to recreation facilities

1 2 3 4 5 x

ATV Trails 1 2 3 4 5 x Snowmobile Trails 1 2 3 4 5 x Hike, bike, & horse (non-motorized)Trails

1 2 3 4 5 x

Printed Interpretive information 1 2 3 4 5 x

10. Please look at this list of statements that address your feelings about the recreation area that you visited on this trip in the state forest. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements listed below.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

This place means a lot to me 1 2 3 4 5 I enjoy recreating at this place more than other places I could visit

1 2 3 4 5

I am very attached to this place 1 2 3 4 5 I get more satisfaction out of visiting this place than from visiting most places

1

2

3

4

5

11. Have you obtained any information about this area during this trip or in preparation for it?

Yes No

[If yes] Please continue with follow-up questions


12. What services in nearby communities (OFF of the forest) do you wish were available? Please list: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. This section asks about your satisfaction with your recreation experience at this recreation site or area of the forest. Please rate the following attributes of this recreation site or area of the forest.

Awful

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Not

applicable

Opportunity to recreate without feeling crowded 1 2 3 4 5 NA Places to recreate without conflict from other visitors 1 2 3 4 5 NA Compatibility of recreation activities at the area 1 2 3 4 5 NA Helpfulness/courteousness of Forest employees 1 2 3 4 5 NA Helpfulness/courteousness of people in surrounding communities

1 2 3 4 5 NA

14. Was the state forest your primary destination for this recreation trip?

Yes No

[If no] Please list your primary destination for this recreation trip:____________________________________

15. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreational use of this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)_______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?)_____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

16. Has Marcellus shale-related activity changed your recreation experience at this state forest? ____ Yes (If yes, how?)_______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ____ No (If no, why not?)____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

11a. What type of information did you obtain?

State forest map Trail map

PA visitors guide Other:

11b. When did you receive information?

Before leaving home After arriving here

11c. Where or from whom did you receive information? 11d. Was the information you received helpful to plan your trip?

Yes No

[If no] what would have made the information more useful?


Appendix D

List of Survey Sites


State Forest Visitor Use Survey Sampling Site Inventory: Moshannon State Forest

Site Site # Use Level Classification

High Use Medium Use Low Use General Forest Areas

Black Moshannon State Park Area

North Run Road 1 Peak fishing, peak hunting, peak holiday

Rest of year

Benner Run Road East 2 All year Benner Run Road West 3 Peak fishing Rest of year Benner Run Parking 4 Peak snowmobile Rest of year Myers Run Road 5 All year Huckleberry Road 6 Peak fishing Rest of year Straw Band Beaver Road North 7 All year Straw Band Beaver Road South 8 All year Beaver Road Parking Lot 9 Peak snowmobile Rest of year Horse Hollow Road 10 All year Six Mile Run Road North 11 Peak fishing Rest of year Six Mile Run Road Mid 12 Peak fishing Rest of year Six Mile Run Road South 13 Peak fishing Rest of year Hannah Furnace Road North 14 All year Hannah Furnace Road South 15 All year Hannah Furnace Parking Lot - Snowmobile 16 Peak snowmobile Rest of year Underwood Road N 17 All year Underwood Road S 18 All year Western Area – near SB Elliot & Parker Dam Dubec-Schofield Road 19 All year Dubec Road/Old Penfield Pike 20 All year Dubec Road 21 All year Jury Mill 22 All year Greenwood Road Parking lot 23 All year Greenwood Road North 24 All year

Gordon Road 25 All year Anderson Creek Road 26 All year Colby Road 27 All year Kennedy Road 28 Peak snowmobile,

peak holiday, non peak weekends

rest of year

Firebreak Road 29 All year Crystal Spring Road 30 All year Fourmile Road 31 Peak holiday, peak

hunting, peak fishing

Non peak weekends, weekdays

Winter days

OS Long Road 32 All year Harley Deen/Laurel Run 33 All year McGeorge Road 34 Peak holiday, peak

hunting, peak fishing


Bark Camp Road 35 Peak Hunting – closed any other


time Mud Run Road 36 Peak holiday, peak

hunting, peak fishing, Snowmobile


Moose Grade Road North 37 Peak hunting Rest of year Moose Grade Road South 38 Peak hunting Rest of year Tyler Road West 39 All year Tyler Road East (McGeorge Road) 40 Peak snowmobile Rest of year Caledonia Pike North 41 All year Tank Farm Parking Lot 42 Peak snowmobile Not used rest of

year Tract West of Penfield Mill Run/Mt. Pleasant Road 43 Peak hunting, peak

holiday Rest of year

Mill Run Road North 44 Peak hunting Rest of year Nolan Road 45 All year Bennett Road North 46 Peak hunting, peak

holiday Rest of year

Kersey Road/Boone Mountain Road 47 All year Eastern Section Caledonia Pike South 48 Peak hunting, peak

elk/foliage, peak holiday

Rest of year

Billotte Road 49 Peak hunting, peak elk/foliage, peak holiday

Rest of year

Knobs Road 50 Peak hunting, peak elk/foliage, peak holiday

Rest of year

Big Medix Road 51 Peak fishing, peak hunting

Peak holiday Rest of year

Jack Dent Road 52 Peak elk/Foliage, peak snowmobile

Peak fishing, peak hunting

Rest of year

Ardell Road 53 Peak elk/foliage, peak hunting, peak snowmobile

Rest of year

Red Run Road 54 Peak Fishing Rest of year Lost Run Road North 55 Peak fishing, peak

elk/foliage, peak hunting

Rest of year

Three Runs Road West 56 Peak elk/foliage, peak hunting

Rest of year

Three Runs Road East 57 All year Grant Road/Trail 58 Peak hunting Rest of year Overnight Use Developed Sites Medix Run 59 Peak fishing Rest of year Myers Run Road 60 Peak fishing Rest of year North Run Road Equestrian Campsite 61 Peak holiday, peak

elk/foliage Rest of year

Yellowsnake Camping Area 62 Peak holiday, peak elk/foliage

Rest of year


Special Areas Quehanna Wild Area 63 All year

Marion Brooks Natural Area 64 All year Day Use Developed Sites Hoover Farm 65 Peak Elk/Foliage Rest of the year Beaver Run 66 Peak Elk/Foliage Rest of year Shagger’s Inn 67 Peak fishing, non

peak weekends, peak holiday

Summer weekdays Rest of year

Brown Springs 68 Peak fishing, non peak weekends, peak holiday


Benezette Beach 69 Peak fishing, non peak weekends, peak holiday


View Corridors Rt. 504 – Rattlesnake Pike 70 Peak holiday, non-

peak weekends, special event

Spring through fall Fri-Sun

Rest of year

Beaver Road 71 All year Cassanova Road 72 All year Rt. 322 73 All year Rt. 153 74 All year Rt. 555 75 Peak Elk/Foliage Rest of year Quehanna Hwy. 76 Peak Elk/Foliage,

Peak Hunting Spring through Fall Fri-Sun

Rest of year


Forest Visitor Use Survey Sampling Site Inventory: Elk State Forest

Site Site # Use Level Classification

High Use Medium Use Low Use General Forest Areas

SW Tract near Kylers Corner

Kersey Road North/Boone Mountian Road 1 All year Four Points (goes to Bennett Road) 2 All year Quehanna Wild Area Tract Jerry Run Road North 3 Peak hunting Rest of year Three Runs Road West 4 Peak hunting Rest of year Three Runs Road East/Dutchmans Road 5 Peak hunting Rest of year –

inaccessible in winter

Lincoln Road/Red Run Road South 6 Peak hunting Rest of year Hoover Road 7 Peak hunting Rest of year Red Run Road North 8 Peak hunting Rest of year Benezette Tract Benezette Parking Lot/Trout Run 9 Peak Elk/Hunting

season Rest of year

Dents Run Road Parking Area (Elk Trail)/Dents Run East

10 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Dents Run Road West 11 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Hicks Run Road - East 12 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Hicks Run Road - West 13 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Barr Hollow Road 14 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Mason Hill Parking Area/Fred Woods Trail 15 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Mason Hill Road East 16 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Mason Hill Road West 17 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Eastern Tract Montour Road South 18 Peak Elk/Hunting

Season Rest of year

Montour Road North 19 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Sugar Camp Road 20 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Beaverdam Road 21 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Wykoff Run Road 22 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Rock Run Road 23 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Bailey Run Road 24 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year


Grove Hill Twp Road 25 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Phins Trail Parking Lot 26 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Ridge Trail Parking lot 27 Bear Season/Deer Season first two days (mainly bear)

Rest of year

Brooks Run Road 28 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Big Run Trail parking Lot off 120 29 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Stillhouse Road 30 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Hunts Run/Steam Mill Road 31 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Ridge Road/East Cowley Run Road 32 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

East Cowley Run Road (Parking area for Bucktail Path)

33 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Sizerville Nature Trail Parking Lot near 155 34 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Marshall Farm Road/Sand Spring Trail 35 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Crooked Run Road 36 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Portage Road 37 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Sizer Run Road 38 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Four Mile Trail West/Waldy Run Road 39 Peak Elk/Hunting season

Rest of year

Elk State Park Tract East Branch Grade/Buck Run 40 Peak Elk/Hunting

season Rest of year

Briggs Hollow 41 Deer Hunting Rest of Year Boundary/Butcher/Buck Run 42 Deer Hunting Rest of Year South Fork Branch Road 43 Deer Hunting Rest of year Old Shawmut Grade Road North 44 Peak Elk/Hunting

season Rest of year

Straight Creek Road/Rich Valley Road 45 Peak Elk/Hunting Hunting season

Rest of year

Overnight Use Developed Sites Gas Well Equine Camping Area (5 sites) 51 Fall

weekends/weekdays Peak elk/foliage

Spring weekends Summer weekends due to heat, all other weekdays

Dark Hollow Equine Camping Area (10 sites) 52 Fall weekends/weekdays Peak elk/foliage

Spring weekends Summer weekends due to heat, all other weekdays

Hicks Run Camping Area (15 sites, 11 RVs, 4 tents)

53 Fall week/week days, Peak elk/foliage, Spring

Weekends rest of year, (weekdays April through


(peak fishing) (April through October)

October)

Special Areas Quehanna Wild Area 61 All year MK Goddard/Wykoff Run Natural Area 62 All year Lower Jerry Run Natural Area 63 All year Bucktail State Park Natural Area 64 All year Johnson Run Natural Area 65 All year Squaretimber Natural Area 66 All year Pine Tree Trail Natural Area 67 All year Day Use Developed Sites Elk Country Visitor Center 71 Peak Elk/Foliage

Sept/Oct, Friday through Sundays (generally evenings 3pm to dark)

Summer weekends, peak hunting

Everything else

Hicks Run Wildlife Viewing Area 72 Peak Elk/Foliage Sept/Oct, Friday through Sundays (generally evenings 3pm to dark)

Weekdays during peak elk/foliage

Everything else

View Corridors Rt. 555 81 Peak Elk/Foliage Rest of year Rt. 872 82 Peak Hunting,

Spring through Fall weekends

Rest of year

Rt. 120 83 High all year Rt. 46 84 All year Rt. 155 85 All year Quehanna Hwy. 86 Peak Hunting,

Elk/Foliage Spring through Fall Friday-Sun

Rest of year

Visitor Use Monitoring of Pennsylvania’s State Forests: Year 4 Report … · S. B. Elliott)....

Documents

Transcript of Visitor Use Monitoring of Pennsylvania’s State Forests: Year 4 Report … · S. B. Elliott)....