shoreline management plan for trout laketacoma-ames.com/ames/study_reports/a-smp trt...

Ames Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 400

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TROUT LAKE

Public Service Company of Colorado

OCTOBER 2007

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No. ACRONYM LIST ....................................................................................................AL-1 1.0 Introduction and Background ..........................................................................1 2.0 Shoreline Management Plan for Trout Lake ...................................................1

2.1 Study Purpose.............................................................................................................1 2.2 Study Methods............................................................................................................1 2.3 Study Results..............................................................................................................9 2.4 Analysis and Discussion...........................................................................................61 2.5 References ................................................................................................................64

APPENDICES APPENDIX A - AMES PROJECT SURVEY DATES APPENDIX B - PLACES VISITORS STAYED OVERNIGHT APPENDIX C - VISITOR PERMANENT RESIDENT LOCATIONS APPENDIX D - TROUT LAKE RESIDENTS’ PERMANENT RESIDENT LOCATIONS APPENDIX E - FIELD OBSERVATION FORMS

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page No. Figure 2-1 Location of visitors’ residence...............................................................................14 Figure 2-2 Location of Trout Lake residents’ permanent residence. ......................................16

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No. Table 2-1 Survey sites. .............................................................................................................3 Table 2-2 Visitor and resident response rates - December 2006..............................................4 Table 2-3 Target sample size for visitor survey. ......................................................................5 Table 2-4 Number of completed surveys at Trout Lake. .........................................................5 Table 2-5 Summary of survey/observation days......................................................................6 Table 2-6 Trout Lake visitors: type of group. .........................................................................9 Table 2-7 Trout Lake visitors: group size. ..............................................................................9 Table 2-8 Trout Lake visitation characteristics of visitors.....................................................10 Table 2-9 Trout Lake visitors: number of vehicles. ..............................................................10 Table 2-10 Trout Lake visitor gender of groups. .....................................................................11 Table 2-11 Socio-demographic characteristics of visitors to Trout Lake. ...............................12 Table 2-12 Socio-demographic characteristics of Trout Lake residents..................................15 Table 2-13 Trout Lake residents: household size....................................................................17 Table 2-14 Trout Lake property and resident characteristics...................................................17 Table 2-15 Length of property ownership/lease at Trout Lake................................................18 Table 2-16 Homeowners’ property characteristics at Trout Lake............................................18 Table 2-17 Type of recreation visitor at Ames Project recreation area. ..................................19 Table 2-18 Visitor rating of primary activity at Ames Project recreation area........................20 Table 2-19 Experience ratings by primary activity based on percentage of total

participation. ..........................................................................................................20 Table 2-20 Type of recreation activity residents participate in at Trout Lake.........................22 Table 2-21 Overall rating of residents’ recreation experience at Trout Lake. .........................22 Table 2-22 Visitors who participated in fishing at Trout Lake. ...............................................23 Table 2-23 Residents who participated in fishing at Trout Lake. ............................................24 Table 2-24 Places visited on current and previous trips. .........................................................24 Table 2-25 Primary destination of visitors to Trout Lake........................................................25 Table 2-26 Perceptions of use levels and crowding at Trout Lake among visitors. ................27 Table 2-27 Perceptions of use levels and crowding at Trout Lake among residents. ..............27 Table 2-28 Visitor distance between groups and tolerance by percentage. .............................29 Table 2-29 Resident distance between groups and tolerance by percentage. ..........................29 Table 2-30 Visitor acceptability rating for a variety of items at Trout Lake. ..........................30 Table 2-31 Resident acceptability rating for a variety of items at Trout Lake. .......................30 Table 2-32 Visitors that heard about Trout Lake. ....................................................................31 Table 2-33 Other sources of information on Trout Lake. ........................................................31 Table 2-34 Visitor perception of availability of information at Trout Lake. ...........................31 Table 2-35 Resident perception of availability of information at Trout Lake. ........................32 Table 2-36 Information residents would like to see presented at Trout Lake..........................32 Table 2-37 Visitor perceptions of facility development at Ames Project recreation area. ......33 Table 2-38 Resident perceptions of facility development at Trout Lake................................33 Table 2-39 Visitor satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Ames Project Recreation

Area........................................................................................................................34 Table 2-40 Resident satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Trout Lake. ........................35

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page No.

iv

Table 2-41 Items or facilities residents use on a somewhat regular basis at Trout Lake.........35 Table 2-42 Resident dissatisfaction with facilities at Trout Lake............................................36 Table 2-43 Visitor perceptions of problems at Ames Project recreation area. ........................36 Table 2-44 Resident perceptions of problems at Trout Lake. ..................................................37 Table 2-45 Number of trespass incidences reported by residents at Trout Lake. ....................37 Table 2-46 Residents’ opinion of trespass incidences at Trout Lake.......................................38 Table 2-47 Visitor level of support for management actions at Trout Lake. ...........................39 Table 2-48 Resident level of support for management actions at Trout Lake. ........................39 Table 2-49 Other suggestions for management provided by residents at Trout Lake. ............40 Table 2-50 Visitor perception of safety at Ames Project recreation area. ...............................40 Table 2-51 Resident perception of safety at Trout Lake. .........................................................41 Table 2-52 Evaluation of visitor experience over the years.....................................................41 Table 2-53 Reasons for visitors’ trips substantially declining at Ames Project recreation

area.........................................................................................................................42 Table 2-54 Barriers to visitor recreation participation at Ames Project recreation area..........42 Table 2-55 What visitors believe creates a quality experience at Trout Lake. ........................43 Table 2-56 What changes visitors think would make Trout Lake a better recreation

experience. .............................................................................................................43 Table 2-57 Evaluation of resident experience over the years. .................................................44 Table 2-58 Residents’ reasons for trips substantially declining at Trout Lake........................44 Table 2-59 Additional outdoor recreational opportunities residents would like to see at

Trout Lake..............................................................................................................45 Table 2-60 Visitors’ evaluation of fees at Trout Lake. ............................................................45 Table 2-61 Visitor suggestions for uses of additional fees at Ames Project recreation

area.........................................................................................................................45 Table 2-62 Resident evaluation of fees at Trout Lake. ............................................................46 Table 2-63 Resident suggestions for uses of additional fees at Trout Lake.............................46 Table 2-64 Recreation activities participated in by visitors and residents at Trout Lake. .......47 Table 2-65 Average peak use at Trout Lake during the peak season by location and type

of day. ....................................................................................................................49 Table 2-66 Average peak use at Trout Lake during non-peak season by location and type

of day. ....................................................................................................................50 Table 2-67 Summary of visitor use estimates in RDs at Trout Lake, 2006. ............................50 Table 2-68 Summary of peak season visitor use at Trout Lake in 2006. .................................51 Table 2-69 Population Projections for La Plata County (CO), Bernalillo County (NM),

San Juan County (NM), and Maricopa County (AZ), 2000 through 2030. ...........52 Table 2-70 Major trends and themes related to outdoor recreation in the State of

Colorado.................................................................................................................53 Table 2-71 Projected estimated annual recreation use in RDs by activity at Trout Lake

through 2050. .........................................................................................................55 Table 2-72 Other recreation areas and opportunities in the project vicinity............................56

AL-1

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

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

Acronym List

AL-2

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

Acronym List

AL-3

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

Shoreline Management Plan for Trout Lake

1

1.0 Introduction and Background Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) owns and operates the Ames Hydroelectric Project on the Lake Fork and Howards Fork of the South Fork San Miguel River in southwestern Colorado. The Project is located approximately 8 miles southwest of the City of Telluride, Colorado. PSCo is using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to obtain a new license for the historic Ames Project. As part of that process, PSCo is undertaking resource studies in accordance with study plans developed with stakeholders and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in its Study Plan Determination dated March 24, 2006.1

2.0 Shoreline Management Plan for Trout Lake 2.1 Study Purpose This study investigated the need for the development of a formal shoreline management plan (SMP) for Trout Lake. Potential items to be addressed by the SMP could be the need for or desirability of trail access around the lake, the potential for integration of existing trail systems such as the Galloping Goose trail with other trails within the area, coordination with a variety of other recreationists, including Nordic skiers, mountain bikers, hikers, horseback riders, and snowmobile riders. Other potential needs related to recreation planning and shoreline management including limiting boat size, need for boat launch area improvements, feasibility of installing fire filling station, appropriate signage, and other lake management issues. Trout Lake is the primary water storage reservoir for the Ames Project. PSCo manages Trout Lake to supply flows to the Ames powerhouse. The lake is drawn down over the winter months beginning in late November and early December to prepare for the next spring’s runoff. The total drawdown is approximately 20 feet. Trout Lake then refills from May through July and is operated within 2 to 3 feet of full reservoir through the fall. PSCo maintains a public access area at Trout Lake for fishing and picnicking. Presently there is no comprehensive management plan in place to guide daily and long-term management of recreation facilities and shoreline management of the project. PSCo’s ownership at Trout Lake extends only a very short distance above normal full reservoir in most places. Private property surrounds the lake upslope of the narrow band of PSCo-owned lands. 2.2 Study Methods The purpose of this study was to investigate the need for, and contents of, a recreation and shoreline management plan (RSMP) for Trout Lake. This study utilized a stepwise approach to defining appropriate recreation opportunities and management options for future recreation and non-project uses at Trout Lake. This study plan was divided into three components as follows:

1 This study was conducted in accordance with the FERC-approved Study Plan for Recreation, Land Use, and

Aesthetics Issue Assessment No. 6.


2

Component 1: Visitor and Resident Use Assessment The purpose of Component 1 was to describe use levels, preferences, attitudes, and characteristics of the project area’s primary recreation user groups. Specific objectives included: a. Describing recreation visitors and their trip characteristics by type of user (i.e., anglers,

boaters, campers, hikers, hunters, skiers, mountain bikers, and picnickers). b. Describing user preferences for different recreation settings and facilities and their tolerances

for various conditions at project recreation areas. c. Identifying possible recreation conflicts, crowding, or personal safety issues of the Project’s

recreation areas. d. Describing users’ attitudes toward management actions that might be used to improve

experiences or address problems. e. Describing recreation visitors’ activities. f. Describing Trout Lake resident’s concerns regarding control of general public use at the Lake. g. Identifying the amount, activity type, and spatial and temporal distribution of existing

recreation use at Trout Lake. h. Identifying advantages and disadvantages of management actions for future recreation

management. Component 2: Recreation Demand Assessment The purposes of this component were: (1) to describe existing recreation use at the Project; (2) identify if there are project area recreation activities with high existing unmet (or latent) demand; (3) identify if there are particular recreation activities that are expected to have significant project area growth in recreation demand; and (4) identify the relative regional significance and uniqueness of project area recreation resources. Specific objectives for this component of the study include: a. Identifying the amount, activity type, and spatial and temporal distribution of existing

recreation use at Trout Lake, and describe historical recreation use trends related to recreation. b. Identifying recreation opportunities in the Project area that may have substantial unmet

demand and identify potential constraints or barriers to use, in particular those potentially related to existing project operations or management.

c. Roughly estimating future demand within the project area through the estimated term of the new license (30 to 50 years).

d. Assessing the regional uniqueness and relative significance of the project’s primary recreation opportunities.

Component 3: Needs Assessment The primary purpose of the Needs Assessment is to integrate findings from the Recreation Demand, Inventory and Assessment of Recreation Facilities and Use Impacts, and Recreation Visitor Survey and Resident Use Surveys, to systematically prioritize possible management actions that would protect or enhance project recreation opportunities and minimize potential recreation use impacts on resources. Specific objectives of this component are:


3

a. Integrating study findings to summarize the existing condition of project recreation

opportunities and to identify important recreation resource needs. b. Developing a prioritized list of potential actions (strategies) to address project recreation

needs. c. Identifying a set of recreation management actions suitable to Trout Lake. For the Summary of Visitor and Resident Use Assessment (Component 1), the study area included the Trout Lake recreation area and the Ames powerhouse area (to identify use levels only). For resident information, only those residents that were within the area considered as the Trout Lake Homeowners Association and the Lizard Head Land Company were included. The study area for the Demand Assessment (Component 2) included the project and the specific study sites referenced in Table 2-1. Statewide or regional information about current unmet demand and potential future demand was applied to these same areas. In addition, the study area for assessing regional uniqueness and significance of the project’s recreation resource opportunities was determined from the results of specific questions on the visitor survey. Table 2-1 Survey sites.

Recreation Resource Area Study Sites Trout Lake Picnic area Restroom Parking area Sun/rain shelter Boat launch Shoreline areas Howard’s Fork Diversion Dam (recreation impact only) Lands within FERC Project boundary Ames Powerhouse (observation and recreation impact only) Lands within FERC Project boundary; access to

Lake Fork falls Study methods by study component are described below. Component 1: Visitor and Resident Use Assessment Component 1 involved conducting the Visitor and Resident Use Assessment, which consisted of developing the survey instruments, conducting the survey (survey approach), and choosing the target sample sizes from the survey populations (visitors and residents). PSCo developed a visitor and resident survey which included the following topics: ■ acceptability of the boat launch ■ other locations in the area visited on the trip ■ preferences and attitudes towards developed facilities and services (including interpretive and

education facilities, signage) ■ importance of dispersed site features ■ activity preferences ■ satisfaction with shoreline access and opportunities


4

■ comparison of their primary destination site to other places ■ satisfaction with specific trip attributes ■ perceived personal safety ■ crowding and conflict ■ changed recreational use patterns (including ORV use) ■ overall trip satisfaction ■ potential barriers to recreation ■ visitation numbers and seasonal use patterns of visitors and Trout Lake Homeowners

Association residents and the Lizard Head Land Company property owners ■ visitor’s socio-demographics (place of residence, age, gender, income level) For the visitor use survey, the field researcher approached a group and depending on the group size, asked members of the group over the age of 18 to complete an on-site survey. If the visitor refused, the refusal was noted; if the respondent had completed a survey on their previous visit, they were not asked to complete another survey. To be sure resident issues were addressed within the resident survey, PSCo conducted a resident meeting to ascertain topics important to residents. PSCo also conducted a resident direct mail survey with residents of the Trout Lake Homeowners Association and the Lizard Head Land Company. The survey response results for both visitor and resident surveys are noted in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 Visitor and resident response rates - December 2006.

Survey Returned/Completed Total N Response Rate Refusals Trout Lake Visitor: ±Onsite 122 132 92.4% 10 Trout Lake Visitor: Windshield 56 159 35.2% Total Visitor Completed Surveys 178 Trout Lake Homeowners

Trout Lake Homeowners Association 69 87 79.3% Lizard Head Land Company 13 19 68.4%

Total Resident Completed Surveys 82 70.7% For the project visitor surveys, researchers attempted to obtain a sample size for the target population based on a 95 percent confidence interval, with a ±10 percent sampling error. The only previous documented use estimate was the annual daytime estimated use of 41,487 Recreation Days (RD) primarily at Trout Lake and Hope Lake, with a peak weekend average of 920 RD. No prior information existed for the Ames powerhouse area or access to Lake Fork Falls. The survey goal for the 2006 season was based on these limited prior use estimates (Table 2-3). Based on 178 visitor survey responses, if the visitor population to Trout Lake alone was estimated at roughly 45,000 (which is unlikely based on 2006 estimates) and visitors are expected to be about evenly split on the issues developed in the survey questions (a conservative approach), a sample of 96 visitors were needed to make estimates with a sampling error of no more than +10 percent, at the 95 percent confidence interval.


5

Table 2-3 Target sample size for visitor survey.

Area Population Target Sample 95% CI ±10% Sampling Error Target Survey

Trout and Hope Lake 41,487 96 100 Ames Powerhouse1 400 (est.) 78 80 Total 45,487 180

1 The total number of vehicles observed at Ames powerhouse for the entire season was seven. Therefore, the estimated use was far less than expected.

The actual number of surveys completed is depicted in Table 2-2. The total completed surveys fell two surveys short of the targeted number of completed surveys. However, very few visitors were noted at Ames powerhouse. The number of survey days was completed as per the study plan, for a total of 44 days (Table 2-4). For a complete listing of each survey date, see Appendix A. Table 2-4 Number of completed surveys at Trout Lake.

Survey Days Total Weekday Days 17 Weekend Days 20 Holiday Days 7 Total Number of Survey Days 44

After testing the survey onsite at Trout Lake, an on-site survey questionnaire was utilized as the method to address visitor use questions. Often times due to the duration of a visitor’s stay, visitors were often reluctant to agree to complete the mail-back or Part II of the survey. Therefore, the questions were combined into an on-site only survey and a windshield survey, instead of utilizing a mail-back portion for Part II. The windshield survey included an explanation of the project and the survey effort, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for easy return by the respondents. When surveyors had the opportunity, they would advise respondents of the windshield survey placed on their vehicle, which usually occurred (approximately 85 percent of the time) as the respondent was exiting the project area. The visitor numbers at Ames powerhouse were extremely low, thus nearly no response for surveys; however, visitors to Trout Lake were asked about other places they visited in the project area, including Ames powerhouse. Therefore, through the use of visitors surveys collected at Trout Lake, an overall evaluation of visitation to the Ames powerhouse could be deduced. Component 2: Demand Assessment Component 2 of this study had four components: (1) existing recreation use assessment; (2) existing unmet demand assessment; (3) future demand assessment; and (4) regional uniqueness and significance assessment. Existing Use Assessment The Existing Use Assessment was done in three steps, each of which is described below.


6

Step 1: Field Reconnaissance and Preparation

This step involved preparation for existing use data collection, including developing draft data forms and associated databases; developing field work logistics and protocols; field crew training; selection of sampling dates; “pre-testing” field protocols, and revising schedules, logistics, or protocols based on preliminary findings. PSCo completed Step 1 during the spring of 2006.

Step 2: Data Collection

To estimate recreation use at Trout Lake and the Ames powerhouse area, a roving use survey was conducted using a stratified two-stage (geographic and temporal) probability sampling approach (Mavestuto 1996; Pollock et al. 1996). The sample was stratified by recreation resource areas (Table 2-1), type of day (weekdays, non-holiday weekends, holiday weekends, and opening fishing weekends), and time of day (mornings from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; afternoons from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; and evenings from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (depending on weather). When weather moved in and visitors departed, researchers were asked to stay ½ hour to 1 hour longer, then depart if no new use occurred or weather did not change. Based on relatively low use during most survey days, field staff made every attempt to sample each group/individual present during the day that identified that they had not completed a survey on previous visits. A summary of survey dates are listed in Table 2-5. For a complete list of each date surveyed, see Appendix A. A total of 44 days were surveyed from May through December 2006.

Table 2-5 Summary of survey/observation days.

Type of Day Frequency Percent Weekdays 16 36.4 Weekends 21 47.7 Holidays 7 15.9 Total 44

Project visitation by members of the Trout Lake Homeowners Association and Lizard Head Land private homes near the Project Boundary was captured during the existing recreation use survey and from responses from the recreation visitor.

Step 3: Estimate at-one-time (AOT) and daily and season Recreation Days (RDs)

For each recreation site, the average and maximum existing use levels was calculated for recreation parameters (e.g., people, vehicles, groups, facility occupancy) by day type (e.g., weekend, weekday, holiday) and time period (e.g., morning, afternoon, evening) during the surveyed recreation season. In addition, for each recreation site or cluster of sites, researchers calculated the frequency distribution of observed recreation activities during the surveyed recreation season.


7

Existing Unmet Demand Assessment To assess the general level of unmet demand for project recreation resources, PSCo performed the steps described below:

Step 1: Assess statewide and regional unmet recreation demand information Review and summarize relevant information from the 2003 Colorado Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). In addition, a review of the SCORP Local Government Survey results, which include regionalized recreation issues and needs from local agencies involved in outdoor recreation management, was reviewed.

Step 2: Collect unmet project area recreation demand information from visitor surveys

PSCo collected additional unmet recreation demand information from project area residents and visitors in the questionnaire surveys (see Recreation Visitor and Resident Use Assessment, Component 1). These surveys asked visitors if there were any reservoir or river recreation activities they were interested in participating in, but could not because of some form of barrier.

Step 3: Collect unmet project recreation demand information from resident group meeting

and resident survey An informational meeting was held with the association members during July 2006. Information on the relicensing process and the plan to survey residents was disseminated. Additionally, a question and answer period was held. During September 2006, a direct mail resident survey was sent to the Trout Lake Homeowner Association members and the Lizard Head Land Company members from lists obtained by their respective secretaries.

Step 4: Identify potential activities with high unmet demand within the project area

Based on the review of unmet demand information derived from the Colorado SCORP and State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Assessment (SCORA), the recreation visitor survey, project monitoring data, and residential direct mail surveys, potential activities with high unmet demand at the project could be identified.

Future Recreation Demand Assessment This element of the study projects future recreation use at the project over the estimated period of the new license (30 to 50 years). Obviously, projecting the future is a speculative activity, especially over a 30- to 50-year period. These projections, though, can be useful for general planning purposes to identify potential management issues that may occur in the future. This approach included the following steps:

Step 1: Review existing recreation use trends Past use often helps predict future use. PSCo reviewed trends of actual project recreation use from monitoring reports for Trout Lake, Colorado fishing license sales, ORV green stickers and boating vessel registrations for the counties where the


8

majority of project visitors originate from; local fishing guide activity; and recreation equipment sales.

Step 2: Review existing population and recreation activity participation projections

PSCo summarized existing information on future projections from the Colorado Division of Local Affairs on population growth rates of county where the majority of the project visitors originate; and from the Forest Service (i.e., Cordell et al. 2001 and 1999) and other appropriate sources on future projections.

Step 3: Review reasonably foreseeable events that may influence future use

Reasonably foreseeable events in the watersheds may reasonably be expected to influence recreation use in the watershed over the license period.

Step 4: Estimate future recreation use over the license period

Based on historical trends, future growth projections, and likely foreseeable actions in the watershed, an estimate of recreation use and facility utilization over the expected term of the new license (i.e., 30 to 50 years) was made.

Regional Uniqueness and Significance Assessment The final component of Component 2 was to assess the regional uniqueness of the project’s primary recreation opportunities in three steps.

Step 1: Review results of visitor questionnaires PSCo reviewed the results of the recreation visitor and resident use survey to confirm the project’s primary recreation activities.

Step 2: Identify regional recreational opportunities

PSCo identified the geographic draw of the project’s top primary recreation opportunities. This was done by assessing the geographic extent of visitors’ origins and location of the alternative recreation resource areas where visitors participate in their primary recreation activities.

Step 3: Assess uniqueness of the project-related recreation opportunities

For the project’s most popular primary recreation activities, PSCo identified if these recreation opportunities are of local, regional or state significance.

Component 3: Needs Assessment The Recreation Needs Assessment study provided a qualitative assessment of the recreation needs based on integrating the findings from the other recreation components of this study and other related studies. The assessment involved a four-step process in which relevant project recreation opportunities are described, relevant project recreation issues are identified, potential actions to address project-related issues are identified, and enhancement measures are proposed, if appropriate.


9

2.3 Study Results Visitor Travel Characteristics When asked who they were traveling with at the time of the survey, a majority of respondents travel to Trout Lake alone (56.2 percent), with others primarily traveling with friends or family and friends (Table 2-6). Table 2-6 Trout Lake visitors: type of group.

Characteristic: Type of Group % of Respondents Number of Respondents Alone 6.5 11 Family 56.2 95 Multiple Families 7.7 13 Family and Friends 11.2 19 Friends 14.8 25 Organized Groups 3.6 6

Visitors to Trout Lake generally travel with a group size of two to four persons; however, a significant number of visitors also travel in groups of five or more (28.4 percent) (Table 2-7). Table 2-7 Trout Lake visitors: group size.

Group Size % of Respondents Number of Respondents Traveling Alone 10.4 18 2-4 61.3 106 5-7 15.6 27 8-10 6.4 11 11 or more 6.4 11

The majority of visitors to Trout Lake have visited before, with 23 percent of visitors claiming to be visiting for the first time. The majority of visitors visit more than once a year, with a substantial number visiting between two to five days per year or higher. A majority of visitors spend between one to two hours (31 percent) and three to four hours (35.2 percent), and mainly between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Visitors to Trout Lake are generally people staying nearby (69 percent), primarily at campgrounds (43 percent) or residences (38 percent), with about one-quarter (24 percent) of all visitors being local residents. See Appendix B for the entire list of places visitors stayed in the area (Table 2-8).


10

Table 2-8 Trout Lake visitation characteristics of visitors. Visitors Is this your first visit to Trout Lake? (n= 176) % n

First Visit 23.3 41 Average Range

6.8 1-100 On average, how many times per year do you visit Trout Lake? (n= 125) % n

1 time only 24.0 30 2-5 days 48.0 60

6-10 days 12.0 15 11-15 days 3.2 4 16-20 days 5.6 7

21 and more 7.2 9 Average Range

4.1 1-15 How long are you planning on staying at Trout Lake (Hours)? (n=142) % n

1-2 hours 31.0 44 3-4 hours 35.2 50 5-6 hours 19.0 27 7-8 hours 6.3 9

9-10 hours 4.9 7 11-15 hours 3.5 5

Mode Time of arrival 10:00 a.m. Time of departure 2:00 p.m. Type of Visitor % n

Local resident 24.3 41 Visitor staying nearby 68.6 116

Just passing through 7.1 12 Visitor Staying at: % n

Campground 42.8 62 Hotel or Motel 6.2 9

Undeveloped camping area 5.5 8 Residence/Private Property 37.9 35

Other 7.6 11 Visitors generally travel with one vehicle per group to Trout Lake (71 percent) (Table 2-9). Table 2-9 Trout Lake visitors: number of vehicles.

Characteristic: Number of Vehicles % of Respondents Number of Respondents 1 70.6 96 2 15.4 21 3 8.1 11 4 2.9 4 5 2.2 3 6 .7 1

Socio-demographics The socio-demographics of respondents to Trout Lake included: gender make up within the group, group make-up, and location of their permanent residence by zip code. Part II or the mail-back


11

survey contained questions related to ethnicity, education, employment, and household income, and residence. Visitors Of the groups traveling to Trout Lake, approximately 42 percent had at least one female, compared to 35 percent having one male present in the group. Nearly 2.3 percent reported no females within their group, whereas no one person reported having no males in the group. Overall, groups reported a higher ratio of females to males with two persons in a group, and males with three persons in a group. The rest of the results were somewhat mixed, but generally there are slightly more males visiting Trout Lake than females for most groups (Table 2-10). Table 2-10 Trout Lake visitor gender of groups.

% of Respondents Number of Respondents % of Respondents Number of

Respondents # of Visitors Females Males

0 2.3 3 0.0 0 1 41.9 54 34.6 56 2 30.2 39 23.5 38 3 6.2 8 17.3 28 4 3.9 5 9.9 16 5 3.9 5 6.2 10 6 4.7 6 3.1 5 7 2.3 3 0.6 1

8 or more 4.7 6 4.9 8 The sample of respondents to the on-site survey was dominated by males (69.4 percent). The average age of respondents was 50 years old with a wide distribution ranging from 18 to 81 years of age. The largest age group represented was 51 to 60 years of age (26 percent), followed by 41 to 50 years (23 percent). Approximately two-thirds (61 percent) of the sample reported an annual household income of $50,000 and above. Respondents were not very diverse overall. With respect to ethnicity, respondents were primarily of Caucasian (not of Hispanic origin) (78 percent). The remaining respondents’ ethnicity was reported as Native American (11.3 percent), Hispanic (5.6 percent), Asian/Pacific Islander (1.3 percent), and African American (.6 percent). Two other groups reported as “other”, Italian American and Moroccan. Approximately 16 percent of respondents reported that a member of the group had a disability or impairment (Table 2-11).


12

Table 2-11 Socio-demographic characteristics of visitors to Trout Lake. Socio-demographic Characteristic % of Total Respondents Number of Total Respondents

Gender Female 30.6 48

Male 69.4 109 Age

18-20 1.2 2 21-30 10.3 17 31-40 13.3 22 41-50 23.6 39 51-60 26.1 43 61-70 15.8 26 71-80 5.5 9

>81 4.2 7 Education

≤ High School 1.3 2 High School Graduate 13.8 22

Some College or Vocational 34.4 55 College Graduate 25.0 40

Some Graduate work 3.8 6 Masters, Doctorate, or Professional 21.9 35

Household Income < $10,000 11.5 18

$10,000 - $29,999 1.3 2 $30,000 - $49,999 13.4 21 $50,000 - $69,999 17.8 28 $70,000 - $89,999 15.9 25

$90,000 - $109,999 13.4 21 $110,000 – 149,999 8.3 13

≥ $150,000 6.4 10 Prefer not to say 12.1 19

Employment Employed Full time 61.0 97 Employed Part time 2.5 4

Retired, Work Part Time 9.4 15 Retired, Do Not Work 18.9 30

Other: Homemaker 6.3 10 Other: Student, Work Full Time 1.2 2

Other: Disabled, Not Working 0.6 1 Ethnicity

Native Am./Alaskan Native 11.3 18 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.3 2

African-American 0.6 1 Hispanic 5.6 9

Caucasian 78.7 125 Other: Italian 0.7 1

Other: Moroccan 0.7 1 Disability in group

Yes 16.0 25 No 84.0 131


13

A majority reported having some college or higher education (over 85 percent). A majority (61 percent) also reported working full time or part-time, followed by 19 percent reporting retired and not working. Where do visitors come from? Thirty-nine percent of visitors to Trout Lake came from distances of 250 miles or greater. Twenty percent were relatively local, or within 0 to 50 miles of Trout Lake. From those visitors within a 250-mile radius of Trout Lake, a significant portion of visitors come from Colorado (n=66) and New Mexico (n=18) (see Figure 2-1). See Appendix C for a complete listing of visitors’ resident location. Trout Lake Residents Trout Lake residents were also asked questions relative to socio-demographics. The average age of respondents was 50 years old with a wide distribution ranging from 18 to 81 years of age. The largest age group represented was 51 to 60 years of age (26 percent), followed by 41 to 50 years (23 percent). Approximately two-thirds (61 percent) of the sample reported an annual household income of $50,000 and above. Respondents were not very diverse overall. With respect to ethnicity, respondents were primarily of Caucasian (not of Hispanic) origin (78 percent). The remaining respondents’ ethnicity was reported as Native American (11.3 percent), Hispanic (5.6 percent), Asian/Pacific Islander (1.3 percent), and African American (.6 percent). Two other groups reported as “other”, Italian American and Moroccan. Approximately 16 percent of respondents reported that a member of the group had a disability or impairment (Table 2-11). A majority of respondents reported having some college or higher education (over 85 percent). A majority (61 percent) also reported working full time or part-time, followed by 19 percent reporting retired and not working (Table 2-12). Where are residents’ permanent residences? Twenty-two percent of Trout Lake residents have their permanent residence within 50 miles of Trout Lake. Another 24 percent live within 50 to 100 miles of Trout Lake. The rest are 150 miles or greater away from the Trout Lake area. For those visitors within a 250-mile radius of Trout Lake, a significant portion of visitors come from Colorado (n=52). Other surrounding states include New Mexico and Utah (Figure 2-2). See Appendix D for the complete listing of resident’s permanent resident location.


14

Figure 2-1 Location of visitors’ residence.


15

Table 2-12 Socio-demographic characteristics of Trout Lake residents. Characteristic % of Total Respondents Number of Respondents

Gender Female 33.3 26

Male 61.6 48 Age

18-40 1.4 1 41-50 29.2 21 51-60 36.1 26 61-70 19.4 14

>71 13.9 10 Ethnicity

Native Am./Alaskan Native 2.6 2 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.0 0

African-American 0.0 0 Hispanic 0.0 0

Caucasian 88.3 68 Other: Scottish 1.3 1

Education ≤ High School 2.5 2

High School Graduate 2.5 2 Some College or Vocational 12.7 10

College Graduate 24.1 19 Some Graduate work 6.3 5

Masters, Doctorate, or Professional 46.8 37 Household Income

< $10,000 0.0 0 $10,000 - $29,999 3.9 3 $30,000 - $49,999 5.2 4 $50,000 - $69,999 7.8 6 $70,000 - $89,999 7.8 6

$90,000 - $109,999 5.2 4 $110,000 - 149,999 14.6 11

≥ $150,000 23.4 18 Employment

Full time 46.8 36 Part time 2.6 2

Retired, work full time 2.6 2 Retired, work part time 11.7 9

Retired, do not work 26.0 20 Homemaker 2.6 2


16

Figure 2-2 Location of Trout Lake residents’ permanent residence.


17

The majority of Trout Lake residents (62.7 percent) had a household size of 2-4 persons (Table 2-13) and are part-time seasonal residents (78 percent) (Table 2-14). A majority of residents visit Trout Lake less than 10 days per year (72 percent), with an average of 10 days per year and a range from 1 to 45 days per year (Table 2-14). Table 2-13 Trout Lake residents: household size.

Household Size % of Respondents Number of Respondents 1 5.3 4

2-4 62.7 47 5-7 18.7 14 8-10 5.3 4

11 or more 8.0 6 Table 2-14 Trout Lake property and resident characteristics.

Type of property % n Permanent Residence 14.8 12

Part-Time Seasonal Residence 77.8 63 Other 4.9 4

Lot 2.5 2 Part-time Residents

Average Range 10.2 1-45 On average, how many days per year do you visit Trout Lake? % n

1-5 days 34.4 22 6-10 days 37.5 24

11-15 days 9.4 6 16-20 days 4.7 3 21-25 days 7.8 5 26-30 days 1.6 1 31-35 days 0.0 0 36-40 days 1.6 1 41-45 days 3.1 2

46 days or greater Average Range

16.8 1-250 On average, how many days would you stay per visit? % n

1-5 days 65.7 44 6-10 days 19.4 13

11-15 days 1.5 1 16-20 days 0.0 0 21-25 days 3.0 2 26-30 days 1.5 1 31-35 days 0.0 0 36-40 days 0.0 0 41-45 days 9.0 6

46 days or greater 0 0 Trout Lake residents on average have owned or leased their cabin/home at Trout Lake for nearly 28 years. There was a significant range between two and 100 years. The majority of residents were uncertain as to whether their property was located in the Ames Project Boundary, with 39 percent stating it is and 18 percent stating their property was not (Table 2-15).


18

Table 2-15 Length of property ownership/lease at Trout Lake.

Average Range 27.6 2-100 How many years had you owned/leased your cabin at Trout Lake? % n

1-5 years 9 11.5 6-10 years 5 6.4

11-15 years 11 14.1 16-20 years 6 7.7 21-25 years 9 11.5 26-30 years 8 10.3 31-35 years 3 3.8 36-40 years 11 14.1 41-45 years 1 1.3

46 years or more 15 19.2 Residence located in Ames Hydroelectric Project Boundary % n

Yes 39.2 31 No 17.7 14

Not Sure 41.8 33 Boat Storage % n

On My Property 36.6 26 Along Shoreline of Public Land 42.2 30

Both 4.2 3 Most property owners at Trout Lake have a deck or landscaped patio area visible from the water (61 percent), have an unobstructed view from their house to the water (66 percent), and have their house visible from the water (66 percent). Nearly half of all respondents (49 percent) have trail access from their house to the water. The characteristics that no residents’ properties include are “No trespassing” signs visible from the water, “a fence around all of the property”, “a fence or gate blocking access to the property from the water”, and “a deck along the shoreline” (Table 2-16). Table 2-16 Homeowners’ property characteristics at Trout Lake.

Characteristic % n Trail access from your house to the water 49.4 38 A deck or landscaped patio area visible from the water 61.0 47 Chairs, picnic tables, or other development next to the water 5.2 4 An unobstructed view from your house to the water 66.2 51 Your house is visible from the water 67.5 52 “No trespassing” signs visible from the water 0.0 0 Cultivated landscaping and/or lawn between your house and the water 9.1 7 Vegetation or topography that forms a visual barrier between your house and the water 30.3 23 A fence around all of your property 0.0 0 A fence around part of your property 1.3 1 A fence or gate blocking access to your property from the water 0.0 0 Steep banks that prevent easy access to your property from the water 35.1 27 A boat dock along the shoreline 2.6 2 A deck along the shoreline 0.0 0


19

Recreation Activities at Trout Lake Visitors Visitors to Trout Lake were asked what activities members of their group would be participating in during the day of their visit (Table 2-17). Respondents were allowed to check as many activities that applied to their visit. The majority of respondents come to Trout Lake to fish along the shoreline (74 percent), with a majority also identifying shoreline fishing as their primary activity (66 percent). Sightseeing (39 percent), wildlife viewing (28 percent), and picnicking (28 percent) were also popular, but not as primary activities. Boating fishing (7 percent) and hiking/walking (7 percent) were the two next most popular primary activities identified by respondents, followed by tube fishing (5 percent), sightseeing (5 percent), picnicking (2 percent), and mountain biking (2 percent). A small number of respondents (4 percent) mentioned “other” as their primary activity, however did not specify what it was. Table 2-17 Type of recreation visitor at Ames Project recreation area.

n % Recreation Activity1

Boat Fishing 20 11.4 Primary activity 11 6.7

Tube Fishing 15 8.5 Primary activity 8 4.9

Shoreline Fishing 131 74.4 Primary activity 108 66.1

Wildlife Viewing 50 28.4 Primary activity 0 0.0

Picnicking 50 28.4 Primary activity 4 2.4

Hiking/Walking 44 25.0 Primary activity 12 7.3

Sightseeing 69 39.2 Primary activity 8 4.9

Mountain Biking 7 4.0 Primary activity 3 1.8

Motorized Vehicles 2 1.2 Primary activity 0 0.0

Other Activities: Relaxing 1 0.6

Primary activity 1 0.6 Camping 1 0.6

Primary activity 1 0.6 Sailing 1 0.6

Primary activity 1 0.6 Canoeing 1 0.6

Primary activity 1 0.6 Other: Primary Activities 6 3.7

1 Total number for column “N” exceeds number of respondents because visitors could indicate more than one activity they participated in.


20

Overall Experience Evaluation in Visitors’ Primary Activity Visitors were asked to rate their overall experience of their primary activity at Trout Lake during their visit (Table 2-18). On a scale from 1 to 6, with 1=poor and 6=perfect, on average visitors ranked most activities a 4 (very good) or higher. Relaxing and camping were ranked the highest of all overall, with an average of 6 or perfect for these two activities. Boat fishing and shore-based fishing were ranked the lowest, however still considered “very good” overall. Table 2-18 Visitor rating of primary activity at Ames Project recreation area.

Recreation Activity1 Average Rating n Boat fishing 3.91 11 Tube fishing 4.11 9 Shore fishing 3.88 104 Picnicking 4.00 3 Hiking or walking 4.50 12 Sightseeing 4.13 8 Mountain biking 4.00 3 Sailing 4.75 4 Canoeing 6.00 1 Relaxing 4.00 1 Camping 6.00 1

1 Total number for column “N” exceeds number of respondents because visitors could indicate more than one activity they participated in.

To further help understand visitors’ evaluation of their experience with their primary activity, a summary of the percent of ratings within each activity is found in Table 2-19. Within boat fishing, a majority of respondents rated their experience very good or higher (64 percent); for tube fishing, of eight respondents, n=5 or 62 percent rated the tube fishing as very good or higher; for shore-based fishing participants (the overall highest reported activity, n=93, or 58 percent of respondents overall), 61 percent rated their experience “very good” or higher; for picnickers, respondents were equally split between ratings of “good”, “very good”, and “excellent”; other activities had generally low response overall, and were rated generally from “good” to “perfect” overall. Table 2-19 Experience ratings by primary activity based on percentage of total

participation. Rate your overall experience at Trout Lake in

your primary activity Type of Activity Poor Fair Good Very

Good Excellent PerfectTotal

Count 1 0 3 3 3 1 11 % within primary activity 9.1 .0 27.3 27.3 27.3 9.1 100.0Boat fishing % of Total .6 .0 1.9 1.9 1.9 .6 6.9 Count 0 1 2 2 2 1 8 % within primary activity .0 12.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 12.5 100.0Tube-based fishing % of Total .0 .6 1.3 1.3 1.3 .6 5.0 Count 3 9 24 27 24 6 93 % within primary activity 3.2 9.7 25.8 29.0 25.8 6.5 100.0Shore-based fishing % of Total 1.9 5.6 15.0 16.9 15.0 3.8 58.1


21

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

Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent Perfect

Total

Count 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 % within primary activity .0 .0 33.3 33.3 33.3 .0 100.0Picnicking % of Total .0 .0 .6 .6 .6 .0 1.9 Count 0 0 3 3 3 2 11 % within primary activity .0 .0 27.3 27.3 27.3 18.2 100.0Hiking/Walking % of Total .0 .0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 6.9 Count 0 0 4 1 0 2 7 % within primary activity .0 .0 57.1 14.3 .0 28.6 100.0Sightseeing % of Total .0 .0 2.5 .6 .0 1.3 4.4 Count 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 % within primary activity .0 .0 33.3 33.3 33.3 .0 100.0Mountain biking % of Total .0 .0 .6 .6 .6 .0 1.9 Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 % within primary activity .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0Relaxing % of Total .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .6 Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 % within primary activity .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0Camping % of Total .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .6 Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 % within primary activity .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0Sailing % of Total .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 .6 Count 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 % within primary activity .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 100.0Canoeing % of Total .0 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 .6 Count 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 % within primary activity .0 .0 25.0 .0 50.0 25.0 100.0Other % of Total .0 .0 .6 .0 1.3 .6 2.5 Count 4 11 41 41 43 18 158 % within primary activity 2.5 7.0 25.9 25.9 27.2 11.4 100.0Total % of Total 2.5 7.0 25.9 25.9 27.2 11.4 100.0

Residents Trout Lake residents participate in a range of activities at Trout Lake, with little identification of a primary activity overall (Table 2-20). The activities most identified by respondents were: 1) hiking/walking (87 percent, with 33 percent as the primary); 2) relaxing (80 percent, with 21 percent as the primary); 3) shoreline fishing (54 percent, with 7 percent as their primary); 4) cross-country skiing (51 percent); 5) non-motorized boating (44 percent; with 1 percent as their primary); and 6) driving for pleasure (43 percent)


22

Table 2-20 Type of recreation activity residents participate in at Trout Lake. Recreation Activity1 % n

Motor boating for Pleasure 22.0 18 Primary activity 3.7 3

Boat/Tube Fishing 37.8 31 Primary activity 4.9 4

Shoreline Fishing 53.6 44 Primary activity 7.3 6

Swimming 8.5 7 Primary activity 0.0 0

Picnicking 19.5 16 Primary activity 0.0 0

Driving for Pleasure 42.7 35 Primary activity 3.7 3

Non-Motorized Boating 43.9 36 Primary activity 1.2 1

Relaxing 80.5 66 Primary activity 20.7 19

Camping 7.3 6 Primary activity 0.0 0

Hiking/Walking 86.6 71 Primary activity 32.9 27

Mountain Biking 46.3 38 Primary activity 1.2 1

Cross Country Skiing 51.2 42 Primary activity 0.0 0

Snowmobiling 8.5 7 Primary activity 0.0 0

Snowshoeing 1.2 1 Primary activity 1.2 1

Horseback Riding 3.7 3 Primary activity 0.0 0

Hunting 1.2 1 Primary activity 1.2 1

OHV Riding 3.7 3 Primary activity 0.0 0

Water Skiing 2.4 2 Primary activity 0.0 0

Cabin Maintenance 1.2 1 Primary activity 1.2 1

1 Total number for column “N” exceeds number of respondents because residents could indicate more than one activity they participated in.

Residents did not rate the quality of their experience in their primary activity, instead were asked to rate the overall quality of their experience at Trout Lake. Residents overall seem pleased with their recreation experience at Trout Lake, with the average rating of 4.6 on a 5-point scale (Table 2-21). Table 2-21 Overall rating of residents’ recreation experience at Trout Lake.

Item Average Mode % n % n Overall quality of my recreation experience 4.6 5 95.0 75 5.0 4


23

Angling at Trout Lake Visitors To understand the most prevalent activity at Trout Lake, fishing, anglers were asked a series of questions concerning their fishing experience the day they visited (Table 2-22). A majority of respondents fished at Trout Lake (over 85 percent). Of those that fished, on average they fished for 3.5 hours. Most respondents identified 8:00 a.m. as their start time and 4:00 p.m. as their end time. The majority of angling responses by anglers was that they were fishing for all species of trout (63 percent), with 30 percent of responses for rainbow and 7 percent for browns. The majority of respondents indicated catching two fish per hour, with the preferred type of tackle identified as bait fishing (71 percent), followed by spinners and fly (14.4 percent each). Table 2-22 Visitors who participated in fishing at Trout Lake.

Characteristic % n Visitors who fished 85.6 137 # Hours fished (average) 3.5 hours Time Start and Stop Fish Mode

Time Start 8:00 a.m. Time Stop 4:00 p.m.

Target Species (Top Three) % of Responses Total n Response All Trout Species 63 71

Rainbow Trout 30 34 Brown Trout 7 8

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

Boat 18.9 24 Tube 6.3 8

Shore 73.2 93 Preferred type of tackle % n

Bait 71.2 84 Spinners 14.4 17

Fly 14.4 17 Residents Similar to visitors, a majority of residents fish at Trout Lake (63 percent). Most spend slightly under 3 hours fishing, catching 2 fish per hour (Table 2-23). Residents are somewhat split between boat fishing (47 percent) and shore fishing (43 percent), with a small number who fish from a tube (7.5 percent). With respect to target species, a majority of responses identified all trout species (76 percent), with rainbow trout at 18 percent of all response, and brown trout at 6 percent. Residents were somewhat split between bait 39 percent) and fly tackle (35 percent), with spinners identified as the least type of tackle used.


24

Table 2-23 Residents who participated in fishing at Trout Lake. Characteristic % n

Residents who fished 63.4 52 # Hours fished (average) 2.6 hours Target Species (Top Three) % of Responses Total n Responses

All Trout Species 76 37 Rainbow Trout 18 9

Brown Trout 6 3 # Fish caught per hour (mode) 2 fish/hour

Preferred type of fishing % n Boat 47.2 25 Tube 7.5 4

Shore 43.4 23 Preferred type of tackle % n

Bait 38.9 21 Spinners 24.1 13

Fly 35.2 19 Visitors Overall Trip Behavior Visitors were asked what places they visited this trip or what places they have visited on previous trips to the Ames Project area (Table 2-24). For current trips, a majority of respondents (22 percent) identified Telluride Town. Other notable places other than Trout Lake (20 percent) included the Lizard Head overlook (10 percent), Hope Lake Trail (7 percent), Mesa Verde National Park (6 percent), and the Galloping Goose Trail (5 percent). Table 2-24 Places visited on current and previous trips.

Current Trip Previous Trip Both Current and Previous Trips Recreation Area Visitation

% n % n % n Places Visited at Trout Lake:

Hope Lake/trail 6.8 12 16.4 29 1.1 2 Ames Powerhouse 1.7 3 10.8 19 2.8 5

Lizard Head Overlook 10.2 18 26.7 47 14.2 25 Trout Lake 19.9 35 2.3 4 39.2 69

Telluride Town 21.6 38 27.3 48 32.4 57 Galloping Goose Trail 4.5 8 13.6 24 4.0 7

Mesa Verde National Park 5.7 10 35.2 62 3.4 6 Lake Fork Fall 0.6 1 6.3 11 6.8 12

“Other” Places Listed: Ouray n/a n/a 0.6 1 n/a n/a Ophir 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 1

Anasazi Heritage Center n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ophir Padd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mineral Spas 0.6 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Alta Lakes n/a n/a 0.6 1 0.6 1

Dolores 0.6 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Priest Gulch 0.6 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Burrow Bridge n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Matterhorn Campground n/a n/a 0.6 1 0.6 1

Durango n/a n/a 0.6 1 0.6 1 Trout Lake Cabins n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a


25

Visitors Primary Destination To help understand visitors travel behavior within the Ames Project area, visitors were asked to identify their primary destination during their current visit (Table 2-25). A majority of respondents (47 percent) identified Trout Lake as their primary destination. Other places included Telluride Town (22 percent), Priest Gulch (4 percent), and Hope Lake Trail (3 percent). Other destinations were from the surrounding area. Table 2-25 Primary destination of visitors to Trout Lake.

Primary Destinations % n Hope Lake/trail 3.4 5 Ames Powerhouse 2.0 3 Lizard Head Overlook 0.7 1 Telluride Town 21.8 32 Galloping Goose Trail 1.4 2 Mesa Verde National Park 1.4 2 Trout Lake 46.9 69 Silverton 0.7 1 Hidden Lakes 0.7 1 Telluride and Ouray 0.7 1 Cortez 0.7 1 Ridgway 0.7 1 Ouray 1.4 2 Rico 0.7 1 Priest Gulch 4.1 6 Burrow Bridge 0.7 1 Matterhorn Campground 1.4 2 Durango 2.0 3 Trout lake cabins 0.7 1

Evaluation of Crowding at Trout Lake Most recreation experts recognize a difference between density (i.e., contacts) and crowding. Density is a descriptive term that refers to the number of people per unit area. It is measured by counting the number of people and measuring the space they occupy, and it can be determined objectively. Crowding, on the other hand, is a negative evaluation of density or encounters; it involves a value judgment about the specified density number. To emphasize the evaluative nature of the concept, the term perceived crowding is often used. For the purpose of clarity, the term crowding should not be substituted for high density or large numbers of people. Using this term confuses the objective impacts of larger numbers of people with the subjective evaluation of those impacts. Perceived crowding combines descriptive information (the density or encounter level experienced by the individual) with evaluative information (the individual’s negative evaluation of that density or encounter level). When people evaluate an area as crowded, they have at least implicitly compared the condition they experienced (the impacts) with their perception of what is acceptable (their standards). If they conclude that the area is crowded,


26

the existing conditions exceed their definition of a standard (one criterion for an area being over capacity). To understand visitors perception of crowding, researchers asked people to indicate how crowded the area was at the time of their visit on a 9-point scale:

Not at all crowded

Slightly crowded Moderately crowded Extremely

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

Based on previous research, two of the 9 points on the crowding scale label the situation as uncrowded, while the remaining 7 points label it as crowded to some degree. The scale was collapsed into a dichotomous variable that provides a meaningful break point between those who labeled the situation as not at all crowded (scale points 1 and 2, a positive evaluation) and those who labeled the situation as slightly, moderately, or extremely crowded (scale points 3 through 9, a negative evaluation). This strategy has been used in over 200 evaluation contexts, and a comparative analysis of scores has led to the development of five general capacity assessment categories (Shelby et al. 1989): ■ Under 35% No crowding: Relatively unique low-density experiences ■ 36 to 50% Low normal: Unlikely to be a problem ■ 51 to 65% High normal: Experiences approaching capacity ■ 66 to 80% Over capacity: Management probably needed ■ Over 80% Greatly over capacity: Manage for high density or a sacrifice area Evaluation of Use Levels Crowding by Visitors to Trout Lake During their visit, respondents were asked to evaluate how many people they observed and that they would tolerate overall before their experience was compromised. In all cases, respondents appear to be able tolerate at least twice the number of individuals they saw, be it boats/fishing tubes or people fishing along the shoreline. In essence, the number of people experienced was far less than the number of people respondents stated they would tolerate. Visitors were also asked to evaluate their level of perceived crowding on the day of their visit (Table 2-26). The average crowding score for those assessing the shoreline was 2.9, which falls in the “not at all” to “slightly crowded” category. The average response for the water surface was 1.8, or considered “not at all crowded.” Respondents overall viewed the shoreline as somewhat crowded, with 47 percent rating their perceived level of crowding as 3 or higher. However, based on the current evaluation of respondents overall (i.e., 47 percent), crowding currently falls within a “low-normal” range and is unlikely to be a problem as perceived by visitors.


27

Table 2-26 Perceptions of use levels and crowding at Trout Lake among visitors. Visitors Perceptions of Use Number of Boats Average n

# Observed 2.8 128 # Tolerate 6.7 26

Number of Fishing Tubes Average n # Observed 1.1 98

# Tolerate 13.2 16 # Number of People Fishing on Shore Average n


Average Crowding Rating1 Average n Shoreline 2.9 169

Water Surface 1.8 119 Perceptions of Crowding2 % n

Shoreline Not Crowded 52.7 89

Crowded 47.3 80 Water Surface

Not Crowded 84.0 100 Crowded 16.0 19

1 Crowding rated on a scale from 1 = not crowded to 9 = extremely crowded. 2 Crowding scale converted to 1 through 2 = not crowded and 3 through 9 = crowded. Evaluation of Use Levels and Crowding by Residents of Trout Lake Residents were asked to think about the number of boats on Trout Lake on summer weekends, then estimate the highest number of boats they have seen at one time and the highest number of boats they would tolerate at one time before their experience is compromised. On average, residents were able to tolerate more boats than were actually observed on Trout Lake. In other words, there appears to be some room for growth on the lake before resident’s experience is actually compromised (Table 2-27). Table 2-27 Perceptions of use levels and crowding at Trout Lake among residents.

Residents Perceptions of Use Number of Boats Average n


Average Crowding Rating1 Average n Shoreline Weekends 4.7 74 Shoreline Weekdays 3.2 73

Water Surface Weekends 3.9 72 Water Surface Weekdays 2.4 71

Perceptions of Crowding2 % n Weekends on Reservoir Surface


Weekdays on Reservoir Surface Not Crowded 56.1 46

Crowded 30.5 25


28

Residents Weekends on Reservoir Shoreline


Weekdays on Reservoir Shoreline Not Crowded 43.9 36

Crowded 45.1 37 Places You Feel Crowded % n

Boat Launch 50.0 41 Parking Areas 56.1 30 Lake Surface 8.5 7

Undeveloped Shoreline 17.1 14 North Trout Lake Road 1.0 1

Near Historic Water Tank 1.0 1 Dam 1.0 1

1 Crowding rated on a scale from 1 = not crowded to 9 = extremely crowded. 2 Crowding scale converted to 1 through 2 = not crowded and 3 through 9 = crowded. Residents’ evaluation of perceived crowding is slightly different from that of visitors concerning the type of question asked. Residents were asked about their overall impressions of crowding during the summer season, as opposed to their evaluation of a specific visit, as was done for visitors. Based on the average crowding rating of residents, it appears that the shoreline on weekends was perceived as “moderately crowded”; the water surface on weekends, and the shoreline on weekdays are perceived as “slightly crowded”; and the water surface on weekdays was perceived as “not crowded at all” (Table 2-27). When crowding is analyzed by percentages of those that perceived some level of crowding and the percentage of those that did not perceive a level of crowding, weekends on the reservoir and shoreline would suggest “high normal” or experiences were approaching capacity, for the reservoir surface and “over capacity” or management is probably needed for weekends with respect to the shoreline. Weekdays on the reservoir surface (30.5 percent) are considered relatively unique, low density experiences; and weekdays on the shoreline relatively low-normal or unlikely to be a problem relative to experiences (Table 2-27). Residents were also asked which places they were most likely to feel crowded. The majority of residents identified the boat launch (50 percent) and parking areas (56 percent) as places they would most likely feel crowded, with some identifying the undeveloped shoreline (17 percent) (Table 2-27). Spacing of Boats, People, and/or Groups at Trout Lake Visitors To understand visitor density at Trout Lake and the type of experience people were seeking, visitors were asked to estimate the distance between their group and the next group and the closest distance they would tolerate (Table 2-28). The results indicate that a majority of visitors experienced the closest group between a car length away (20 percent), a bus length away (24 percent), two bus lengths away (17 percent), and over 100 feet and within sight or sound (29 percent). A majority of


29

visitors tolerated groups that were a car length away or greater, with a very small number (7 percent) tolerating people right next to them. Table 2-28 Visitor distance between groups and tolerance by percentage.

Visitors to Trout Lake Distance to Closest Group (n=176) % n

Experienced 7.7 12 Right next to us Tolerate 7.0 10 Experienced 19.9 31 A car length away (15 to 20 feet) Tolerate 23.9 34 Experienced 20.5 31 A bus length away (40 to 50 feet) Tolerate 22.5 32 Experienced 16.7 26 Two bus lengths away (80 to 100 feet) Tolerate 14.8 21 Experienced 28.8 45 Over 100 feet and within sight or sound Tolerate 11.3 16 Experienced 5.8 9 Out of sight and sound Tolerate 2.1 3

Residents To understand resident tolerance levels for visitor density at Trout Lake and the type of experience people were seeking, residents were asked to estimate the distance between their group and the next group and the closest distance they would tolerate on a typical visit (Table 2-29). The results indicate that a majority of residents experienced the closest group between a car length away (13 percent), a bus length away (12 percent), two bus lengths away (15 percent), and over 100 feet and within sight or sound (22 percent). A majority of visitors tolerated groups that were a car length away or greater, with a very small number (2 percent) tolerating people right next to them. Table 2-29 Resident distance between groups and tolerance by percentage.

Residents to Trout Lake Distance to Closest Group (n=176) % n

Experienced 6.1 5 Right next to us Tolerate 2.4 2 Experienced 13.4 11 A car length away (15 to 20 feet) Tolerate 13.4 11 Experienced 12.2 10 A bus length away (40 to 50 feet) Tolerate 9.8 8 Experienced 14.6 12 Two bus lengths away (80 to 100 feet) Tolerate 11.0 9 Experienced 22.0 18 Over 100 feet and within sight or sound Tolerate 24.4 20 Experienced 2.4 2 Out of sight and sound Tolerate 2.4 2


30

Evaluation of Recreation Resources Acceptability of Existing Conditions and Facilities at Trout Lake Visitors Visitors were asked to evaluate the acceptability of several overall conditions and experiences at Trout Lake (Table 2-30). The results indicate that visitors have a high level of acceptability for experience and conditions at Trout Lake overall. Visitors rated the “overall environmental conditions in the area”, the “number of directional signs”, the “location of directional signs” and the “hydroelectric facilities aesthetics” as the most acceptable with ratings of 4 or higher. Items rated lowest included the “the boat launch area” (1.0), and “other” (2.8) as the lowest. Table 2-30 Visitor acceptability rating for a variety of items at Trout Lake.

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

Existing Conditions1 Average Mode % n % n Overall environmental conditions in the area 4.3 5.0 95.4 145 4.6 6 Number of directional signs 4.0 5.0 74.6 108 25.4 33 Location of directional signs 4.0 5.0 73.8 106 26.2 34 Hydroelectric facilities aesthetics 4.4 5.0 60.6 92 39.4 50 Other: boat launch area 1.0 1 100.0 1 0.0 0 Other: none item listed 2.8 2 100.0 5 0.0 0

1 Acceptability rated on a scale from 1 = totally unacceptable to 5 = totally acceptable. Residents Residents were asked some slightly different questions concerning the acceptability of certain items at Trout Lake. Residents rated the “overall environmental conditions in the area,” the “overall conditions of the trails to the water,” the “overall quality of their fishing experience”, and the “length of the public fishing season” as 4 or higher. The “overall condition of developed recreation facilities,” the “number and location of directional signs” and the “number and quality of interpretive information signs and kiosks” were rated slightly lower, on average 3.6—which falls within a marginal to slightly acceptable range (Table 2-31). Table 2-31 Resident acceptability rating for a variety of items at Trout Lake.

Residents Who Had Opinion Residents Who Had No Opinion

Item1 Average Mode % n % n Overall environmental conditions in the area 4.3 5 95.0 74 5.0 4 Overall quality of my recreation experience 4.6 5 95.0 75 5.0 4 Overall condition of developed recreation facilities

3.6 5 80.0 64 20.0 16

Overall condition of trails to the water 4.1 5 78.7 63 21.3 17 Number and location of directional signs 3.6 5 84.8 67 15.2 12 Number and quality of interpretive information signs and kiosks

3.6 5 83.7 65 16.3 13

Overall quality of fishing in Trout Lake 4.0 5 81.2 65 18.8 15 Length of public fishing season on Trout Lake 4.6 5 75.0 59 25.0 20

1 Acceptability rated on a scale from 1 = totally unacceptable to 5 = totally acceptable.


31

How do visitors find Trout Lake? Visitors A large percentage of visitors (44.3 percent, n=71) indicated that they heard about Trout Lake via word-of-mouth (other people). Some visitors (29.4 percent) spotted Trout Lake from the road. Twenty-three percent of Ames’ visitors identified “other” information sources (Table 2-32); with only 2.5 percent (n=4) and 0.6 percent (n=1) of the visitors utilized a visitor guide and/or internet sites (Table 2-33). Table 2-32 Visitors that heard about Trout Lake.

% n Word of mouth 44.3 71 I saw it from the road 29.4 47 Visitor guide 2.5 4 Internet site 0.6 1 Other 23.2 37

Table 2-33 Other sources of information on Trout Lake.

Source % n Live here 33.5 5 Coming here for years 26.8 4 Family 13.4 2 Friend lives here 6.7 1 Campground 6.7 1 Ridgway tackle shop 6.7 1 Map 6.7 1

Availability of Information at Trout Lake Visitors were asked about the availability of certain types of information (Table 2-34). Overall, a majority of visitors did not look for the information (60 to 76 percent). For each of the types of information listed, there were 10 to 20 percent of visitors who could not locate the information they needed. However, very few visitors suggested improvements to the availability of recreation information at Trout Lake. Those who did suggested more signs for campfire regulations. They also suggested having directional signs for trail locations and maps at the entrance to Trout Lake. Table 2-34 Visitor perception of availability of information at Trout Lake.

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

Campfire regulations 76.3 122 11.3 18 12.5 20 Recreation site information 64.8 103 15.7 25 19.5 31 Recreation site regulations 60.0 24 12.5 5 27.5 11 Fishing regulations 60.9 95 18.6 29 20.5 32 Trail locations/maps 65.4 102 17.3 27 17.3 27


32

Residents Residents were also asked about their perception of the availability of information at Trout Lake (Table 2-35). Again, a majority of residents never looked for information. For each type of information identified, there were between 15 to 20 percent of residents that could not locate the information needed. Among all types of information, “environmental education information” was the most difficult to locate by residents (27.5 percent). Table 2-35 Resident perception of availability of information at Trout Lake.

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

Campfire regulations 45.0 36 15.0 12 36.3 29 Recreation site information 51.3 41 13.8 11 31.3 25 Recreation site regulations 51.3 41 16.3 13 30.0 24 Fishing regulations 53.8 43 23.8 19 20.0 16 Trail locations/maps 50.0 40 22.5 18 26.3 21 Environmental education information 58.8 47 27.5 22 12.5 10

Residents made some suggestions for improving information provided at Trout Lake. Regarding camping regulations, four residents said there should be signs specifically about limiting campfires or keeping them contained in designated areas. Two residents suggested more signs about recreation site information, and three suggested signs about site and fishing regulations. For fishing regulations, one resident said there should be a bulletin board. For trail maps, one resident suggested information should be available at the visitor center. Residents reported a variety of specific types of information they would like to see presented at Trout Lake. Suggestions focused primarily on distinguishing between public and private property, motorboat restrictions, and littering (Table 2-36). Table 2-36 Information residents would like to see presented at Trout Lake.

More info on public vs. private lands - “we reside on south side, private area”. More info on the public areas vs. private property Private land vs. public use areas Private ownership of surrounding land. The presence of private land and limited public access.

Access

The public access area; the private land where they are trespassing; No parking on road right of way except in designated areas; trolling motors/no wake on lake. Limit on boat motor size No gas motor boats; no wake lake; no overnight camping; no open campfires No wake signs Restriction on powerboat and jet ski use; no jet skis- limit hp for boats to 15hp. Restrictions on all motorboats and ohv traffic.

Boating

Size restriction on boats, motors. More winter use guidance (e.g. snowmobiles) No guns/shooting allowed Recreation Trail locations/maps


33

More signage regarding litter, rules, private property, plus enforcement of rules and regulations. Rules and regulations for littering/cleaning fish/maintaining clean environmental standards. Signage restricting general public to Ames Project Area public use areas and informing public that all other land is private property and no trespassing or use permitted there. Signage so that public stays off Trout Lake land

Regulation Signage

Signs denoting private areas Leave it like it is. We don't need a big over-run of visitors. The ones we now get are just fine. Other Comments Leave things alone. Any changes will probably add more restrictions and limit the use of Trout Lake.

Evaluation of Facility Development at Trout Lake Visitors Visitors were asked to rank their perception of facility development at Trout Lake. A ranking of “1” was identified as much too low, with “3” identified as “about right” and “5” as “much too high” (Table 2-37). For most visitors, the overall level of development was rated as “about right.” The provision of picnic areas, shoreline access areas, parking spaces, and toilets was considered “too low.” With the number of facilities for the disabled identified as the lowest rating or “much to low” overall. Table 2-37 Visitor perceptions of facility development at Ames Project recreation area.

Visitors with Opinion Visitors with No Opinion Items1 Average % n % n

Overall level of development 2.9 73.3 129 26.7 47 Number of picnic areas 2.3 73.9 130 26.1 46 Number of shoreline access areas 2.5 82.4 145 17.6 31 Number of parking spaces 2.5 83.0 146 17.0 30 Number of toilets 2.2 80.1 141 19.9 35 Number of facilities for disabled 1.9 50.0 88 50.0 88

1 Development rated on a scale from 1 = much to low to 5 = much too high. Residents For all types of facility developments, residents have a average rating close to 3, or “about right” overall. This indicates that from the residents’ point of view, the level of facility development at Trout Lake is appropriate (Table 2-38). Table 2-38 Resident perceptions of facility development at Trout Lake.

Residents with Opinion Residents with No Opinion Items1 Average % n % n

Overall level of recreation development 2.9 85.4 70 14.6 12 Number of picnic areas 2.9 82.9 68 17.1 14 Number of shoreline access areas 3.1 85.4 70 14.6 12 Number of launch parking spaces 2.9 81.7 67 18.3 15 Number of toilets 2.6 78.0 64 22.0 18 Number of facilities for disabled 2.6 53.7 44 46.3 38


34

Residents with Opinion Residents with No Opinion Items1 Average % n % n

Access to the lake for disabled 2.6 54.9 45 45.1 37 Amount of law enforcement 2.7 73.2 60 26.8 22 Amount of interpretive information 2.6 64.6 53 35.4 29 Amount of educational information 2.6 67.1 55 32.9 27

1 Development rated on a scale from 1 = much to low to 5 = much too high. Visitor Evaluation of Amenities at Trout Lake Visitors were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with facilities at Trout Lake (Table 2-39). Results indicate that on average, visitors have a moderate level of satisfaction towards the various types of amenities and facilities at the lake. The “public toilet” received lowest rating (3.2 average; 2.0 mode). The amenities and facilities most used by the visitors include “access trails to the lake”, “shoreline fishing opportunities” and “shade”. Visitors were aware of the existence of most amenities and facilities. However, there were some visitors who did not think there were “public toilets” (23.8 percent) and “shade” (15.4 percent) at the lake. Table 2-39 Visitor satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Ames Project Recreation

Area.

Visitors Who Used Facility / Amenity

Visitors Who Did Not Use

Facility

Visitors Who Do Not Think it

Exists Amenity/Facility1

Average Mode % n % n % n Information about the project and Trout Lake

3.9 4.0 45.5 72 49.4 78 5.1 8

Quality of interpretive information 3.8 4.0 53.1 55 46.9 46 0.0 0 Condition of picnic tables 3.7 4.0 47.2 76 47.8 77 5.0 8 Public toilet 3.2 2.0 41.4 68 34.8 57 23.8 39 Access trails to the lake 3.6 4.0 62.7 101 29.8 48 7.5 12 Shoreline fishing opportunities 3.8 4.0 84.0 131 11.5 18 4.5 7 Accessibility for persons with disabilities 3.7 4.0 36.8 57 51.6 80 11.6 18 Availability of shade 3.5 3.0 57.0 89 27.6 43 15.4 24 Ranger staff 4.0 4.0 50.3 79 42.7 67 7.0 11 Parking adjacent to picnic tables 3.9 4.0 59.2 94 35.8 57 5.0 8 Rain/Sun shelter for picnic tables 3.6 4.0 47.8 75 43.9 69 8.3 13 Sense of privacy 3.6 4.0 84.3 135 11.3 18 4.4 7

1 Satisfaction rated on a scale from 1 = completely dissatisfied to 5 = completely satisfied. One open-ended comment was made regarding dissatisfaction with facilities at Trout Lake where the visitor reported the public toilet was not maintained and there were no ramps for persons with disabilities. Residents Residents were also asked to rate their overall satisfaction with facilities at Trout Lake (Table 2-40). Results indicate that on average, they have a moderate level of satisfaction towards the various types of amenities and facilities at the lake. The “public toilet” received lowest rating (2.9 average).


35

Other areas rated the lowest overall, included the boat launch area (3.4) and signs for directions and information. Table 2-40 Resident satisfaction with facilities and amenities at Trout Lake.

Residents Who Used Facility / Amenity

Residents Who Did Not Use Facility

Residents Who Do Not Think

it Exists Amenity/Facility1

Average Mode % n % n % n Boat launch area 3.4 3 41.6 45 58.4 32 0.0 0 Information about the Project and Trout Lake

4.1 3 32.4 50 67.6 24 0.0 0

Picnic tables 3.6 3 49.4 39 50.6 38 0.0 0 Public toilets 2.9 4 42.9 44 57.1 33 0.0 0 Access trails to the lake 3.8 3 20.8 61 79.2 16 0.0 0 Shoreline fishing opportunities 3.9 5 18.2 63 81.8 14 0.0 0 Signs for direction and information 3.4 3 35.1 50 64.9 27 0.0 0 Watchable wildlife area 4.1 3 23.4 57 75.3 19 1.3 1 Shoreline access for swimming 4.0 5 40.3 46 59.7 31 0.0 0 Accessibility for persons with disabilities 3.6 3 39.0 47 61.0 30 0.0 0 Availability of shade 3.8 3 36.0 48 64.0 27 0.0 0 Ranger staff 4.5 5 39.0 45 59.7 31 1.3 1 Parking adjacent to picnic tables 3.7 3 42.9 44 57.1 33 0.0 0 Rain/Sun shelters for individual picnic tables

3.8 3 45.5 42 54.5 35 0.0 0

Sense of privacy 3.9 4 6.5 72 93.5 5 0.0 0 1 Satisfaction rated on a scale from 1 = completely dissatisfied to 5 = completely satisfied. To compliment the information above, Table 2-41 results demonstrate that shoreline (for storing boat and fishing) is the facility most frequently used by residents at Trout Lake; about half of all residents use it on a regular basis. On the other hand, “Picnic Area/ Sun-Rain Shelter”, “Parking Area for Trailer or Extra Vehicle”, and “Restroom Facility” are not frequently used by residents; less than 20 percent of residents use them at a regular basis. Table 2-41 Items or facilities residents use on a somewhat regular basis at Trout Lake.

Item/Facility % n Picnic Area/ Sun-Rain Shelter 11.0 9 Shoreline to Store My Boat 48.8 40 Boat Launch area 30.5 25 Parking Area for Trailer or Extra Vehicle 19.5 16 Trash Container 34.1 28 Restroom Facility 19.5 16 Shoreline for Fishing (other than own property) 51.2 42

Residents who commented on facilities at Trout Lake were primarily dissatisfied with the condition of boat launch areas and the poor condition of the restrooms (Table 2-42).


36

Table 2-42 Resident dissatisfaction with facilities at Trout Lake. If I bring my mom in a wheelchair it's impossible to move her around. Access Too many trails to lakeshore. Boat launch to close to only picnic/shelter- needs a concrete ramp. Boat ramp should be concrete. Good boat ramp needed, store with supplies/groceries needed; small restaurant needed. Boating

Need a better boat ramp (concrete) for fire truck. Facilities are not maintained or cleaned. I don't expect much from pit toilets but this one has experiences some neglect. Facilities/Maintenance No decent restroom. Ranger staff nowhere to be found.

Management There are entirely too many signs, especially after new green road signs but important and necessary for EMS though.

Evaluation of Various Impacts at Trout Lake Visitors Visitors were asked to identify how much of a problem several items were at Trout Lake (Table 2-43). For most items, visitors did not feel there was a problem with ratings around or below 1.5 overall. Visitors did see “competition for picnic” as a small problem and the “restroom facilities” as a moderate problem, with a majority rating it as a large problem (average was 2.5, mode=4). Table 2-43 Visitor perceptions of problems at Ames Project recreation area.

Visitors with Opinion Visitors with No Opinion Item1 Average Mode % n % n

Restroom facilities 2.5 4.0 79.5 97 20.5 25 Litter 1.6 1.0 86.3 139 13.7 22 Competition for good fishing areas 1.6 1.0 84.7 133 15.3 24 Competition for picnic sites 1.9 1.0 67.1 106 32.9 52 Noise from powerboats 1.2 1.0 81.1 129 18.9 30 Conflicts between boaters and anglers 1.1 1.0 76.6 121 23.4 37 Shoreline erosion 1.2 1.0 77.8 123 22.2 35 Conflicts between residents and visitors 1.2 1.0 74.7 118 25.3 40 “Beat out” areas (trampled vegetation) 1.3 1.0 80.4 127 19.6 31 User-created trails 1.3 1.0 72.0 116 28.0 45 Reservoir water level 1.4 1.0 84.6 137 15.4 25 Discourteous behavior by visitors 1.1 1.0 85.7 132 14.3 22 Drunken/disorderly behavior by visitors 1.0 1.0 81.9 131 18.1 29

1 Items rated on a scale from 1 = not a problem to 4 = a large problem. Residents Residents were asked to rate a slightly different set of issues as to whether these issues were a problem or not. Based on the results, most of the issues listed in Table 2-44 were considered not a problem or only a small problem by residents at Trout Lake. These included “litter or human waste impacts”, “competition for picnic sites”, and the “lake water level”—which overall were still rated as “small problems” overall.


37

Table 2-44 Resident perceptions of problems at Trout Lake.

Residents with Opinion Residents with No Opinion Item1

Average Mode % n % n Litter or human waste impacts 2.3 2 94.6 70 5.4 4 Competition for good fishing areas 1.6 1 80.0 60 20.0 15 Competition for picnic sites 2.1 1 72.0 54 28.0 21 Speeding / reckless powerboats or PWCs 1.6 1 86.7 65 13.3 10 Noise from powerboats or PWCs 1.6 1 92.1 70 7.9 6 Conflicts between boaters or PWCs and anglers

1.4 1 82.4 61 17.6 13

Shoreline erosion 1.3 1 89.3 67 10.7 8 Conflicts between homeowners and visitors

1.7 1 86.8 66 13.2 10

“Beat out” areas (trampled vegetation, cut trees)

1.6 1 94.7 71 5.3 4

“Spider web” of user-created trails 1.6 1 91.9 68 8.1 6 Lake water level 2.4 1 94.6 70 5.4 4 Discourteous behavior by visitors 1.7 1 89.5 68 10.5 8 Drunken behavior by visitors 1.4 1 82.7 62 17.3 13 Vandalism 1.4 1 80.0 60 20.0 15

1 Items rated on a scale from 1 = not a problem to 4 = a large problem. To understand residents’ perceptions of impacts to their properties, they were asked about various types of trespass incidents that can occur and their frequency of occurrence at Trout Lake (Table 2-45). The results indicate that infrequent trespass behaviors include “human waste impacts”, “major dumping (a large trash bag or more)”, “people fishing from your land”, “people picnicking on your land”, “people recreating on your shoreline deck or dock”, and “vandalism”. Most of residents (ranging from 77.8 to 100 percent) reported only 0 to 2 incidences of these types trespass behaviors. Two types of behaviors, “people stopping briefly on your land” and “people hiking across your land” were more frequently perceived by residents. A majority of residences (74 to 81 percent) reported more than three occurrences those two behaviors, and respectively 20.0 and 43.8 percent reported more than 11 occurrences. Table 2-45 Number of trespass incidences reported by residents at Trout Lake.

Number of Trespass Incidences 0-2 3-10 11-25 >25 Type of Trespass

% n % n % n % n Litter 52.2 12 30.4 7 13.0 3 4.3 1 Human waste impacts 93.8 15 6.3 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Major dumping (a large trash bag or more) 77.8 14 11.1 2 5.6 1 5.6 1 People stopping briefly on your land 26.7 4 53.3 8 6.7 1 13.3 2 People hiking across your land 18.8 3 37.5 6 25.0 4 18.8 3 People fishing from your land 84.6 1 15.4 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 People picnicking on your land 99.3 14 0.0 0 6.7 1 0.0 0 People recreating on your shoreline deck or dock 100.0 12 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 People recreating in front of or adjacent to your property 44.4 8 22.2 4 16.7 3 16.7 3 Vandalism 88.2 15 11.8 2 0.0 0 0.0 0


38

Overall, residents generally did not perceive the following trespass behaviors as a problem: “human waste impacts”, “major dumping (a large trash bag or more)”, “people hiking across your land” “people picnicking on your land”, “people recreating in front of or adjacent to your property” and “vandalism” (Table 2-46). However, two types of trespass behavior, “litter” and “people stopping briefly on your land” were regarded as a slight problem by the residents. Residents did feel that there were two types of trespass behaviors that were a problem at the lake, which were “people fishing from your land” and “people recreating on your shoreline deck or dock”. Although the incidence of the former trespass behavior (fishing on your land) was reported by very few residents, they still regard it as a problem. Table 2-46 Residents’ opinion of trespass incidences at Trout Lake.

Residents Who Had Opinion Residents Who Had No Opinion Item1

Average Mode % n % n Litter 1.7 1 92.2 67 7.8 6 Human waste impacts 1.1 1 86.3 57 13.7 10 Major dumping (a large trash bag or more) 1.4 1 91.8 63 8.2 6 People stopping briefly on your land 1.7 1 93.4 71 6.6 5 People hiking across your land 1.5 1 93.3 69 6.7 5 People fishing from your land 2.8 1 85.1 57 14.9 11 People picnicking on your land 1.3 1 89.2 61 10.8 8 People recreating on your shoreline deck or dock 2.8 1 86.1 57 13.9 10 People recreating in front of or adjacent to your property

1.5 1 92.2 68 7.8 6

Vandalism 1.2 1 89.0 58 11 8 1 Items rated on a scale from 1 = not a problem to 5 = a large problem. Visitors’ and Resident’ Perceptions of Various Management Actions at Trout Lake Visitors Visitors were presented with several potential management actions and asked to rate their overall support or opposition for each of the actions (Table 2-47). Results indicate that among all the management actions, the one that received highest support was “better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands”, with 48 percent of respondents supporting this action. Forty-four percent of respondents also supported “establishing off limits zones to protect sensitive resources”. The areas where a majority opposed the action included “zone the areas…” (46 percent). Areas where respondents were somewhat split on an action include “restrict further public recreation development and expansion” and to “provide better enforcement of rules and regulations.”


39

Table 2-47 Visitor level of support for management actions at Trout Lake. Strongly Oppose

Slightly Oppose Neutral Slightly

Support Strongly Support Management Action

% n % n % n % n % n Zone the areas to provide specific uses at specific places

32.3 47 13.7 20 39.7 58 6.8 10 7.5 11

Provide better enforcement of rules and regulations

16.1 24 8.7 13 54.4 81 10.7 16 10.1 15

Establish "off limits" zones to protect sensitive resources

9.3 14 12.7 19 34.0 51 25.3 38 18.7 28

Restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion

21.2 32 13.2 20 36.4 55 12.6 19 16.6 25

Better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands

6.7 10 9.3 14 36.0 54 23.3 35 24.7 37

Residents Residents were also asked what level of support they had for several potential management actions. The results indicated that among all the management actions, a majority of residents slightly supported to strongly supported “provide better access to public areas at Trout Lake” (56 percent); with 40 percent or greater opposing “zone the areas…”, “provide better enforcement…”, “establish off limits zones”, restrict further public recreation facility development”, and “better or more signs identifying…” (Table 2-48). Table 2-48 Resident level of support for management actions at Trout Lake.

Strongly Oppose

Slightly Oppose Neutral Slightly

Support Strongly Support Management Action

% n % n % n % n % n Provide better public access to public areas at Trout Lake

14.3 11 6.5 5 23.4 18 41.6 32 14.3 11

Zone the areas to provide specific uses at specific place

22.7 17 17.3 13 33.3 25 13.3 10 13.3 10

Provide better enforcement of rules and regulations

16.9 13 33.8 26 35.1 27 6.5 5 7.8 6

Establish "off limits" zones to protect sensitive resources

22.7 17 38.7 29 21.3 16 10.7 8 6.7 5

Restrict further public recreation facility development and expansion

11.8 9 52.6 40 13.2 10 10.5 8 11.8 9

Better/more signs identifying public vs. private lands

14.3 11 46.8 36 26 20 5.2 4 7.8 6

Residents also provided other suggestions for management of Trout Lake. These responses are listed in Table 2-49 and address a range of areas, including access issues, boating, facilities and maintenance, noise, and trash.


40

Table 2-49 Other suggestions for management provided by residents at Trout Lake. I'm strongly opposed to trout lake becoming a private clubhouse type facility. People park at our cabin and hike to water- we don't like this at all. RV's turn around at our cabin and have almost hit it numerous times. A sign upon leaving public access would be good.

Access

Too many signs now. Public should have reasonable access to lake. Boating No wake signs.

Fix and maintain the existing facilities; Keep them in first class condition; The opposite of what has been done to date. Facilities/Maintenance Need more/cleaner restrooms; trash containers Gun management- prevent shooting in Trout Lake Area Noise Motor bike usage- establish a noise ordinance Please empty the dumpster on a regular as needed basis. Many of us picked up blowing trash this spring from an over-flowing dumpster; please have toilets cleaned regularly. Remove dumpster before they get snowed in; the trash accumulates in the winter when they are left. Remove dumpsters and replace with "pack your trash out" "litterbugs will be prosecuted" sign- bear raid dumpster and make a big mess; Do not allow use of lake by commercial operations to bring groups of people to lake-this is growing problem.

Trash

Rules regarding trash, parking and general use of the lake. Evaluation of Visitors’ Perception of Safety Issues When asked about visitors perceived level of safety at Trout Lake, visitors reported a high level of safety related to “physical harm by other people”, “property loss (theft, vandalism)”, and “environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.)” at the lake (Table 2-50). Generally, respondents rated these issues as “extremely safe” for these issues with an average rating of 4.7, 4.6, and 4.6, respectively. Visitors have relatively lower perceived level of safety toward weather hazards (lightning, etc.), with an average rating overall of 4.1 or “somewhat safe.” Table 2-50 Visitor perception of safety at Ames Project recreation area.

Safety related to: 1 Average Mode n Physical harm by other people 4.7 5.0 133 Property loss (theft, vandalism) 4.6 5.0 132 Environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.) 4.6 5.0 131 Weather hazards (lightning, etc.) 4.1 5.0 132

1 Safety rated on a scale from 1 = very much at risk to 5 = extremely safe. Evaluation of Residents Perception of Safety Issues Residents had a slightly different perception of the issues than that of visitors (Table 2-51). In general, residents perceived a high level of safety at issue related to “physical harm by other people”, and a moderate level of safety toward the issues related to “property loss (theft, vandalism)”, “environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.)”, and “weather hazards (lightning, etc.).”


41

Table 2-51 Resident perception of safety at Trout Lake. Safety related to: 1 Average Mode n Physical harm by other people 4.6 5 79 Property loss (theft, vandalism) 4.1 5 78 Environmental harm (bugs, snakes, bears, etc.) 4.3 5 79 Weather hazards (lightning, etc.) 4.0 5 79

1 Safety rated on a scale from 1 = very much at risk to 5 = extremely safe. Evaluation of the Quality of Visit at Trout Lake Visitors and residents were asked whether the quality of their visit to the area has improved, declined, or stayed the same over the years. As a follow-up to those that perceived the quality as slightly to substantially declined, they were asked to remark on what has, in their view, contributed to this decline. Visitors Overall, visitors felt that Trout Lake provides a quality recreation experience (87 percent) (Table 2-52). A majority of respondents (49.4 percent, n=87) felt that the quality of experience over the years has “stayed the same”, with a small percentage feeling as though it had improved (5.1 percent). However some respondents (7.4 percent) felt that the quality has slightly declined, with only 1 percent (n=2) feeling as thought the quality has substantially declined. Few visitors choose to take fewer trips or stop taking trips in response to the quality declination; most respondents changed their expectations. A substantial number of visitors did not indicate their response to the decline of quality of their visit overall. Table 2-52 Evaluation of visitor experience over the years.

% n Yes 87.0 152 No 2.8 6 Do you believe Trout Lake provides a quality recreation

experience? Non-respondents 10.2 18

Only visited one time 25.6 45 Improved 5.1 9

Stayed the same 49.4 87 Slightly declined 7.4 13

Substantially declined 1.1 2

Has the quality of visit changed?

Non-respondents 11.4 20 Changed expectations 7.4 13

Taken fewer trips 0.6 1 Stopped taking trips 0.0 0 If, Visit Slightly Declined

Non-respondents 92.1 162 Changed expectations 1.1 2

Taken fewer trips 2.3 4 Stopped taking trips 0.6 1 If , Visit Substantially Declined

Non-respondents 96.0 169 Yes 11.9 21 No 78.4 138 Barriers to Participation

Non-respondents 9.7 17 Yes 2.3 4 No 21.6 38 Areas Wanted to Visit but Didn’t

Non-respondents 76.1 134


42

Of those respondents that felt that the quality of their trip overall had declined, some provided reasons for this decline and these are located in Table 2-53. Table 2-53 Reasons for visitors’ trips substantially declining at Ames Project recreation

area. Access Accessibility

Houses being built near site Development Overdevelopment Condition of facilities Facilities Restroom and picnic tables Fish decline Fishing Not as many fish in lake as previous years Age Live in Rico - have a river to fish Personal Reasons Time and distance Loss of Priest Lakes Water Water level

Visitors in general, did not feel there were barriers to participation at Trout Lake (78 percent) (Table 2-54). Of those that did feel there were barriers, they were asked to identify what those barriers were. The results are listed in Table 2-54. Table 2-54 Barriers to visitor recreation participation at Ames Project recreation area.

Difficult to get to lake except at parking lots Disability access somewhat a problem Disabled Fishing access Fishing at far end of lake because of property/owners “keep out” signs I'd like a public trail to east end of lake from the dirt road. Lack of access to rivers Need road to drive to water at more locations for older people. No camping and south side off-limits Not sure if there was public access

Access

Private property Boating Boat ramp

Lightning Environmental Wind Personal Barriers Live too far away

To further understand a visitor’s perception of a quality experience at Trout Lake, visitors were asked what they think creates a quality experience at the lake. Their responses are located in Table 2-55. Overall, visitors identified the fair access, freedom, uncrowdedness as access related qualities. The fishing also contributed to a quality experience, which includes being fun for the kids and good fishing. The management of Trout Lake was also listed as a contributing factor, with a clean lake and well-kept grounds and lack of development. The social qualities of the lake was also mentioned, including remarks such as good for families, lack of crowds, and some privacy being available. The scenery was also a highlight, with the views and beauty of the area identified as “breathtaking” (Table 2-55).


43

Table 2-55 What visitors believe creates a quality experience at Trout Lake.

Accessibility Fair access, good explanation of uses available, attractive overall set-up Freedom to use the lake at our discretion without so many government regulations, etc.

Access

Uncrowded and accessible Enjoy the nature and fishing Always good fishing Fun for kids- easy to fish Fishing High water levels constant restocking by Colorado wildlife dept. clear/cold water. Good catches Clean lake, fish, well kept grounds Environmental area Management Lack of development Great environment for families Lack of crowds, beautiful setting Social Privacy, little crowds, scenery, nature It is a very relaxing experience with the view, clean water and air It is peaceful and quiet Peace and Quiet Peace and quiet Awesome! Unique, more than beautiful Beautiful Breathtaking scenery It is very natural and has the best scenic areas Location and Scenery Scenery Views

Scenery

It is a very beautiful lake & we very much enjoy just being here. When asked what changes visitors felt would make Trout Lake a better recreation experience, respondents highlighted access, boating, fish, minimizing development, and improving facilities as the primary areas for improvement overall (Table 2-56). Table 2-56 What changes visitors think would make Trout Lake a better recreation

experience. Better access to shoreline Better accessibility for disabled Limit private property restrictions

Access

More lake access Boat ramps Boat rentals Limit outboard motors to 25hp Boating/Fishing

More fish Development No new summer homes

Improvements Less litter More and cleaner restrooms More information More picnic areas

Facilities/Management

Pay phone


44

Residents Residents overall felt that the quality of visit over the years had stayed the same (40.2 percent, n=33) (Table 2-57). A small percentage of residents felt that it had improved (3.7 percent, n=3). Some respondents felt that the quality of experience had slightly declined (28 percent, n=23) and 8.5 percent (n=7) felt that the quality of their experience had substantially declined. Few residents choose to take fewer trips or stop taking trips to respond the quality declination; most of them chose to change their expectations. However, many residents did not indicate their response to the quality declination at all. Table 2-57 Evaluation of resident experience over the years.

% n Has the quality of visit changed?

Only visited one time 1.2 1 Improved 3.7 3

Stayed the same 40.2 33 Slightly declined 28.0 23

Substantially declined 8.5 7 Non-respondents 18.3 15

If, Visit Slightly Declined Changed expectations 28.0 23

Taken fewer trips 4.9 4 Stopped taking trips 0.0 0

Non-respondents 67.1 55 If , Visit Substantially Declined

Changed expectations 13.4 11 Taken fewer trips 0.0 0

Stopped taking trips 0.0 0 Non-respondents 86.0 71

Residents who had experienced a substantial decline in their trips to Trout Lake reported reasons related to overcrowding and maintenance issues (Table 2-58). Table 2-58 Residents’ reasons for trips substantially declining at Trout Lake.

Better highways mean easier access more people traveling. Access Fewer spots readily accessible. A lot more people and commercial groups. Amount of vehicles speeding on the roadway. Increase in popularity and number of visitors. Large groups including Telluride kids' summer program, increased use in general, some people that come leave trash, fishing messes, are noisy, park along road. More people in area too many public campgrounds Speeding, traffic volume and dust on north TL road large RV's trying to turn around have nearly hit our cabin numerous times- They need to know where the turn around is. Too many people, cars, 4 wheelers. Too many people, traffic, noise on weekends.

Number of People and Vehicles

Weekends and holidays.


45

All facilities not maintained or/and cleaned or/and garbage not regularly removed. Poor management! Facilities/Management

Too many rules. Fishing The type of fish I catch. There are to many "sucker" fish and hardly any trout.

Residents were also asked what additional outdoor recreational opportunities they would like to see at Trout Lake. Responses included boating related ideas and facilities and amenities (Table 2-59). Table 2-59 Additional outdoor recreational opportunities residents would like to see at

Trout Lake. Boat ramp; fire pump Boating Boat rentals as before 1960s Concession area Facilities/Amenities More trails around lake

Evaluation of Fees at Trout Lake Visitors and residents at Trout Lake were asked whether or not they would favor fees for additional services or amenities provided at the Ames Project Area. If they stated “yes”, they were also asked what additional facilities or services they would be willing to support through a fee. The results are below. Visitors Survey results show that most visitors (75.6 percent, n=133) do not favor fees for additional services or amenities provided at the Ames Project Area (Table 2-60). Table 2-60 Visitors’ evaluation of fees at Trout Lake.

% n Yes 13.6 24 No 75.6 133 Would you favor additional fees for specific services or

amenities provided at Trout Lake? Non-respondents 10.8 19

Only 15 percent of visitors favored additional fees and indicated they should be used for things such as clean restrooms and more facilities such as boat ramps, bait shops, picnic tables, and camping (Table 2-61). Table 2-61 Visitor suggestions for uses of additional fees at Ames Project recreation

area. $10 entrance fee Day use fee $5 Access Improved access Boat ramp Boating Boating rentals Bait shop Fishing Fish cleaning station


46

Environmental management More clean restrooms Trash pick-up and restrooms Parking

Maintenance

Parking fees Better biking trail (bicycles) Camping Overnight camping Recreation

Public picnic tables, trails white water kayaking Only if fees are charge for use not just added as a price of entry Other Suggestions Something worthwhile

Residents Survey results show that most residents (70.7 percent, n=58) do not favor fees for additional services or amenities provided at the Ames Project area (Table 2-62). Table 2-62 Resident evaluation of fees at Trout Lake.

% n Yes 20.7 17 No 70.7 58 Would you favor additional fees for specific services or

amenities provided at Trout Lake? Non-respondents 8.5 7

Only 20.7 percent of residents favored additional fees and indicated they should be used for things boat launch area improvements (Table 2-63). Table 2-63 Resident suggestions for uses of additional fees at Trout Lake.

Better boat ramp; protection of dumpsters; discourage bear visits Boat launches Boat ramp; trash deposit Boat ramps

Boating

Launch fee; kids camp in summer- there's 50 kids on the lake making all kinds of noise Fees for non-residential day use. Parking Voluntary member fee for users of specific facilities Day-Use/Facilities

Whatever visitors will pay for Don’t want to encourage any more use. Other comments So many people won't come.

Recreation Demand Assessment The purpose of the demand assessment component of the study was: (1) to describe existing recreation use in the Project area; (2) identify if there are Project area recreation activities with high existing unmet (or latent) demand; (3) identify if there are particular recreation activities that are expected to have significant Project area growth in recreation demand; and (4) identify the relative regional significance and uniqueness of project area recreation resources. Specific objectives included:


47

a. Identify the amount, activity type, and spatial and temporal distribution of existing recreation use within the Ames Project area, and describe historical recreation use trends related to recreation.

b. Identify recreation opportunities in the Project area that may have substantial unmet demand and identify potential constraints or barriers to use, in particular those potentially related to existing Project operations or management.

c. Roughly estimating future demand within the Project area through the estimated term of the new license (30 to 50 years).

d. Assess the regional uniqueness and relative significance of the Project’s primary recreation opportunities.

Recreation Activity Participation Recreation use at Trout Lake generally occurs from four distinct locations. Four parking areas were identified and include, Parking Area 1 (P1), Parking Area 2 (P2), Turnout Area 1 (T1) and Turnout Area 2 (T2) (see Site Maps A and B). During 2006, PSCo monitored these locations and conducted roving, stratified use counts at each location (see Appendix E). Visitors and residents of Trout Lake participated in a variety of recreation activities during their visits to Trout Lake (Table 2-64). Shoreline fishing was the most common activity that visitors participated in while at Trout Lake with nearly three-quarters of visitors surveyed participating in shoreline fishing during their visits. Most of the other activities that visitors surveyed indicated they participated in were land-based activities such as picnicking, hiking/walking, wildlife viewing and sightseeing. In addition, shoreline fishing was the activity most visitors surveyed (68.6 percent) identified as their primary activity while at Trout Lake followed distantly by boat/tube fishing (13.6 percent). Table 2-64 Recreation activities participated in by visitors and residents at Trout Lake.

Visitors Residents Recreation Activity1 n % n %

Motorboating for Pleasure 0 0 18 22 Primary activity 0 0 1 1.2

Boat/Tube Fishing 34 19.3 31 37.8 Primary activity 19 13.6 2 2.4

Shoreline Fishing 130 73.9 43 52.4 Primary activity 96 68.6 6 7.3

Swimming 0 0 7 8.5 Primary activity 0 0 0 0

Picnicking 50 28.4 16 19.5 Primary activity 4 2.9 0 0

Hiking/Walking 44 25 38 46.3 Primary activity 11 7.9 25 30.5

Mountain Biking 7 4 66 80.5 Primary activity 3 2.1 1 1.2

Wildlife Viewing 50 28.4 0 0 Primary activity 0 0 0 0

Sightseeing 69 39.2 0 0 Primary activity 7 5.0 0 0

Relaxing 0 0 6 7.3 Primary activity 0 0 5 7.1


48

Visitors Residents Recreation Activity1 n % n %

Camping 0 0 71 86.6 Primary activity 0 0 0 0

Driving for Pleasure 0 0 35 42.7 Primary activity 0 0 1 1.2

Non-Motorized Boating 0 0 36 43.9 Primary activity 0 0 1 1.2

Camping was identified as the most common activity that residents participated during their visits to Trout Lake with 87 percent of residents surveyed participating in camping. Mountain biking was a close second to camping with 81 percent of residents surveyed. Residents also indicated that shoreline fishing, hiking/walking, non-motorized boating, driving for pleasure and boat/tube fishing were common activities during their visits. Many of the visitors surveyed did not indicate that they had a primary activity during their trips; however, of those that did respond, hiking/walking was the activity most residents surveyed identified as their primary activity while at Trout Lake. Recreation Use Levels In order to determine use levels in the Ames Project area, data were analyzed based on several criteria: (1) weekday, weekend/holiday; (2) peak or non-peak season; and (3) by location. Visitor counts were estimated based on the number of people counted at each of the locations for all six categories of day type (weekday, weekend, holiday) by season type (peak, non-peak), and by time of day. The minimum and maximum number of people for each category was averaged, then, multiplied by the number of each type of day during each season to obtain use estimates. The use estimates were estimated for a complete year. Using minimum and maximum average number of people for each day, the following steps were followed in determining a visitor use estimate for Trout Lake: ■ Selected for Peak or Non-Peak season ■ Ran case summaries looking at minimum and maximum average number of people (all

activities added together) for each day by area (P1, etc.), type day and time of day – For example: During peak season in area P1, on weekdays the minimum average #

visitors was 3.0 and the maximum average # was 7.3. The same was done for weekends and holidays. The result is that these numbers are the minimum average and maximum average of visitors for each area and type of day.

■ The minimum and maximum averages were then multiplied by the number of weekdays, weekends, and holidays in the peak and non-peak season to yield total annual use.

■ It is important to note that some days there was no visitation at all, and these days are calculated into the minimum and maximum.

Table 2-65 displays the peak average number of users by type of day and location (i.e., P1, P2, T1, T2) and activity during the summer peak season (May 28 to September 4, 2006). As would be expected, holidays had the greatest number of users overall, for each of the various parking/activity areas.


49

Table 2-65 Average peak use at Trout Lake during the peak season by location and type of day.

Weekday (n=5)

Weekend (n=7)

Holiday (n=7)

Weekday (n=5)

Weekend (n=7)

Holiday (n=7) Activity

Average Average Average Average Average Average Location P1 P2

Vehicles (total) 3.8 1.6 4.8 4.8 3.6 7.6 w/o trailer 3.8 1.6 4.7 4.8 2.6 6.1 w/trailer 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.3 RV camper 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 Boaters 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shore Anglers 7.4 1.7 6.7 8.0 3.7 10.1 Tube Anglers 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 Sunbathers 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 Picnickers 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.6 1.7 Tubers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canoeists 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 Kayakers 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Wildlife Viewers 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.0 Dog walkers 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 People Pulling Off 0.8 1.4 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.9

Location T1 T2 Vehicles (total) 1.0 1.1 3.1 1.2 1.3 2.7 w/o trailer 1.0 1.1 2.9 1.2 1.3 2.7 w/trailer 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 RV camper 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Boaters 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shore Anglers 3.0 1.6 3.7 3.2 2.9 4.1 Tube Anglers 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Sunbathers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Picnickers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tubers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Canoeists 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Kayakers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wildlife Viewers 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dog walkers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 People Pulling Off 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

As depicted in Table 2-66, peak use averages drop off substantially during the non-peak season at Trout Lake, as well as a number of “fair weather” activities.


50

Table 2-66 Average peak use at Trout Lake during non-peak season by location and type of day.

Weekday (n=5) Weekend (n=13) Weekday (n=12) Weekend (n=13) Activity Average Average Average Average

P1 P2 Vehicles (total) 0.8 1.8 0.5 0.9 w/o trailer 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 w/trailer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Shore Anglers 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.4 Tube Anglers 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Sunbathers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Picnickers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Wildlife Viewers 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 Dog walkers 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 People Pulling Off 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.3

T1 T2 Vehicles (total) 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 w/o trailer 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 w/trailer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shore Anglers 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 Tube Anglers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sunbathers 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Picnickers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wildlife Viewers 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Dog walkers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 People Pulling Off 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

A summary of the recreation annual and seasonal use estimates are displayed in Table 2-67. The annual recreation use estimate from January through December 2006 ranged from 851 to 3,305 RDs at Trout Lake. Peak season use ranged from 719 to 2,570 RDs, and was three times as much as the high use (five times as much as low use) during the non-peak season which ranged from 133 to 735 RDs. Table 2-67 Summary of visitor use estimates in RDs at Trout Lake, 2006.

Annual Estimate Peak Season2

(100 days) Non-Peak Season2

(265 days) Estimate1 Low High Low High Low High

Total Use Estimate 851 3305 719 2570 133 735 Daily Average 2.3 9.1 7.2 25.7 0.5 2.8

1 Estimate based on average minimum and maximum counts at each sampling location. 2 Peak season = May 28 through September 4; Non-Peak season = January 1 through May 27, September 5 through

December 31. As would be expected, daily visitor use levels were nearly ten times higher than during the non-peak season. Peak season use levels ranged from 7.2 to 25.9 RDs, on average, where as non-peak season use levels ranged from less than one to 2.8 RDs (Table 2-68). When examining the average daily use levels during the peak season, holiday days exhibited the highest level of use on both the low and high end of the use estimates followed by weekdays with weekend days showing the lowest average use level of the three-day types. During the non-peak season, average daily use levels were very low with a slightly higher level of use observed on weekend days versus weekdays.


51

Table 2-68 Summary of peak season1 visitor use at Trout Lake in 2006.

Weekdays Weekend Holiday Overall Location Low High Low High Low High Low High

Peak Season 7.2 25.6 5.1 13.0 14.8 25.9 7.2 25.7 Non-Peak Season 0.3 2.4 1.0 3.7 n/a n/a 0.5 2.8

1 Peak season = May 28 through September 4; Non-Peak season = January 1 through May 27, September 5 through December 31.

Unmet Demand and Barriers to Access Based on the visitor and resident surveys conducted in 2006 at Trout Lake, the users surveyed did not identify any particular activities at Trout Lake that they wanted to participate in, but were not available to them at Trout Lake. The primary activities of most users/visitors are generally day use activities such as shoreline fishing, hiking/walking, mountain biking, and picnicking. The setting, facilities and size of Trout Lake generally lend themselves to a day use destination and experience. As a result, most visitors to Trout Lake seek out and participate in day use-related activities. For the residents at Trout Lake, overnight opportunities are clearly available to them and sought after. However, aside from camping (cabins), the most popular activities for residents were the same types of day use activities as with visitors—mountain biking, shoreline fishing, and hiking/walking. However, while Trout Lake does provide the types of day use activities that visitors and residents are seeking out, Trout Lake lacks these activities and/or opportunities for disabled persons. ADA accessibility for the some of the most popular activities, particularly shoreline fishing as well as picnicking is not currently available at Trout Lake. Access to the shoreline and picnic facilities is predominantly level; yet, the current ground surfaces (loose gravel, dirt and grass) and boulder barriers are not amenable to persons with disabilities, do not meet current ADA guidelines. It is likely that these barriers prevent persons with disabilities from participating in the typical activities at Trout Lake (mostly shoreline fishing and picnicking). Projected Population Trends for Montezuma (CO), San Miguel (CO), Maricopa (AZ), Mesa (CO), and San Juan (NM) Counties Through 2030 The projected recreation participation and use estimates within the FERC Project Boundary will likely be linked to some degree to the population trends from the counties where most visitors to Trout Lake reside. Based on the 2006 recreation survey data, the top five counties where visitors’ resided were Montezuma (CO), San Miguel (CO), San Juan (NM), Mesa (CO), and Maricopa (AZ) counties, respectively. These five counties comprised nearly 50 percent of the visitors surveyed in 2006 at Trout Lake with Montezuma County (CO), accounting for the highest percentage (11.6 percent or 25 visitors) of the visitors surveyed. The next three counties each accounted for roughly 10 percent (21 to 23 visitors) of the visitors surveyed, and San Juan County (NM) accounting for 7.5 percent (16 visitors). The remaining half of visitors surveyed resided in more than 63 other counties encompassing 19 states with most counties represented by one to three visitors. Table 2-69 details the population projections for the top five counties through the year 2030.


52

Table 2-69 Population Projections for La Plata County (CO), Bernalillo County (NM), San Juan County (NM), and Maricopa County (AZ), 2000 through 2030.

Projections County Statistic 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population 24,858 27,576 30,636 33,752 36,816 39,653Montezuma (CO) Growth Rate (5-Yr) -- 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.08Population 7,317 8,493 9,726 10,951 12,200 13,346San Miguel (CO) Growth Rate (5-Yr) -- 1.16 1.15 1.13 1.11 1.09Population 3,648,545 4,217,427 4,762,473 5,276,074 5,756,690 6,207,980Maricopa (AZ) Growth Rate (5-Yr) -- 1.16 1.13 1.11 1.09 1.08Population 130,399 144,711 162,268 181,947 202,741 224,418Mesa (CO) Growth Rate (5-Yr) -- 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.11Population 121,445 128,592 135,497 142,074 148,315 154,403San Juan (NM) Growth Rate (5-Yr) -- 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.04

Source: Colorado counties - Colorado Division of Local Government, State Demography Office, http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog, accessed on 02/23/07 at 10:22PST; San Juan (NM): Bureau of Business & Economic Research, Univ. of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM. April 2004; Maricopa (AZ): Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, Population Statistics Unit (http://www.workforce.az.gov/ on 02/23/07 at 11:31PST. None of the top five counties has a dominant share of the of visitors surveyed, which means no one county will likely drive the recreation use at Trout Lake into the future. Rather, all of the top five counties will likely have a role in recreation use patterns over the next 25+ years. The top four counties (Montezuma, San Miguel, Maricopa and Mesa counties) are all projected to grow between 60 and 82 percent by 2030. In contrast, San Juan County is only expected to grow by 27 percent by 2030. Overall, the population in these five counties is expected to grow by an average of 62 percent by the year 2030. Future Recreation Use Projections at Trout Lake The 2003 SCORP, identifies recreation issues of statewide importance and which of those issues will be addressed through Colorado’s share of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants. In 2003, Colorado received approximately $1.6 million from Congress as their share of the LWCF funds, of which the Colorado State Parks administers. The plan identifies six issues of statewide significance that Colorado must address to best meet the outdoor recreation demands of a rapidly growing population. These six major recreation issues are: 1. Colorado’s citizens and visitors need more effective ways to access the wide array of

information about recreation sites and their host communities, and outdoor recreation providers need to better integrate outdoor recreation marketing and management to sustain the outstanding recreation attractions, its economic vitality, and resulting quality of life.

2. Communities must invest in outdoor infrastructure through well-planned, on-going commitments to meeting a growing population’s expectations for a wide range of safe, up to date sites to enjoy the outdoors.

3. Public recreation agencies faced with tight budgets, yet increasing demand for recreation services, are considering increased reliance on fees, and creative public/private partnerships, to enhance public services.


53

4. The sustainability of natural and cultural landscapes and our capability to be stewards of those resources must be considered when agencies and communities plan for and manage the location and scope of outdoor recreation activities.

5. Public access to outdoor sites and management of travel on public lands is challenged by the capacity of statewide transportation infrastructure and of the natural resources to accommodate the volume of demand.

6. Recreation agencies can more effectively engage Colorado’s citizens and visitors in resource stewardship responsibilities through youth outreach and volunteer programs.

The SCORP report elaborated on each of these issues by providing objectives and action frameworks. The SCORP Local Government Survey was conducted as part of the 2003 SCORP update and includes regionalized recreation issues and needs from local agencies involved in outdoor recreation management. The Southwest Region includes San Miguel County, which identified the highest-priority, capital-investment needs facing them in meeting their outdoor recreation goals. These high priority needs were: (1) balancing the need for facilities against high land and construction costs, (2) maintaining public access in a growing community of people concerned with privacy and security issues, and (3) participation by developers in providing the community recreational opportunities. The 2003 SCORP also included a data collection and assessment component called the SCORA. The purpose of the SCORA is the collection of outdoor recreation data for the preparation of the SCORP. It is incorporated as an appendix in the SCORP. The result is a collection of data that helps describe outdoor trends in Colorado. The major trends and themes of the SCORA data are outlined in Table 2-70. Table 2-70 Major trends and themes related to outdoor recreation in the State of

Colorado I. The population of Colorado will go through

unprecedented change in the next 10 years. ■ The population between 50 and 90 years of age will

grow 7% by 2015. ■ The population will be more ethnically diverse. ■ The northern Front Range will be a growth hotspot

for Colorado. ■ Trying to determine the recreational preferences of

this rapidly aging, but still mobile, population is challenging.

II. Recreation demand will continue to grow in the counties that have limited amounts of public land. Front Range counties such as Adams, Weld, Douglas, Arapahoe, and Denver will see the largest increases in population.

■ The Front Range population creates demand for western slope recreational opportunities. This supply and demand model is key to understanding the recreational dynamics of this state.

■ Front Range counties must invest in recreational amenities close to home as our transportation infrastructure in the mountains is near capacity on most weekends.

III. Some outdoor recreation activities are not growing or are growing at a slow rate.

■ Skiing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and boating are not showing major growth trends.

■ Off-highway vehicle use, mountain biking, skateboarding, and trail-related activities continue to grow.


54

IV. Government agencies support a vast array of recreational opportunities. Agencies tend to have a recreational niche.

■ The federal agencies support outdoor recreation activities on public land. The US Forest Service is the largest recreational provider in the state.

■ State agencies have focused missions. The Division of Wildlife has historically provided fishing and hunting opportunities, but has an emerging focus on watchable wildlife opportunities. State Parks is focused on water-based recreation, camping, and quality facilities.

■ Local governments provide a variety of recreational opportunities, but often focus on sports, community recreation, trails, and open space.

V. Outdoor recreation is big business. ■ Outdoor recreation is critical to the economic health of the state.

■ Activities such as skiing, hunting, camping, and hiking bring millions of dollars of tourist revenue into the state each year.

VI. Recreation services lack integration. ■ While outdoor recreation agencies may communicate and work closely, there is little data that points to any level of interagency planning or integration.

■ The plethora of recreation providers creates inefficiencies and duplication of services.

■ Regional planning of recreation services could increase efficiency and reduce duplication.

Source: CSP 2003, pp. 1-2. The assumptions for developing the projected use estimates at Electra Lake included: ■ Population has been, is and will be the major driver of outdoor recreation participation growth

(Cordell et al 2004). ■ Increasing trends in percentage of the population participating in various recreation activities

will also contribute to a projected increase in recreation use at the Project. ■ The majority of the visitors to the Project will continue to come from the top five counties—

Montezuma (CO), San Miguel (CO), San Juan (NM), Mesa (CO), and Maricopa (AZ) counties—proportionate to the expected rate of growth of each of the counties.

■ The existing recreation opportunities available at the Project will continue to be available in the future and will not be constrained.

■ The estimate of existing use at Trout Lake (2006) is used as the basis for the projected estimated use at the Project and refined to a use estimate for each activity by using the activity participation rates identified during the 2006 recreation survey responses.

Based on these assumptions, use estimates were separated into distinct activity types as determined in the 2006 recreation surveys that correlate with activity categories identified by Cordell (1999). The projection indices developed by Cordell (1999) for each of these major activity types were applied to each activity category use estimate to arrive at the project use estimates through 2050 (Table 2-71). Based on the project indices by activity type, recreation use in Recreation Days will range from 1,378 to 5,357 visitors by the year 2050. This estimate represents approximately a 60 percent increase in overall use over the next 40+ years or likely new license term at Electra Lake.


55

Table 2-71 Projected estimated annual recreation use in RDs by activity at Trout Lake through 2050.

Use Estimate (RDs) 2000-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2041-2050 Nature Viewing/Sightseeing

Project Indices1 -- 1.26 1.42 1.58 1.74 1.87 Low Estimate 135 170 192 213 235 252 High Estimate 525 662 746 830 914 982

Fishing (Shore and Boat) Project Indices1 -- 1.12 1.2 1.23 1.3 1.38 Low Estimate 270 302 324 332 351 373 High Estimate 1,048 1,180 1,265 1,296 1,370 1,455

Boating (Pleasure Boating) Project Indices1 -- 1.22 1.32 1.52 1.69 1.88 Low Estimate 20 24 26 30 34 38 High Estimate 79 96 104 120 134 149

Hiking Project Indices1 -- 1.23 1.34 1.53 1.67 1.82 Low Estimate 93 114 125 142 155 169 High Estimate 361 444 484 553 603 656

Canoe/Kayaking Project Indices1 -- 1.21 1.3 1.51 1.69 1.89 Low Estimate 41 50 53 62 69 77 High Estimate 158 191 205 239 267 299

Picnicking/Relaxing Project Indices1 -- 1.2 1.31 1.44 1.54 1.63 Low Estimate 82 98 107 118 126 134 High Estimate 317 380 415 456 488 517

Camping Project Indices1 -- 1.19 1.32 1.45 1.59 1.73 Low Estimate 80 95 106 116 127 138 High Estimate 312 371 412 452 496 540

Swimming Project Indices1 -- 1.19 1.29 1.43 1.57 1.72 Low Estimate 8 10 10 11 13 14 High Estimate 31 37 40 44 49 53

Biking/Mountain Biking Project Indices1 -- 1.19 1.29 1.41 1.53 1.65 Low Estimate 83 99 107 117 127 137 High Estimate 321 382 414 453 491 530

Driving for Pleasure Project Indices1 -- 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 Low Estimate 40 41 42 44 45 46 High Estimate 154 159 163 168 174 179

Totals Total -Low Estimate 851 1,004 1,093 1,186 1,282 1,378 Total-High Estimate 3,305 3,903 4,248 4,611 4,985 5,357

1 Cordell 1999. Regional Uniqueness and Significance Twenty percent of visitor respondents reside within 0 to 50 miles of Trout Lake, and specifically in and near Telluride (see Figure 2-1). Most of the remaining visitor respondents were widely


56

dispersed throughout southwest Colorado and the Denver area. The regional uniqueness and significance assessment will focus on the regional recreation opportunities at similar reservoirs and recreation areas within a 50-mile radius, and particularly in and near Telluride. Popular recreation activities during the peak recreation season in the region include developed and dispersed camping, four-wheel driving, sightseeing, hunting, fishing, hiking, boating, snowmobiling, picnicking, mountain biking, horseback riding, rock climbing, and backpacking. Developed and dispersed camping opportunities are available nearby off Highway 145 at the Matterhorn Campground near Priest Lake; Sunshine Campground and Alta Lakes. Many of these sites also provide hiking, mountain biking and fishing opportunities. None of the nearby reservoirs/lakes provide motorized boating opportunities, primarily due to a lack of size. Lizard Head Wilderness and the Galloping Goose Trail both offer exceptional hiking and nature viewing opportunities in the immediate vicinity. (Table 2-72) Table 2-72 Other recreation areas and opportunities in the project vicinity.

Primary Activities at Trout Lake Other Activities

Facility Name Elevation (feet)

Fish

ing

Mot

oriz

ed

Boa

ting

Non

-Mot

oriz

ed

Boa

ting

Picn

icki

ng

Nat

ure

Vie

win

g/

Sigh

tsee

ing

Mou

ntai

n B

ikin

g

Hik

ing

Dev

elop

ed

Cam

ping

Trout Lake 9,709 X X X X X Priest Lakes 9,500 X X X X X Sunshine CG 9,500 X X X X Alta Lakes varies X X X X X X Illium Valley varies X X X X X

San Miguel River South Fork Preserve 8,460 X* X X (ADA)

Lizard Head Wilderness varies X X Telluride Ski Area varies X* X X X

* Stream/river fishing opportunities. In comparison, the top four recreation activity categories of visitors surveyed at Trout Lake in 2006 were fishing (shoreline/boat/tube), picnicking; with mountain biking and hiking available in the area (i.e., Galloping Goose Trail and Hope Lake Trail). In a review of other major reservoirs and recreation areas in the region, these activities are available. However, there are some unique features of Trout Lake. In particular, Trout Lake currently provides a motorized boating opportunity that is not available in the immediate watershed area; however, the small size and setting of Trout Lake does not lend itself to large motorized boats at all. Low horsepower or non-motorized boats, particularly for fishing, are more amenable to the size and setting of Trout Lake. Overall, Trout Lake and the nearby recreation sites (particularly Lizard Head Wilderness) have exceptional scenic attractiveness. Trout Lake sits in a basin surrounded by towering peaks including several 14,000-foot peaks, including Mt. Wilson. These views are visible from virtually all areas of Trout Lake and make it a unique place to recreate for the day. In addition, the historic old railroad grade and trestle nearby add a unique historic element to the recreation experience at Trout Lake.


57

Recreation Needs Assessment The primary purpose of the needs assessment at Trout Lake is to integrate findings from this study and the ADA Compliance and Recreation Facility Assessment study to systematically prioritize possible management actions that would protect or enhance project recreation opportunities and minimize potential recreation use impacts on resources at Trout Lake. Trout Lake (elevation 9,707 feet) is located immediately adjacent to State Highway 145 in view of Mt. Wilson, a 14,246-foot peak. Trout Lake is located on private lands at an elevation of 9,707 feet. The lake has a surface area of nearly 138 acres and a shoreline of approximately 2.25 miles. Access to Trout Lake occurs immediately off State Highway 145 and provides recreation opportunities for fishing, picnicking, and some boating. The primary recreation season is Memorial Day to Labor Day, with some winter recreation occurring during the rest of the year such as cross country skiing and snowmobiling in the area surrounding Trout Lake on a USFS maintained roadway. Supply Factors Developed Recreation Facilities As reported within the ADA Compliance and Recreation Facility Assessment Report, the primary recreation facilities for the Ames Project exist at Trout Lake, which include: (a) two primary parking areas, with one adjacent to the dam area, and one area located near the shoreline and restroom facility; (b) two picnic tables, one located inside the storm shelter, and one along the shoreline nearby; shoreline area located immediately adjacent to Parking Area II for bank fishing; (c) one vault toilet M/F; (d) a trash receptacle; (e) a gravel boat launch area; (f) a privately owned underwater launch ramp structure (Site No. 106); (g) and, two informational signs. In addition to shoreline access near each parking area, further east there are three locations where vehicles pull off the road at one- to three-car capacity pull-outs and head down visitor created trails to the waters edge. Recreation Activities Based on the visitor and resident surveys conducted in 2006 at Trout Lake, the primary activities of most users/visitors are day use activities such as shoreline fishing, boat/tube fishing, and picnicking. The setting, facilities and size of Trout Lake lend themselves to a day use destination and experience. For residents at Trout Lake, overnight opportunities are clearly available to them and sought after. However, aside from camping (cabins), the most popular activities for residents were the same types of day use activities as with visitors—mountain biking (with access to the Galloping Goose Trail and FS roads), shoreline fishing and hiking/walking. Specific to Trout Lake and the project, the facilities provide fishing, picnicking, sightseeing (very scenic for pictures and short stop for views), and some small boating and tube fishing activities. Demand Factors The primary demand factors that will likely influence recreation use at Trout Lake include the demand for shoreline and small boat angling, picnicking and sightseeing due to the spectacular scenic quality of the area. Cross country skiing, hiking/walking, relaxing are all activities that are


58

likely to continue in the area, but not activities that are specific to Trout Lake as a resource. Regionally, the demand for angling will be fairly level. However, the proximity to Telluride Town combined with the existing low levels of recreation use could cause angling to increase in the future (86 percent of all visitors fished at Trout Lake). However, the average use time for most angling recreation visitors to Trout Lake was 3.5 hours, and probably somewhat dependent on weather, as a high elevation location. Flatwater paddling is an activity projected to increase in the future and it is likely this increase will lead to some increased use at Trout Lake, since it is well suited for this activity. For example, several summer camp groups visited and went canoeing on the lake during the summer of 2006. Visitor and resident responses from surveys collected during 2006 reported information about desired changes or improvements that they would like to see at Trout Lake. The suggested changes and improvements to the area included improve the quality of the toilet facility and accessibility to the toilet facility; opportunities for fishing for people with disabilities; improve boat launch, and distance if from the picnic area where kids and people are; improve trash situation; identify public versus private lands; establish a noise ordinance for OHVs; add picnic tables to Parking Area 1; control commercial access to lake; protect trash with bear resistant dumpsters; improve shoreline fishing access; no wake zone along shoreline; improve trails to water; limit horsepower on lake; information at first parking area; maintain primitive atmosphere, low level of development; improve management of the area. Areas of Concern Related to Recreation Use Environmental There were a few areas of concern identified at Trout Lake concerning the overall natural environment and recreation use. These include: 1) Usability of area near the existing informal boat launch. This site is heavily eroded and does

not provide ample boat launch capabilities, with a rutted gravel road surface and incline not conducive to vehicle traffic with trailers.

2) Accessibility of trash facility. The trash bin is placed up against bushes and thus really only accessed from one-side. While the capacity of the bin appears ample, the fact that those using the bin only access it from one side results in constant overflow, both unsightly and smelly.

3) Usability of restroom facility. The restroom is near the end of its useful life. It consistently has odor problems that emanate to the picnic area. It is unclean and brush is overgrown at one of the entrances.

4) Use of trails from the pull-out areas to the shoreline. The dispersed trails from the informal pullout areas are not reinforced and causing some erosion issues.

5) Effectiveness of barriers at Parking Area 1. The log barriers placed at parking area 1 are rotting and not effective.

6) Small amounts of trash were observed at both parking areas along the shoreline. 7) The dog on leash policy is not observed, leaving dog piles in the picnic area and places where

people fish along the shoreline. 8) At low reservoir level, there are exposed cables at shoreline near the picnic area.


59

Social Observations from field survey staff and visitor and resident survey indicate that there are some social areas of concern at Trout Lake. These include the following: 1) There are no facilities for persons with disabilities. 2) Residents’ pontoons and boats take up the limited shoreline access for shoreline fisherman. 3) Boat launch near picnic area creates unnecessary congestion and conflicting uses. 4) Picnic area in very close proximity to restroom and trash area create undesirable conditions for

picnic use. 5) Large groups of summer camp users once a week dominate the entire picnic and limited

shoreline access near Parking Area 2. 6) Overnight vehicles and trailers take up limited parking space at Parking Area 2. 7) Locals dump trash in large bags even though the trash dumpster is primarily for day use and

picnic area; creating trash issues. 8) Boats trolling right along shoreline of the shoreline fishing access area interrupts shoreline

fishing experience. 9) Shoreline access near picnic area is limited. 10) There are no facilities or signage at Parking Area 1. Improvement Needs at Trout Lake Recreation Site The following recommendations are drawn from visitor surveys and site observations completed during May through December, 2006. ■ Picnic Sites

– As picnic tables reach the end of their useful life, replace with tables that have accessible seating spaces, table clearance, slope, and surface;

– Gravel area around picnic table to minimize erosion under the table; and – Consider adding a picnic table or two to Parking Area 1.

■ Shoreline Access – Address an access area for people with disabilities; – Sign public access versus private property along shoreline areas; – Eliminate boat storage along shoreline where public access is limited; create designated

area for boats stored/moored on land or shoreline; – Create designated area for launch fishing tubes or small watercraft; – Improve public boat launch access area; – Remove or relocate private boat launch structures; charge fees for moorings; and – Create a “zone” along most populated shoreline access that does not allow watercraft.

■ Parking Areas – Angle parking spaces at P1 and P2 to allow for more orderly parking; and – Place boulders at primary pullout locations for barriers along edge of bank.

■ Signage and Information – Add signage to Parking Area 1; similar to current signage at Parking Area 2; – Add pocket information guides to signage from CDOW regarding Fishing Regulations;

fish stocking program;


60

– Add boundary signage for public access; – Add signage to areas the public is not allowed to go (i.e., parking on dam); and – Add a project sign interpretive sign explaining the project features, peaks surrounding

the lake (similar to Lizard Head overlook, smaller scale), and/or interpretive brochure with explanation of Project features.

■ Restrooms / Sanitation – The current restroom is near the end of its useful life. Consider replacing current

structures with an accessible centrally located facility between Parking Area 1 and Parking Area 2;

– Several dogs roam freely in the area depositing waste in the picnic area and along the shoreline access areas; add signage that emphasizes pets on a leash and picking up after pets; and

– Consider adding a trash receptacle to Parking Area 1; suggest small opening to trash containers to eliminate dumping of residential waste.

Management Needs Management needs at Trout Lake focus on boating use, day use management of facilities, and shoreline management. The relatively small reservoir size and setting limit the suitability of this reservoir for high speed boating and create a desirable resource for tube fishing, flat water paddling and low speed or electric boating. Boating use on Trout Lake should be limited to 5 to 15 m.p.h. (slow wake), with limited length and motor size and possibly type. This potential action is a current need that would provide for safe boating on the lake, meet increased demand for flatwater paddling and enhance angling opportunities. The management needs relating to the day use management of Trout Lake facilities include managing shoreline on public lands, relative to private boat storage, private owner created launches, and day and overnight storage of vessels stored on public access and shoreline areas. There is a need to understand use of commercial groups and the impact they have on the area. These potential action is a current need that would assist in meeting public access objectives of providing safe access at the lake and adequate public recreation facilities. There is a need to continue to restrict overnight parking of vehicles and trailers in the public parking areas at Trout Lake. This potential action is a current need that would achieve the objective of ensuring adequate public access and day use at Trout Lake. There is a need for some maintenance of the limited Trout Lake facilities. This includes gravel and grading in parking areas, on-going trash disposal, on-going maintenance of restroom facilities, and parking areas with appropriate boulder borders and use of natural materials to outline parking. There are also maintenance issues surrounding the picnic tables and shoreline areas. This need would also exist for any new recreation facilities that may be constructed. Overall there is a need to provide the public with information about recreation facilities and opportunities that are available at and near Trout Lake. This need could be met as part of an information brochure or signage (especially at the first parking area where most people pull off for pictures, and some fish or launch fishing tubes) that also educates the public about the historic Ames


61

powerhouse. Information concerning fishing, boating, and recreation regulations should also be made available via sign or brochure. 2.4 Analysis and Discussion Trout Lake is located in aesthetically rich location, with easy access from Highway 145. Visitors generally visit Trout Lake with family, enjoy fishing from the shoreline, sightseeing (e.g., picture taking from the first parking area), and picnicking. Visitors tend to travel in smaller groups of two to four persons, have visited Trout Lake previously, and generally spend up to 4 hours per visit at the Lake. Both males and females visit Trout Lake, with most visitors 21 to 70 years of age, with education levels of some college or greater. Most visitors are also employed full time and Caucasian. Only 20 percent of all visitors were considered “local” or resided within 50 miles of Trout Lake; 39 percent came from distances of 250 miles or greater. Of those residing within 250 miles of Trout Lake, a majority were from the state of Colorado, followed by New Mexico. For residents, 22 percent have their permanent residence within 50 mile of Trout Lake, with another 24 percent residing within 100 miles. The rest of Trout Lake homeowners live distances of 150 miles or more away, with a majority from within the state of Colorado. Part-time residents tend to visit the lake an average of 10 days per year. Visitors generally learned about Trout Lake by word of mouth or simply spotted the lake from Highway 145. The primary recreation activities at Trout Lake are fishing along the shoreline, sightseeing, and picnicking. During the on-site observations, May through December, it appears that Trout Lake is a popular spot for people to pull off the highway and take some photographs. The lake is surrounded by “fourteeners” and incredible mountain views. These stopovers tend to be short in duration, not more than 10 minutes or so. A small number of people fished from a boat (11 percent) or fishing tube (8 percent). The majority of visitors ranked their activity as “very good” or higher. Primary fishing activities and picnicking all were rated approximately “4”, based on a 1 to 6 scale—generally “very good.” On average, residents rated their overall experience at Trout Lake “4.6” on a 1 to 6 scale as well—which is generally “very good” as well. Because fishing was identified as one of the most prominent primary activity at Trout Lake, visitors and residents were asked to describe their angling behavior. On average, visitors fished for nearly 4 hours; fished for a range of trout species; caught two fish per hour, using mostly bait; and fished mostly from the shoreline. Residents fished nearly 3 hours; fished for all trout species; fished from boats and the shoreline; and used bait and fly tackle, also catching approximately two fish per hour. For a majority of visitors traveling to Trout Lake, Trout Lake was their primary destination (47 percent); with some identifying Telluride Town as their primary destination (22 percent). Other areas in the area listed included camping areas and surrounding small towns such as Ouray, Silverton, and Rico, to name a few. Visitors and residents were asked to evaluate their perceptions of crowding at Trout Lake. In evaluating how many people observed and how many people they would tolerate before their experience was compromised, in all cases visitors appear to be able tolerate at least twice the number


62

of individuals they saw, be it boats/fishing tubes or people fishing the shoreline. For visitors, the number of people experienced was far less than the number of people they thought they could tolerate before their experience was compromised. However, visitors perceived the shoreline more crowded than they did the reservoir surface. Yet based on the number of those perceiving the shoreline as crowded (47 percent), the crowding issue is considered “low normal” and unlikely to be a problem at this time. The percentage of those who perceived the reservoir as “crowded” was even lower, just 16 percent of all visitors. Residents’ perception of crowding was based on their overall evaluation of the peak season (May to September) at Trout Lake. Similar to visitors, residents also perceived a lower number of visitors than they felt they would tolerate before their experience was compromised. With respect to perceived crowding, a majority of residents identified weekends on the reservoir surface, weekends on the shoreline, and weekdays on the shoreline as “crowded”. This evaluation is based on perceptions developed over an entire season, which is different from the on-site, real-time evaluations made by visitors. Based on the overall evaluations of residents, weekends on the reservoir and shoreline would suggest a “high normal” evaluation and Trout Lake is approaching its social carrying capacity. Weekdays on the reservoir surface and shoreline are relatively perceived as “low normal” and unlikely to be a problem relative to the recreation experience of residents. For both visitors and residents, it appears a low-density experience is valued and enhances the recreation experienced at Trout Lake, with both groups identifying the level of development as “about right.” Further, visitors and residents found the overall environmental conditions in the area as acceptable, with the exception of the boat launch area. Visitors and residents would like to see some additional information presented at Trout Lake, including identifying public versus private land; providing maps to the areas’ hiking trails; limits posted for the size of motor allowed on the lake; no wake signs along the shoreline; restrictions on the type of water craft allowed on the lake, including prohibition of personal watercraft; no shooting of firearms posted; and, “leave no trace” signage to protect the environment and minimize trash. With respect to facilities, in general, all respondents felt that the level of development was appropriate for Trout Lake. However, there were some suggestions for improvement on the current facilities. These suggestions included the following: improve public toilet facility; improve access for persons with disabilities; and to improve the boat launch location and ramp. There were a few areas where visitors and residents felt there were some emerging problems. These emerging problems were the restroom facilities, competition for picnic sites, and litter and human waste issues. Residents also perceived the lake water level as a small problem, and some trespass incidents. The type of trespass incidents included “people stopping briefly” on private property, “people hiking across” private property, and litter. Concerning management at Trout Lake, the management action receiving the highest support by visitors was better/more signs identifying public versus private land; the establishment of off-limit zones to protect sensitive resources; with most visitors somewhat split on the ideas to provide better enforcement of rules and regulations and to restrict further public recreation development. Residents strongly supported the provision of better access to public areas at Trout Lake; and, opposing zoning, better enforcement, the establishment of off-limit zones, restricting further public recreation facility development, and better/more signage. Residents also suggested fixing and maintaining the existing facilities, the establishment of a noise ordinance, and consistent management of trash at Trout Lake.


63

The majority of visitors and residents feel that Trout Lake provides a quality recreation experience. Overall, people would like to see facilities maintained and the area be kept as a “low-key” stopover fishing, picnicking, and sightseeing opportunity, with not a lot more development. People would like to see access for people with disabilities and to the shoreline, better restroom facilities, and some additional opportunities for picnicking, yet are generally satisfied with the experience Trout Lake currently provides. There is some concern for the increased in commercial use of the area and the number of vehicles speeding along the roadway. In addition to these types of improvements and concerns, visitors and residents generally do not favor fees for additional services or amenities provided. The annual recreation use at Trout Lake during peak season was estimated to be between 719 to 2,570 recreation days and roughly 133 to 735 recreation days during non-peak season. The type of use at Trout Lake is day-use only, and visitors and residents did not identify any other particular activities that they would like to participate in at Trout Lake but were not available. The one area that was identified as unmet demand was that of accessibility for the primary activities that currently exist (i.e., fishing, picnicking, etc.). One way to identify future growth of visitation to Trout Lake was to explore the influence of the counties who supplied the greatest number of visitors. The results of this study demonstrate that no one county will likely have a dominant share of recreational use patterns over the next 25+ years. The top four counties (Montezuma, San Miguel, Maricopa, and Mesa) are all projected to grow between 60 to 82 percent by 2030, with San Juan County only expected to grow by 27 percent. These five counties comprised nearly 50 percent of the visitors surveyed. From a statewide perspective, primary demand factors that will likely influence recreation use at Trout Lake in the future include the growth of an aging population (i.e., a need for accessibility); increased diversity (i.e., influence on group size and type of opportunities); skiing, hunting and fishing are not showing major growth trends, which may stabilize the demand somewhat; OHV, mountain bike use continues to grow; there will continue to be demand for shoreline and small boat angling, picnicking and sightseeing due to the spectacular scenic quality of the area. Cross country skiing, hiking/walking, and relaxing are all activities that are likely to continue in the area, but not activities that are specific to Trout Lake as a resource. The proximity to Telluride Town combined with the existing low levels of recreation use could cause angling to increase in the future (86 percent of all visitors fished at Trout Lake). However, the average use time for most angling recreation visitors to Trout Lake was 3.5 hours, and probably somewhat dependent on weather, as a high elevation location. Flatwater paddling is an activity projected to increase in the future, and it is likely this increase will lead to some increased use at Trout Lake, since it is well suited for this activity. For example, several summer camp groups visited and went canoeing on the lake during the summer of 2006. And, presently, Trout Lake appears to be a location conducive to group gatherings such as the summer camp previously mentioned, and the commercial mountain biking groups who stage stops at the parking area due to the proximity to the Galloping Goose trail, a popular ride from Telluride Town. The needs assessment of Trout Lake revealed environmental, social, and managerial concerns that may influence recreation opportunities, facility development, and types of use in the future. The


64

environmental needs were related to the provision of a boat launch site (hardening, rehabilitating or potentially relocating the site); trash management; restroom facility; dispersed trails and location of trails on publicly accessible lands; barriers for parking areas; leash law enforcement for dogs; and exposed cables at low water. Needs relative to more social concerns included the provision of accessible facilities; shoreline space, private items located in public access areas (i.e., boats stored on shoreline access area); and the need for picnic facilities and signage in Parking Area 1. And lastly, several management needs were identified and include a focus on day-use management, boating limitations on Trout Lake, and shoreline management for public access. 2.5 References Cordell, K. (Ed) 2001. Outdoor Recreation for 21st Century America. Venture Publishing. State

College, PA. Cordell, K., Betz, C., Bowker, B., English, D., Mou, S., Bergstrom, J., Teasley, R., Tarrant, M., and

Loomis, J. 1999. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, IL.

Malvestuto, S. 1996. Sampling the Recreational Creel Fisheries Techniques (Chapter 20), 2nd

edition. American Fisheries Society. Pollock, K., Jones, C., and Brown, T. 1994. Roving Creel Survey. Angler Survey Methods and

Their Applications in Fisheries Management (Chapter 11). American Fisheries Society. Shelby, B., Vaske, J., and Heberlein, T. 1989. Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple

locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences, 11, 269-291. P:\Xcel\132.0011\WP\0400-Recreation\SMP Trout Lk\A-SMP Trt Lk-071008.doc KB/elt 132.0011.0400/ .0 8October 8, 2007

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

AMES PROJECT SURVEY DATES

Appendix A - 1

Type of Day Date Weekday

Monday 6/12/2006 7/24/2006 12/4/2006 Tuesday 7/11/2006 8/18/2006 12/12/2006 Wednesday 7/13/2006 10/25/2006 12/21/2006 Thursday 8/13/2006 9/21/2006 12/2/2006 12/14/2006 Friday 10/20/2006

11/10/2006 12/8/2006 Total No. Weekdays 17 Weekend Days

Saturday 6/3/2006 8/19/2006 8/26/2006 9/23/2006 9/30/2006 10/14/2006 10/28/2006 11/4/2006 11/11/2006 12/2/2006 12/9/2006 Sunday 6/11/2006 6/19/2006 7/9/2006 8/20/2006 6/24/2006 10/22/2006

11/12/2006 12/3/2006 12/10/2006 Total No. Weekend Days 20 Holiday Days

Sunday 5/28/2006 7/2/2006 Monday 5/29/2006 7/3/2006 9/4/2006 Tuesday 7/4/2006 Saturday 9/2/2006

Total No. Holiday Days 7 Total No. of Survey Days 44

APPENDIX B

PLACES VISITORS STAYED OVERNIGHT

Appendix B - 1

Place % n Campground (no name listed) 31.1 19 Priest Gulch campground 31.1 19 Matterhorn campground 13.1 8 Sunshine campground 6.6 4 Lizardhead campground 6.6 4 Cayton campground 3.3 2 Ridgeway state park 3.3 2 Burrow Bridge campground 3.3 2 Circle K campground 1.6 1

APPENDIX C

VISITOR PERMANENT RESIDENT LOCATIONS

Appendix C - 1

Zip Code Town State County Number Percent Miles from Trout Lake

81328 MANCOS CO Montezuma 1 0.7 0-50 81301 DURANGO CO La Plata 4 2.7 81323 DOLORES CO Montezuma 9 6.2 81332 RICO CO Dolores 2 1.4 81435 TELLURIDE CO San Miguel 11 7.5 81423 NORWOOD CO San Miguel 1 0.7 81401 MONTROSE CO Montrose 2 1.4

Total 30 20.5 81321 CORTEZ CO Montezuma 10 6.8 50-100 81324 DOVE CREEK CO Dolores 1 0.7 81335 YELLOW

JACKET CO Montezuma 1 0.7

81504 GRAND JUNCTION

CO Mesa 3 2.1


CO Mesa 1 0.7

87402 FARMINGTON NM San Juan 2 1.4 87410 AZTEC NM San Juan 3 2.1 87413 BLOOMFIELD NM San Juan 3 2.1 87417 KIRTLAND NM San Juan 1 0.7 87421 WATERFLOW NM San Juan 1 0.7

Total 26 17.8 86544 RED VALLEY AZ Apache 1 0.7 100-150 87401 FARMINGTON NM San Juan 2 1.4 87420 SHIPROCK NM San Juan 2 1.4

Total 5 3.4 80104 CASTLE ROCK CO Douglas 1 0.7 150-200 80129 LITTLETON CO Douglas 1 0.7 80401 GOLDEN CO Jefferson 2 1.4 80814 DIVIDE CO Teller 1 0.7 80863 WOODLAND

PARK CO Teller 1 0.7

80950 COLORADO SPRINGS

CO El Paso 1 0.7

87122 ALBUQUERQUE NM Bernalillo 1 0.7 Total 8 5.5

80004 ARVADA CO Jefferson 1 0.7 200-250 80102 BENNETT CO Adams 1 0.7 80113 ENGLEWOOD CO Arapahoe 1 0.7 80209 DENVER CO Denver 1 0.7 80210 DENVER CO Denver 2 1.4 80220 DENVER CO Denver 1 0.7 80231 DENVER CO Denver 1 0.7 80305 BOULDER CO Boulder 1 0.7 80503 LONGMONT CO Boulder 1 0.7 80537 LOVELAND CO Larimer 1 0.7 80634 GREELEY CO Weld 1 0.7 81050 LA JUNTA CO Otero 1 0.7 87111 ALBUQUERQUE NM Bernalillo 1 0.7 87112 ALBUQUERQUE NM Bernalillo 2 1.4

Total 16 11.0

Appendix C - 2

Zip Code Town State County Number Percent Miles from Trout Lake

85933 OVERGAARD AZ Navajo 1 0.7 250-300 86004 FLAGSTAFF AZ Coconino 2 1.4 86001 FLAGSTAFF AZ Coconino 1 0.7

Total 4 2.7 85015 PHOENIX AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85021 PHOENIX AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85048 PHOENIX AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85203 MESA AZ Maricopa 2 1.4 85208 MESA AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85213 MESA AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85222 CASA GRANDE AZ Pinal 1 0.7 85242 QUEEN CREEK AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85254 SCOTTSDALE AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85283 TEMPE AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85302 GLENDALE AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85304 GLENDALE AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85306 GLENDALE AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85310 GLENDALE AZ Maricopa 2 1.4 85323 AVONDALE AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85338 GOODYEAR AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85361 WITTMANN AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 85365 YUMA AZ Yuma 1 0.7 85372 SUN CITY AZ Maricopa 1 0.7 86305 PRESCOTT AZ Yavapai 2 1.4 86314 PRESCOTT

VALLEY AZ Yavapai 1 0.7

86404 LAKE HAVASU CITY

AZ Mohave 1 0.7

90815 LONG BEACH CA Los Angeles 1 0.7 91762 ONTARIO CA San

Bernardino 1 0.7

92316 BLOOMINGTON CA San Bernardino

1 0.7

93105 SANTA BARBARA

CA Santa Barbara 1 0.7

32615 ALACHUA FL Alachua 1 0.7 30319 ATLANTA GA Dekalb 1 0.7 62223 BELLEVILLE IL Saint Clair 1 0.7 47907 WEST

LAFAYETTE IN Tippecanoe 1 0.7

63038 GLENCOE MO Saint Louis 1 0.7 88044 LA MESA NM Dona Ana 1 0.7 88051 MULE CREEK NM Grant 1 0.7 88201 ROSWELL NM Chaves 1 0.7 73034 EDMOND OK Oklahoma 1 0.7 74017 CLAREMORE OK Rogers 1 0.7 74063 SAND SPRINGS OK Tulsa 1 0.7 74066 SAPULPA OK Creek 1 0.7 74107 TULSA OK Tulsa 1 0.7 74115 TULSA OK Tulsa 1 0.7 75019 COPPELL TX Dallas 1 0.7 75041 GARLAND TX Dallas 1 0.7 75248 DALLAS TX Dallas 1 0.7

Zip Code Town State County

Appendix C - 3

Number Percent Miles from Trout Lake

76548 HARKER HEIGHTS

TX Bell 1 0.7

77356 MONTGOMERY TX Montgomery 1 0.7 78343 BISHOP TX Nueces 1 0.7 >300 78606 BLANCO TX Blanco 1 0.7 78666 SAN MARCOS TX Hays 1 0.7 78879 RIO FRIO TX Real 1 0.7 79707 MIDLAND TX Midland 1 0.7 79714 ANDREWS TX Andrews 1 0.7 98122 SEATTLE WA King 1 0.7 99202 SPOKANE WA Spokane 1 0.7 82718 GILLETTE WY Campbell 1 0.7

Total 57 39.0

APPENDIX D

TROUT LAKE RESIDENTS’ PERMANENT RESIDENT LOCATIONS

Appendix D - 1

Zip Code Town State County Number of Residents Percent

Miles from Trout Lake

81301 DURANGO CO La Plata 1 1.3 0-50 81303 DURANGO CO La Plata 1 1.3 81323 DOLORES CO Montezuma 2 2.5 81401 MONTROSE CO Montrose 7 8.9 81426 OPHIR CO San Miguel 8 10.1 81435 TELLURIDE CO San Miguel 3 3.8

TOTAL 22 27.9 81321 CORTEZ CO Montezuma 2 2.5 50-100 81413 CEDAREDGE CO Delta 1 1.3 81501 GRAND

JUNCTION CO Mesa 3 3.8


CO Mesa 1 1.3


CO Mesa 6 7.6


CO Mesa 1 1.3


CO Mesa 4 5.1


CO Mesa 1 1.3

81523 GLADE PARK CO Mesa 1 1.3 87402 FARMINGTON NM San Juan 1 1.3 87410 AZTEC NM San Juan 1 1.3 84532 MOAB UT Grand 1 1.3 84535 MONTICELLO UT San Juan 1 1.3

TOTAL 24 31 80122 LITTLETON CO Arapahoe 3 3.8 150-200 80123 LITTLETON CO Jefferson 1 1.3 80401 GOLDEN CO Jefferson 1 1.3 87301 GALLUP NM McKinley 1 1.3

TOTAL 6 8 80004 ARVADA CO Jefferson 2 2.5 200-250 80112 ENGLEWOOD CO Arapahoe 1 1.3 80237 DENVER CO Denver 1 1.3 87111 ALBUQUERQUE NM Bernalillo 1 1.3 81640 MAYBELL CO Moffat 1 1.3

TOTAL 6 8 85016 PHOENIX AZ Maricopa 1 1.3 >300 85249 CHANDLER AZ Maricopa 1 1.3 85253 PARADISE

VALLEY AZ Maricopa 1 1.3

85718 TUCSON AZ Pima 1 1.3 90405 SANTA

MONICA CA Los Angeles 1 1.3

92562 MURRIETA CA Riverside 1 1.3 92624 CAPISTRANO

BEACH CA Orange 1 1.3

92651 LAGUNA BEACH

CA Orange 1 1.3

92840 GARDEN GROVE

CA Orange 1 1.3

92866 ORANGE CA Orange 1 1.3

Zip Code Town State

Appendix D - 2

County Number of Residents Percent

Miles from Trout Lake

70118 NEW ORLEANS LA Orleans 1 1.3 20815 CHEVY CHASE MD Montgomery 1 1.3 27408 GREENSBORO NC Guilford 1 1.3 89117 LAS VEGAS NV Clark 1 1.3 29901 BEUFORT SC Beaufort 1 1.3 79707 MIDLAND TX Midland 1 1.3 79772 PECOS TX Reeves 1 1.3

TOTAL 17 22

APPENDIX E

FIELD OBSERVATION FORMS

Ames Project RECREATION DEMAND SPOT COUNT FORM

Appendix E - 1

Date: ____________ Day of Week: _______________Surveyor: _____________________

Resource Area:______________________ Site:________________________________

Morning (7 am - 11 am)

Afternoon (11 am - 2 pm)

Evening (2 pm - 7 pm)

Temperature % Clouds Precipitation Wind Vehicles P1 P2 T1 T2 P1 P2 T1 T2 P1 P2 T1 T2 No. Vehicles without Trailer No. of Vehicles with Boat Trailer No. of Boat Trailers only No. of Vehicles - RV/Camper Activities P1 P2 T1 T2 P1 P2 T1 T2 P1 P2 T1 T2 Boaters (use code sheet below)* Swimmers Anglers: Shoreline Anglers: FishingTubes Sun Bathers Picnickers Kayakers Wildlife Viewers/Bird Watchers Dog Walkers Pulling off for pictures or rest stop Other (specify): Other (specify): No. of Day Groups

*If a boater is angling, please place an ‘A’ next to the type of boat. Notes:

Boat Types: I - Inflatable, L - Low Power (< 15 Hp) H - High Power (>15 Hp) PWC - Personal Watercraft R-Rowboats C-Canoes

Appendix E - 2

WEATHER CODES

Beaufort Wind Scales Wind: C - Calm to Light Air Smoke Rises Vertically. 1 Knot Wind direction

shown by smoke drift but not by wind vanes. 1-3 Knots

L - Light to Gentle Breeze Wind felt on face; leaves rustle; ordinary vanes moved

by wind. 4-6 Knots. M – Moderate to Fresh Breeze Wind Leaves and small twigs in constant motion.

7-10 Knots raises dust and loose paper; Small branches are moved. 11-16 Knots

Small trees in leaf begin to sway and crested wavelets

on water bodies. 17-21 Knots S - Strong Breeze Large branches in motion; Whistling heard in

utility wires; umbrellas used with difficulty. 22 - 27 Knots

G - Near Gale to Gale Whole trees in motion; inconvenience felt when

walking against the wind. 28 - 33 Knots. Breaks twigs off trees. Generally impedes progress. 34 – 40 Knots

Precipitation: N - None D - Drizzle or On and Off Rain R - Raining Consistently S - Snowing On and Off SW - Snowing Consistently

Temperature: 1 < 20 Deg 2 20 - 40 Deg. 3 40 - 60 Deg. 4 60 - 80 Deg. 5 80 - 100 Deg. 6 >100 Deg

% Clouds: 1 0-25% 2 25-50% 3 50-75% 4 75-100%