Columbia River Project Water Use Plan. Arrow Reservoir Operations Management Plan

Transcription

1 Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Arrow Reservoir Operations Management Plan Implementation Year 1 Reference: CLBMON-41 Recreation Demand Study Study Period: 2009 Lees + Associates Vancouver, BC April 2010

2 BC Hydro Arrow Reservoir Recreation Demand Study (CLBMON 41): Year 1 Results April, 2010 Prepared by: Lees + Associates Vancouver, BC

3 Contact Information Homer St. Vancouver, BC V6B 2V2 T: F:

4 Citation Lees + Associates. (2010). BC Hydro Arrow Reservoir Recreational Demand Study (CLBMON 41): Year 1 Results. Vancouver, BC. CLBMON 41 STATUS of OBJECTIVES, MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS and HYPOTHESES after Year 1 Objectives The main objective of the study is to: 1) Relate volume and type of use by recreational users to Arrow Lakes Reservoir water levels. Management Questions The primary management question addressed by the program is whether different reservoir water levels affect the quantity and frequency of participation in waterbased and shore-based recreational activities. Management Hypotheses H0: Changes in recreational use of Arrow Lake Reservoir, if they occur, are not related to Arrow Lake Reservoir levels. Year 1 (2009) Status Year 1 pilot results do not provide sufficient data to establish a functional link between recreational use and water levels. Expecting more data in A secondary management question is whether reservoir levels affect types of recreational activities. H0A: Frequency of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels. Year 1 pilot results do not provide sufficient data to establish a functional link between frequency of public use and water levels. Expecting more data in H0B: Volume of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels. Year 1 pilot results do not provide sufficient data to establish a functional link between volume of public use and water levels. Expecting more data in H0C: The different types of public use are not affected by fluctuating water levels. Year 1 pilot results do not provide sufficient data to establish a functional link between types of public use and water levels. Expecting more data in i -

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Theoretical Foundation for Examining Visitor Demand and Use METHODOLOGY Sampling Design Survey Delivery Survey Design Analyses RESULTS Question 1: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Activities Question 2: Important Outdoor Recreation Activities Question 3: Arrow Lake Outdoor Recreation Experiences Question 4: Use and Familiarity of Arrow Lakes Question 5: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Management Question 6: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Experiences Question 7: Demographics DISCUSSION CONCLUSION LITERATURE CITED...45 APPENDIX A TRAFx Vehicle Counters...47 APPENDIX B ARROW LAKES VISITOR SURVEY...48 APPENDIX C RESPONDENT COMMENTS...53 APPENDIX D OBSERVATIONAL DATA FORMS ii -

6 Pilot Year Interim Results 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Recreation Demand Study is to measure recreation use on and near the waters of Arrow Lakes from Revelstoke to the Hugh Keenleyside dam at Castlegar. This study is one of a series of monitoring programs that fulfills BC Hydro s obligation under the Water Use Plan as approved by the Comptroller of Water Rights. This report summarizes and synthesizes responses received from a total of 127 respondents surveyed at 11 sites on the Arrow Lakes during the pilot season (Fall, 2009) of the study. At the end of the five-year study horizon, the goal will be to establish a functional link between recreational use and water levels on the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The survey instrument is a four-page booklet that contains questions which comprehensively measure people s attitudes, behaviours, and preferences about outdoor recreation and general management issues on the Arrow Lakes. The seven sections that make up the survey are: Section 1: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Activities. Section 2: Important Outdoor Recreation Activities. Section 3: Arrow Lake Outdoor Recreation Experiences. Section 4: Use and Familiarity of Arrow Lakes. Section 5: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Management. Section 6: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Experiences. Section 7: Demographics. There is also space for respondents to provide general comments. Analysis of these comments is not provided here. The delivery of the survey employed an entry/exit intercept survey method at publicly accessible boat launches and near shore parks. The on-site survey method was selected as comprehensive lists of people who visit the Arrow Lakes Reservoir are not available and the participation of a broad selection (i.e., water and shoreline recreationists) of visitors to the Arrow Lakes Reservoir is desired. In subsequent years of the study period, an online survey will be administered and advertised in local media in order to capture a broader set of people in and around the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. A total of 127 completed questionnaires were returned between September 12 and October 24, As a total of 562 individuals were encountered during the sample periods, this represents a 22.6% response rate. Respondents ranged in age from 17 to 79; the average age was More than three quarters of respondents were male. Generally, respondents were longstanding members of their communities. Respondents were engaged in a total of 29 individual outdoor recreation activities, with fishing identified as the most frequently (almost 75%) engaged activity. Over half of respondents reported that the - 3 -

7 recreation activity that they had identified as being most important to them was mostly or very central to their lifestyle. While respondents indicated that they generally felt somewhat crowded while visiting the Arrow Lakes, most reported that they had not experienced any conflicts with other people or recreation activities. Of the twelve motivation items presented to respondents for visiting the Arrow Lakes, viewing scenery was identified most often, followed by being with friends, and giving their minds a rest. Of the six management goals that respondents ranked in terms of importance, providing recreation opportunities received the most #1 rankings, followed by providing habitat for aquatic species, electricity generation, safety for reservoir users, flood control, and providing local employment. Respondents also identified improve fishing, keep the water level up, and tourism as other important management goals for the Arrow Lakes. On average, respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the balance of management tasks that were presented to them. Respondents were most satisfied with their experiences on the water or onshore, and least satisfied with water levels on the Arrow Lakes. More than nine of ten respondents reported that they would return to the Arrow Lakes for recreation activities based on their experience the day that they completed a questionnaire. Almost all respondents (over 98%) would return for another visit, thus indicating a reasonable level of satisfaction with recreation opportunities and management practices. The first year pilot succeeded in testing the survey documents and procedures and in enabling refinements and improvements to them. This pilot, on its own, was not intended to generate year round use characteristics or recreational use tied to great fluctuations in water level. The final outcomes of this five year study will assist in developing a model that will better predict the recreational use impacts associated with changing water levels of the Arrow Lakes

8 2. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Recreation Demand Study is to measure recreation use on and near the waters of Arrow Lakes from Revelstoke to the Hugh Keenleyside dam at Castlegar. This study is one of a series of monitoring programs that fulfills BC Hydro s obligation under the Water Use Plan as approved by the Comptroller of Water Rights. This report summarizes and synthesizes responses received from a total of 127 respondents surveyed at 11 sites on the Arrow Lakes during the pilot season of the study. At the end of the five-year study horizon, the intent will be to establish a predictive model of recreational use on the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The goal of the study is therefore to establish a functional link between recreational use and water levels on Arrow Lakes Reservoir (Terms of Reference, p. 2) Management Questions and Objectives The primary management question addressed by the program is whether different reservoir water levels affect the quantity and frequency of participation in water-based and shore-based recreational activities. A secondary management question is whether reservoir levels affect types of recreational activities. The main objective of the study is to relate volume and type of use by recreational users to Arrow Lakes Reservoir water levels. Management Hypotheses Three management hypotheses frame this study: H 0: Changes in recreational use of Arrow Lake Reservoir, if they occur, are not related to Arrow Lake Reservoir levels. H 0A: Frequency of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels. H 0B: Volume of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels. H 0C: The different types of public use are not affected by fluctuating water levels. (Terms of Reference, p. 4) This report presents results from Year 1 of the BC Hydro Arrow Reservoir Recreation Demand Study. 2.1 Theoretical Foundation for Examining Visitor Demand and Use The approach of this study is based on general approach proposed in the Terms of Reference: an observational study of within reservoir levels changes in recreation use at sites selected through a stratified random sampling design. Data will be collected through a combination of survey methods including observed distributions and activities, spot counts, vehicle counters and - 5 -

9 interviews at the boat access improvement sites on the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. (BC Hydro 2008, p. 6). The underlying goal of recreation management is quality: visitors desire high quality recreation experiences, and managers seek to provide high quality recreation opportunities. Within the context of outdoor recreation management, quality has traditionally been measured in terms of visitor satisfaction (Manning, 1999). Satisfaction can be considered to be a function of the degree of congruence between aspirations and the perceived reality of experience (Bultena & Klessig, 1969, p. 349). Although there are no standardized measures of satisfaction (experiences are dynamic, evolve over time, and are contextdependent), most measures of satisfaction have been rooted in expectancy theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which posits that people engage in outdoor recreation activities with the expectation that this engagement will fulfill particular needs, motivations, or other desires. Satisfaction is both multidimensional and relative (Figure 1): it is multidimensional as overall satisfaction is influenced by biophysical, social, and managerial elements/settings (i.e., situational variables); satisfaction is relative as it is influenced by socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, levels of experience, and attitudes, preferences and norms (i.e., subjective evaluations). Thus, satisfaction is a function of both the recreation setting and the participants. Figure 1. Conceptual model of recreation satisfaction (Manning, 1999). Visitor satisfaction is a useful and appropriate framework for the present study: if people are not satisfied with their experiences on the Arrow Lakes Reservoir, they may seek alternative opportunities elsewhere. However, understanding visitor s satisfaction with their experiences on the Arrow Lakes Reservoir requires other information in addition to the specific monitoring parameters that have been identified for this project: it is necessary to control for other variables that may influence visitor use of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir

10 In the context of the present study, the resource setting (i.e., biophysical setting) would include water levels, and meteorological data. For example, weather does affect recreation use: if visitor use was measured during a very wet year, one might expect lower visitor turnout; if weather was not accounted for, the predictive models may over- or underestimate the influence of water levels on recreation use. The social setting is concerned with the interactions that visitors have with other visitors; social setting is often measured in terms of social carrying capacity, which can be measured by identifying the degree of user conflicts and crowding that are experienced. For example, if visitor use was measured at a site where there has been a history of conflicts between visitors or where visitors have felt crowded, one might expect low visitor use as people seek alternative opportunities free from conflict and crowding independent of water levels. Lastly, the management setting of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir is multijurisdictional (e.g., municipal land, Crown land, BC Parks) as different agencies are responsible for managing access to the Arrow Lakes reservoir. Thus, the amount of visitor use on a site that charges a user fee (e.g., BC Parks parking fees) may be lower than at a Crown land site where no fee is charged, regardless of water levels. When assessing overall recreation use, it is also important to measure variables that inform the subjective evaluation element of satisfaction. These variables include socioeconomic characteristics, level of experience, and attitudes and preferences about the context within which they are engaging in their recreation activity. Lastly, directly addressing visitors recreation use permits further validation of whether in fact it is water levels that visitors are responding to and not other variables (e.g., meteorological conditions or managerial setting)

11 3. METHODOLOGY To address the management questions and supporting hypotheses, specific parameters to be monitored over the 5-year period include: types of recreation activity, user classification (resident, tourist), distribution of activities, frequency of activities, reservoir levels and meteorological data (wind, waves, precipitation, air and water temperature)this information is considered necessary to confirm/refute assumptions about the importance of timing, frequency and duration of reservoir levels changes on recreation activities. Vehicle counters will be installed at each of the boat access sites on Arrow Lakes Reservoir to monitor the number of vehicles using the ramp facilities (Terms of Reference, p.7). The sampling will be conducted in spring, summer, and fall seasons over the 5 year study horizon. Sampling intensity will be higher during the summer to reflect the proportional increase in volume and diversity of recreational activities during this period. The data will be analyzed to determine the degree to which water levels affect recreation use of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. 3.1 Sampling Design This section outlines the sampling design including details about the methods of data collection: the onsite survey, online survey, observational data collection, and traffic counter installation. Eleven sampling sites were chosen to represent the three sections of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir (i.e., Upper, Middle, and Lower Arrow Lakes Reservoir; Table 1). These sites reflect relatively high-use locations that provide water access. Nine of the eleven sites have boat launches. Intensive surveying occurred at all sites in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of Arrow Lakes Reservoir recreational use, user preferences for conditions, and user attitudes about management. The sampling periods were designed to maximize the response to the user survey and to capture a broad selection of outdoor recreation participants. The sampling strategy adopted in this project provides a random sample that is stratified by four factors: (1) section of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir; (2) season (the number of sample days in each season is proportional to the number of days in that season); (3) type of day (i.e., weekends, week days, holidays); and (4) the time of day that sampling occurs (i.e., morning or afternoon). Over the course of the five-year sampling horizon, this approach will provide a representative sample of visitors to the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. During Year 1, one sample site from each section of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir was sampled each survey day. Survey days at sample sites were randomly selected (Gregoire & Buhyoff, 1999). Data collection for the Year 1 pilot season commenced Saturday, September 12, 2009 and finished Saturday, - 8 -

12 October 24, 2009 (Table 1). As a further step to ensure the representation of a wide range of outdoor recreation activities and respondents, surveyors were on site during randomly selected six-hour periods (8:30 am to 2:30 pm or 10:30 am to 4:30 pm). In future sampling years, information about the use (or non-use) of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir (and reasons for non-use) will be assessed by a broader sample of regional residents. This sample will be a convenience sample that will be solicited through local media (local newspapers, television, and radio) and flyers distributed at local parks and recreation sites. This self-selected sample will be invited to participate in the online survey. Table 1. Year 1 sample locations and dates. Lower Arrow Date Lakes Reservoir Saturday September 12 Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Sunday September 13 Syringa Creek Park Day Use Wednesday September 23 Friday September 25 Thursday October 8 Sunday October 11 Monday October 12 Tuesday October 13 Monday October 19 Saturday October 24 Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch Middle Arrow Lakes Reservoir Nakusp Boat Launch Nakusp Beach Area Fauquier Community Park Boat Launch Edgewood Community Park MacDonald Creek Provincial Park Burton Historic Park Burton Historic Park Fauquier Community Park Boat Launch MacDonald Creek Provincial Park Edgewood Community Park Upper Arrow Lakes Reservoir Shelter Bay Eagle Bay Revelstoke Boat Launch Revelstoke Boat Launch Shelter Bay Eagle Bay Eagle Bay Revelstoke Boat Launch Shelter Bay Shelter Bay Active recreation participants were surveyed at publicly accessible boat launches and near shore parks. An entry/exit intercept survey method was selected over a mail-out survey as comprehensive lists of people who visit the Arrow Lakes Reservoir are not available (viz. Dillman et al., 2002) and the participation of a broad selection (i.e., water and shoreline recreationists) of visitors to the Arrow Lakes Reservoir is desired. A limitation of this sample approach is that respondents are self-selected based on their choice of recreation location and their decision to participate in the survey; people who have ceased - 9 -

13 visiting the Arrow Lakes Reservoir (for any reason) are excluded from the sample. To address this limitation, an online survey will be administered beginning in the spring of 2010 and advertised in local media in order to capture the attitudes, behaviours, and preferences of a broader set of people in and around the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. In addition to administering questionnaires to on-site visitors, the surveyors also collected observational data about all of the recreation visitors that they encountered, weather and reservoir conditions (waves, precipitation, wind, percent cloud clover, and air temperature), and photographs of site conditions (Table 2). The observational data was assessed using standardized forms developed for this purpose (Appendix D)..Table 2. Observation data collection: variables collected each field day. Observation Comment Number of people seen This information serves to calibrate vehicle counters, and provides a basis for the identification of response rate for the onsite survey. Group size was also recorded. Number of cars in parking lot (and origin) This information serves to calibrate vehicle counters and provide a check for determining average group size. The origin of license plates was also be recorded to provide information about visitors place of residence and rough travel distance. Site photography Photographic records of sample sites to capture site conditions. Weather* General descriptions to supplement individual measurements (below) Presence of waves* Wave height and frequency. Wind* Wind direction and an estimate of speed. Percent cloud cover* An assessment of the amount of sky/sun obscured by clouds. Air temperature* Recorded in Celsius. Water temperature* Recorded in Celsius. * Note: environmental data collected each field day at 13h00. TRAFx G3 magnetic field controlled vehicle counters were configured and installed at boat access sites and will continue to collect vehicle counts for the duration of the 5 year study horizon. See Appendix A for a description of the TRAFx counters used for this study. 3.2 Survey Delivery The visitor survey is designed to be delivered in two formats over the course of this project: (1) an onsite survey, administered to visitors to sample sites; and (2) an online survey, administered to regional residents to capture a broader range of attitudes and opinions about recreational use (or non-use) of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir

14 3.2.1 Onsite Survey All parties at a sample site were approached for inclusion in this study. People were approached after completing an outdoor recreation activity, so that their responses would be based on the activity they did that day. Except where single-family parties were identified, all party members were asked to participate in the survey; when families were identified, only one member was asked to participate. Respondents completed the questionnaires on-site. The number of people approached for inclusion in the study was recorded to permit the calculation of response rate. Number of parties and total number of people on site was also recorded. People who refused to participate were thanked for their time and were not engaged further. A standard introduction statement was read to all prospective participants that summarized the cover letter that accompanied the questionnaire. If asked what the surveys would be used for, people were told that the information will be used to inform the development of strategies to guide the management of water flows in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Contact information for the project team was provided in the event that anyone had questions or concerns about the project Online Survey An online version of the survey was developed for a sample of regional residents to capture a broader range of attitudes and opinions about recreational use (or non-use) of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. As mentioned above, this survey will also be available for onsite visitors that prefer to provide their information online. The online survey is identical to the onsite survey and will be available at Survey Design The Visitor Survey questionnaire employed in this study was developed using the principles of the Tailored Design Method. This method identifies procedures to maximize survey return rates and minimize survey error (Salant & Dillman, 1994; Dillman, 2000), including questionnaire layout considerations. The questionnaire was designed to ensure a logical flow of the questions, and that the wording of the questions and instructions to the respondents be clear and as brief as possible. A key requirement of the questionnaire was that it be suitable for repeated delivery at multiple locations in order that a better understanding of recreation use trends and of visitors attitudes about the management of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir be identified. After an initial scoping exercise (which produced three drafts of potential questions) the Arrow Lakes Visitor Survey questionnaire underwent seven drafts before being finalized. Three initial drafts (i.e., scoping documents) provided a comprehensive set of questions (and different wordings of questions). The objective of these early drafts was to (1) demonstrate different approaches that could be taken in a

15 survey of visitors to the Arrow Lakes, (2) ensure that the questionnaire would be consistent with BC Hydro goals and objectives, (3) ensure that the questionnaire met the data requirements of the project, and (4) ensure that the questionnaire was amenable to potential respondents (i.e., interesting, easy to follow, and phrased and laid out in a manner that could be answered consistently). Subsequent drafts of the questionnaire were circulated in order to promote discussion around suggested changes in question ordering, question wording, answer options, and/or question instructions. Reviewers included the ELAC team, BC Hydro (Public Use Management, Stakeholder Engagement Group, Environment and Social Issues, and the Water License Requirements Program), an individual at the Science Policy and Economics Section, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and members of the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning at the University of British Columbia. The resulting final questionnaire is a four-page booklet (two 8.5 by 11 sheets printed on both sides, stapled in the top left corner) that comprehensively measures people s use of, and attitudes about, the Arrow Lakes Reservoir (Appendix B). The questions permit the isolation of variables to characterize outdoor recreation use and water level preferences in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Recreationists are not a homogeneous group (Bryan, 1977; Manning, 1999; Salz et al., 2001; Rollins & Robinson, 2002), as participants differ in their values, the activities that they pursue, preferred settings, desired experiences, and motivations for participating (Choi et al., 1994); however, the variation among preferences, attitudes, and behaviours can be explained by the recreation specialization framework (Bryan, 1977; McFarlane et al., 1998). Understanding the desires and needs of recreationists is important for the management of outdoor recreation (McFarlane, 1994). As the recreation specialization framework can provide a basis for the differentiation of recreationists holding various goals, preferences, and behaviors (McFarlane, 2001), it was used to frame the collection of recreation data, as it provides a coherent and comprehensive approach, and addresses the issue of engagement in multiple activities, which can violate statistical assumptions about independent samples (Jackson, 1986). These measurement protocols follow standard practices and are appropriate for a project of this type. The questionnaire is composed of seven sections: Section 1: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Activities. Section 2: Important Outdoor Recreation Activities. Section 3: Arrow Lake Outdoor Recreation Experiences. Section 4: Use and Familiarity of Arrow Lakes. Section 5: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Management. Section 6: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Experiences. Section 7: Demographics

16 Table X. Relation of questionnaire subsections to management hypotheses. Management hypothesis H 0A frequency of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels Related Questionnaire Subsection Section 1: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Activities. Section 5: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Management. H 0B volume of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels H 0C the different types of public use are not affected by fluctuating water levels. Section 1: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Activities. Section 2: Important Outdoor Recreation Activities. Section 5: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Management. Section 7: Demographics. Given that visitor satisfaction is multidimensional, data collection in this study takes advantage of the different elements of this study (i.e., observational data and questionnaire-elicited data). Table 3 illustrates the links between the specific monitoring parameters identified in the project s Terms of Reference (above) and the mode of measurement. Table 3. Links between monitoring parameters and mode of measurement. Specific Monitoring Parameters Mode of Measurement Unit of Measurement 1. Types of recreation activity Field Crew: Detailed Daily Sample Summary field form. Questionnaire: Question Volume of recreation use Field Crew: vehicle counters and Detailed Daily Sample Summary field form. 3. User classification (i.e., resident, tourist) Questionnaire: Question 7. Field Crew: Site and Survey Log field form. Descriptions # of vehicles # of people in group Age range travelled more than 80km 4. Distribution of activities Measured by stratifying observed recreation activities by sample sites.. 5. Frequency of activities Questionnaire: Question 1; Question Reservoir levels Data supplied by BC Hydro; to be matched up with sampling times. Feet 7. Meteorological data (i.e., weather, waves, wind conditions, sky conditions, air and water Field Crew: Site and Survey Log field form. Weather General descriptions to

17 temperature). Collected by survey crews at 13h00 each day on site. Meteorological data will be included in the predictive models as categorical variables. Presence of waves Wind Percent cloud cover Air temperature Water temperature supplement individual measurements (below) Wave height and frequency. Wind direction and an estimate of speed. An assessment of the amount of sky/sun obscured by clouds. Recorded in Celsius. Recorded in Celsius. To address H 0A (frequency of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels), data are required about how often people come to the Arrow Lakes Reservoir and whether or not people will return based on the water levels that they experienced. To address H 0B (volume of public use of Arrow Lake is not influenced by fluctuating reservoir water levels), data are required about numbers of people visiting the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. To address H 0C (different types of public use are not affected by fluctuating water levels), data are required about the different activities that occur on and near the Arrow Lakes Reservoir, as well as an assessment of influence of water levels by activity. Table X. Management hypotheses and variables. Management hypothesis Dependent variable Independent variable Covariate(s) H 0A - frequency of public use of activity Reservoir water level Arrow Lake not influenced by reservoir water levels H 0B - volume of public use of Reservoir water level Arrow Lake not influenced by reservoir water levels H 0C - type of public use not affected by water levels. Reservoir water level For each hypothesis, we need to control for the influence of other variables (e.g., management setting or meteorological data). The following sections demonstrate how the data captured by the questionnaire will further inform the study s management questions, and how the questions address the theoretical framework of the study

18 3.3.1 Section 1: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Activities The questions in this section (Figure 2) ask about the recreation activities done on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes. The questions provide an assessment of the different activities that each respondent engages in. This can help to inform the likelihood of visitors substituting activities vs. opportunities (i.e., location) if satisfaction is not achieved. These questions address H 0A by measuring the frequency of use by season. As information is also collected about the types of activities that take place on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir, the frequency of use can be stratified by activity. These questions also inform H 0C by measuring the different types of recreation activity that take place on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Figure 2. Section 1 questions Section 2: Important Outdoor Recreation Activities Section 2 asks about respondents most important outdoor recreation activities. These questions inform H 0C by providing information about the type of user in terms of intra-activity characteritics. Recreationist may partake in a range of activities. This question provides an assessment of individual s degree of recreation specialization, which accounts for intra-activity variation (Bryan, 1977; McFarlane, 2001; Scott & Shafer, 2001)

19 Figure 3. Section 2 questions Section 3: Arrow Lake Outdoor Recreation Experiences. This section has two parts. The first part (Figure 4) asks about some of the experiences that respondents may have had while visiting the Arrow Lakes for recreation activities. These two questions provide information about social settings by eliciting individual s encounter norms to provide an assessment of crowding (Manning, 1999; Vaske & Donnelly, 2002). Figure 4. Section 3 questions, part 1. The second part addresses recreation conflicts (Figure 5). Recreation conflict occurs when the presence, behaviour, or values of an individual or group interferes with another individual or group (Vaske, et al., 2007). This question provides information about the social setting by asking whether individuals have encountered any conflicts with other recreation visitors

20 Figure 5. Section 3 questions, part Section 4: Use and Familiarity of Arrow Lakes. This section includes two questions. The first question (Figure 6) asks about respondents use of, and familiarity with, the Arrow Lakes. People can have multiple motivations for engaging in recreation activities, which may include enjoyment from the activity itself, socialization, as well as other benefits (Driver et al., 1991). An understanding of people s motivations for pursuing recreation activities in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir helps to inform the attitudes and preferences element of the subjective evaluation component of the satisfaction model. Figure 6. Section 4 questions, part 1. The second question (Figure 7) addresses respondents knowledge about the management goals of the Arrow Reservoir. People engage in outdoor recreation activities with the expectation that this engagement will fulfill particular needs, motivations, or other desires (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Manning, 1999). Understanding individual s expectations informs their recreation satisfaction. If people are not aware of the management goals for the Arrow Lakes Reservoir, their expectations may not be realistic, and their satisfaction affected

21 Figure 7. Section 4 questions, part Section 5: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Management. This section has two parts. The first part of this section (Figure 8) asks about how respondents feel about the management of recreation on the Arrow Lakes. Although there are not any standardized measures of visitor satisfaction, a common approach is to gauge overall satisfaction through the use of multiple-item measures of satisfaction that are context specific (Manning, 1999). This question provides an overall assessment of visitor satisfaction, which will be used to test the relationship of water levels to visitor use. Figure 8. Section 5 questions, part 1. The second part of this section (Figure 9) directly addresses H 0A a as it explicitly asks whether respondents will return based on the water levels that they have experienced. This question also addresses H 0C as the stated relationship between water levels and likelihood of returning to the Arrow

22 Lakes Reservoir can be stratified by activity. This question informs the conceptual model of satisfaction by examining the link between Resource Setting and likelihood of returning (i.e., achieved satisfaction). Figure 9. Section 5 questions, part Section 6: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Experiences. This section has two parts (Figure 9) which ask about respondents recreation experiences on the Arrow Lakes. The first part of this section establishes respondents familiarity with the Arrow Lakes Reservoir by asking about the length of time that they have used the area for outdoor recreation. The degree of familiarity influences visitors expectations, which has an effect on their degree of satisfaction. Respondents are also asked where they first heard about recreation opportunities near and on the Arrow Lakes. Figure 9. Section 6 questions

23 3.3.7 Section 7: Demographics. Section 7 collects basic information about respondents demographic characteristics. These questions provide explicit information about individuals place of residence, which informs the user classification as either resident or tourist (i.e., travelled more than 80km (Murphy, 1991)). They also provide information about user socioeconomic characteristics, which addresses H 0C. This question provides data about socioeconomic characteristics, which addresses the subjective evaluation component of the conceptual model of satisfaction.. Figure 10. Section 7 questions. 3.4 Analyses Descriptive statistics were tabulated for each question. For those questions that ask respondents to indicate their level of agreement, satisfaction, or importance, the proportion of responses was calculated for each interval.. The mean response, standard deviation, and standard error was calculated for questions that use an interval scale. General comments made by respondents on the questionnaires are presented in Appendix C Data Entry QA/QC The data from all completed questionnaires were entered (twice) into two SPSS databases to facilitate the verification of data for keying errors, and accuracy and consistency in data coding (Salant & Dillman, 1994). Each completed questionnaire was compared among the two datasets such that each cell (each answer to a question) was verified. When discrepancies were identified, the appropriate questionnaire was consulted and the necessary correction was made. The resultant dataset can be considered to be free of errors from data entry. The data was checked for outliers or obvious patterns; when these were identified they were checked against the corresponding questionnaire. No obvious protest votes were identified

24 4. RESULTS A total of 127 completed questionnaires were returned between September 12 and October 24, 2009 (Table 4) at all sample locations (Table 5); as a total of 562 individuals were encountered during the sample periods, this represents a 22.6% response rate. Table 4. Completed questionnaires as a percentage of total returns by sample date. Number of Sample Date % returns? Saturday September % Sunday September % Wednesday September % Friday September % Thursday October % Sunday October % Monday October % Tuesday October % Monday October % Saturday October % Total %

25 Table 5. Completed questionnaires as percentage of total returns by sample location. Sample Site Nb of returns Syringa Creek Park Boat Launch % Edgewood Community Park % Eagle Bay % Shelter Bay % Nakusp Beach % Syringa Creek Park Day Use 9 7.1% Burton 8 6.3% Nakusp Boat Launch 8 6.3% Revelstoke 6 4.7% Fauquier Community Park Boat Launch 2 1.6% MacDonald Creek Provincial Park 2 1.6% Revelstoke Boat Launch 1 0.8% % Total %

26 4.1 Question 1: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Activities Respondents participated in a total of 29 individual outdoor recreation activities (Tables 6 and 7); respondents could identify more than one activity. The five most frequently identified activities were: fishing (72.4%), camping (66.1%), scenic viewing (65.4%), walking/hiking (63.8%), and swimming (62.2%) (Table 6). Table 6. Activities done on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes, based on questionnaires. (most frequently identified activity in bold). Activity n % ATV/Trail bike/ 4 x % Beach activities % Berry picking % Bird watching % Boating (motor cruising) % Camping % Canoeing/kayaking % Cross-country skiing % Drawing/painting/photography % Fishing % Horseback riding 6 4.7% Hunting % Mountain biking % Mushroom picking % Nature study % Picnicking % Scenic viewing % Snowmobiling % Swimming % Walking/hiking % Waterskiing % Wildlife watching % Windsurfing 2 1.6% Other 8 6.3%

27 Table 7. Other activities identified by respondents. Activity n Historic exploration 1 Jet skiing 1 Looking for arrow here 1 Remote control floatplane 1 Tubing 1 Work - fish study 1 Respondents reported visiting the Arrow lakes in all four seasons. Annual visits by respondents averaged 90.0 ±16.6 days per year (Table 8). Table 8. On average, how many days per month do you visit the Arrow Lakes in each season? (N = 123). Season Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD Spring ± Summer ± Fall ± Winter ± Annual ± Respondents participated in a total of 18 outdoor recreation activities when they completed their questionnaire (Table 9). Fishing was the most frequently identified activity, with 47% of respondents

28 Table 9. Most commonly reported recreation activities on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes. Most frequently identified activity in bold. (N = 112) Today's Recreation Activities n ATV/Trail bike/ 4 x 4 2 Beach activities 8 Berry picking 1 Bird watching 5 Boating (motor cruising) 20 Camping 10 Canoeing/kayaking 4 Dog walking 2 Drawing/painting/photography 3 Fishing 47 Hunting 1 Mountain biking 1 Other 5 Picnicking 6 Scenic viewing 10 Swimming 12 Walking/hiking 26 Wildlife watching 7 The majority of respondents reported that they were not paying customers of a commercial recreation or tourism operator/guide (Table 10). Table 10. Percent of respondents who participated in an activity as a paying customer of a commercial recreation or tourism operator/guide. (N = 120) Response n % No % Yes 5 4.2%

29 Most respondents indicated that instead of being paying customers of a commercial recreation or tourism operator/guide, they were camping or local residents (Table 11). Table 11. Elaboration about whether respondents participated in their activity as a paying customer of a commercial recreation or tourism operator/guide. Camping at a free facility. Camping at Eagle Bay. Response Camping at Edgewood Community campground. Day use only. Entertainment. First visit. I have my own boat and I live here. I live close by and use the area as my own back yard. Live in Edgewood. No fees charged. Non-paying customer as camp fees are off. Paid employee. Personal fishing and camping, no charge off season. Rec site is free. Resident. Road trip. Syringa park campsite. Was asked to participate. We stay at Murphy s landing nearby. 4.2 Question 2: Important Outdoor Recreation Activities Of the 29 recreation activities that respondents indicated participating in on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes, 17 were identified as being the most important activities (Table 12). Fishing was identified most frequently (41.8%), followed by camping (19.7%), and swimming (13.1%)

30 Table 12. Activities reported as the most important on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes. Most frequently identified activity in bold. (N = 122) Most Important Activity n ATV/Trail bike/ 4 x 4 1 Beach activities 8 Bird watching 1 Boating (motor cruising) 13 Camping 24 Canoeing/kayaking 4 Cross-country skiing 1 Dog walking 2 Drawing/painting/photography 1 Fishing 51 Horseback riding 1 Hunting 1 Mushroom picking 1 Other 2 Scenic viewing 1 Swimming 16 Walking/hiking 8 Respondents reported that they had participated in their most important activity for an average of 22.9 years (SD 15.6; Table 13). Table 13. Number of years respondents reported participating in their most important activity. (N = 125) Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD ± Respondents indicated that they were generally skilled at the activity that was most important to them (Table 14)

31 Table 14. Skill level of participants in their given activity, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being beginner and 5 being expert. (N = 123) Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD ± Respondents indicated that the activity that was most important to them was also important to their lifestyle (Table 15). Table 15. Importance of the respondents given activity to their lifestyle, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not important at all and 5 being very important. (N = 122) Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD ± Family and friends were the most frequently identified people that respondents participated in their most important outdoor recreation activity with (Table 16). Eight other people (or combinations of people) were identified by respondents (Table 17). Table 16. People that respondents usually participate with in their most important recreation activity. (N = 126) Response n % Alone 9 7.1% Family % Friends % Clubs 1 0.8% People from work 1 0.8% Other %

32 Table 17. Other people that respondents do their recreation activity with. (N = 21) Response n All but clubs 1 Alone and friends 1 Alone, family, friends 3 Dog 1 Family and friends 12 Family, friends, and coworkers 1 Friends and coworkers 1 Various people 1 Respondents reported participating in their most important outdoor recreation activity in all four seasons (Table 18). Annual visits by respondents averaged 90.0 (SD 94.1) days per year. Table 18. Number of days per month in each season that respondents do their activity. Season n Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD Spring ± Summer ± Fall ± Winter ± Annual ± Question 3: Arrow Lake Outdoor Recreation Experiences Respondents indicated that an average of 10.3 (SD 8.4) encounters with other people was acceptable while visiting the Arrow Lakes (Table 19). Table 19. Number of people respondents are comfortable seeing per day while you are visiting the Arrow Lakes. (N = 77) Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Error 95% CI SD ±

33 Respondents indicated that they generally felt somewhat crowded while visiting the Arrow Lakes (Table 20). Crowding was experienced most frequently in the summer months and least frequently in the winter months. Table 20. Feeling of crowding in each season while visiting the Arrow Lakes on a scale of 1 9. Season n Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD Spring ± Summer ± Fall ± Winter ± More than four out of five respondents reported that they had not experienced any conflict with other people or recreation activities while they were visiting the Arrow Lakes (Table 21). Table 21. Number of respondents who have ever experienced any conflicts with other people or recreation activities while visiting the Arrow Lakes. (N = 24) Response n % No % Yes % Nineteen respondents elaborated on the conflicts that they had experienced, which generally pertained to issues of respect (Table 22)

34 Table 22. Number of respondents who have ever experienced any conflicts with other people or recreation activities while they were visiting the Arrow Lakes. (N = 19) Response n Big problems ATVs, loud, aggressive, inconsiderate do not follow rules. They cause lots of problems 1 with noise and etiquette. There is lots of space in the forestry behind us! Boat launch has too many swimmers. Have had dangerous encounters while trying to launch. 1 Boaters from out of town showboating in our swimming area. QUADS. 1 Crazy women swearing at me because of my dog. 1 Crowds too big to handle one boat launch. Need more all season boat launches. 1 Drinking/partying and broken bottles 1 Fishing in closed waters. 1 Frequent crackheads. 1 I live here and resent visitors who abuse our beach (e.g., ATVs, garbage). 1 Idiot boat drivers. 1 Leaving garbage. 2 Not outright conflicts but being annoyed by people using chainsaws and bear bangers (guns) at varying times of night and day. 1 Not too bad, but some dogs, people getting stuck. Pretty good people here. 1 Occasionally people do not respect the area. 1 Other rec users are very receptive to the project. 1 Poor seamanship from some boaters. 1 Rowdy teenagers! 1 Seadoo/jet-ski users are unwanted in summer

35 4.4 Question 4: Use and Familiarity of Arrow Lakes Of the twelve motivation items presented to respondents for visiting the Arrow Lakes, viewing scenery was identified most often, followed by being with friends, and giving their minds a rest (Table 23). Table 23. List of why respondents came to the Arrow Lakes. (N = 127) Most frequently identified response in bold. Motivation n % To learn about reservoirs 7 5.5% To discover new things % To learn more about nature % To view the scenery % To be close to nature % To think about my personal values % To get exercise % To give my mind a rest % To have a change from my daily routine % To be with friends % To be with family % Other % Of the six management goals that respondents ranked in terms of importance (Table 24), providing recreation opportunities received the most 1 st rankings (43.2%), followed by providing habitat for aquatic species (33.6%), electricity generation (22.9%), safety for reservoir users (16.2%), flood control (13.8%, and providing local employment (10.8%). Respondents also identified improve fishing (2), keep the water level up, and tourism as other important management goals for the Arrow Lakes

36 Table 24. The most important management goals for the Arrow Lakes in the opinion of respondents. (N = 109) Management Goal Provide local employment Safety for reservoir users Provide recreation opportunities Flood control Electricity generation Provide habitat for aquatic species Other Rank n % 10.8% 10.8% 9.9% n % 16.2% 8.1% 12.6% n % 43.2% 26.1% 15.3% n % 13.8% 13.8% 16.5% n % 22.9% 11.0% 13.8% n % 33.6% 20.9% 11.8% n % 1.8% 2.7% 0.9%

37 4.5 Question 5: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Management On average, respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the management of the five tasks that were presented to them (Table 25). Respondents were most satisfied with their experiences on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes, and least satisfied with water levels on the Arrow Lakes. Table 25. Respondents satisfaction with the balance of management activities on the Arrow Lakes. Management Activity n Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD On the whole, are you satisfied with water levels on the Arrow Lakes? On the whole, do you have satisfying experiences on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes? On the whole, are you satisfied with the conditions of the boat ramps on the Arrow Lakes? On the whole, are you satisfied with the parking lot conditions when you visit the Arrow Lakes? On the whole, are you satisfied with the management of the Arrow Lakes? ± ± ± ± ± More than four of five respondents indicated that they would continue to return to the Arrow Lakes if water levels were the same or higher than those that they experienced on the day that they completed their questionnaire (Table 26). Fewer respondents (57.9%) indicated that they would return if the water levels were lower. Thirty respondents elaborated on their answers regarding water levels (Table 27). Table 26. How different water levels might affect respondents use of the Arrow Lakes for recreation activities. If the water level is the same as today... If the water level is higher than today... If the Water level is lower than today... I will come back I will go somewhere else Not sure n % 89.1% 1.8% 9.1% n % 89.1% 1.8% 9.1% n % 57.9% 15.0% 27.1%

38 Table 276. How different water levels might affect respondents use of the Arrow Lakes for recreation activities. Elaboration (N = 30). Response Full pond is difficult to deal with because of floating debris and limited anchoring opportunities, also no beaches. A bridge at Needles would be awesome. Love this lake and beaches. Need more fish ladders or creeks cleared for spawning. As long as the water level does not change a lot. Because I live here. Boat launch inaccessible when water levels too low. Unusually low levels means I have to be more cautious near shore. Some places not easily accessed when water levels low. Boat ramp should be facing up stream. Consistent levels needed for docks. Depending on activity. Can t be too high for fishing. But just walking today... Doesn t affect my coming here. Fluctuating water levels of feet fishing a constant level would be best especially for spawning season. Frequent user can adapt to most levels. I live here and come whenever I want no matter what level. I live here and will always use the arrow lakes but prefer the water levels a little higher. It s always a good place one just has to vary techniques for boat launching, fishing etc. Lake levels are simply a fact that is dealt with as needed. Like to fish. Low water levels affect fishing. Low water spring, fall. Low boat access. Needs work on the docks! Not a frequent visitor. Prefer higher level. Revelstoke water levels were too low to put boat in water so I cast from shore. Should be maintained at a sufficient height to allow spawning of fish. The current level is good and change wouldn t hurt. The water level is too low to launch our boat. It should be higher and a consistent level. Too high in the summer. Try to keep the water levels up as it provides better moorage and boat launch/use. Water level today acceptable no problem swimming. We always adjust to the conditions. When the lake is drained in summer, the water gets very cold. Would be better to drain in May and let the water heat up for summer

39 4.6 Question 6: Arrow Lakes Outdoor Recreation Experiences. On average, respondents indicated that they had pursued their outdoor recreation activities on the Arrow Lakes for more than 16 years (Table 28). Table 28. Number of years respondents have you been coming to the Arrow Lakes for recreation activities. n Minimum Maximum Mean 95% CI SD More than nine out of ten respondents reported that they would return to the Arrow Lakes for recreation activities based on their experience the day that they completed a questionnaire (Table 29). Twenty-four respondents elaborated on their response to this question (Table 30). Table 29. Number of respondents who will come back to the Arrow Lakes based on their experience on the day of the survey. (N = 123) Response n % No 2 1.6% Yes %

40 Table 30. Why respondents will or will not come back to the Arrow Lakes based on their experience on the day of the survey. Elaboration (N = 24) Response As long as we are able we will be back especially to Shelter bay camp ground and launch. Beautiful spot, will be back. Enjoy fishing (2). Good times were had. Great fishing, great boating and swimming. Great place! I have a cabin on the lake. I live here (7). It is a beautiful place to visit. It s one of few places in the area that isn t always overrun with tourists. It s a refreshing, unspoiled place to visit. Moving to. Pass through the area once in a while. Too beautiful not to! We like it here. We love it (2). Of the eleven possibilities presented to respondents about information sources they heard first for recreation opportunities near and on the Arrow Lakes, friends and family were identified most frequently (Table 31)

41 Table 31. How respondents first heard about recreation opportunities near and on the Arrow Lakes. Response n % Tourism information booth 5 3.9% Family % BC Hydro web site 3 2.4% Tourism information brochures 6 4.7% Friends % BC Hydro facility (e.g., Revelstoke Dam) 2 1.6% Tourism operators 0 0.0% BC Parks % BC Hydro bill 1 0.8% Private marinas 2 1.6% BC Forest Service 8 6.3% Other % Twenty-nine respondents indicated other ways that they first found information about recreation opportunities near and on the Arrow Lakes (Table 32). Most respondents cited that they know about the Arrow Lakes because they live nearby. Table 32. Other ways in which respondents first heard about recreation opportunities near and on the Arrow Lakes. Response Drive through (2) Exploration Grew up in area (3) Internet Living close by (20) Work (2)

42 4.7 Question 7: Demographics Respondents ranged in age from 17 to 79; the average age was 51.9 ±2.5 years (n = 122; SD = ). More than three quarters of respondents (77.4%) were male (n = 124). Respondents reported living in 40 different communities (Table 33), and had lived in their communities for an average of 23.7 ±3.1 years (n = 121 SD = 17.4). Table 33. Communities that respondents live in. (N = 123) Community n % Alberta 1 0.8% Armstrong 1 0.8% Austria 1 0.8% Burton 1 0.8% Calgary 5 4.1% Castlegar % Cranbrook 1 0.8% Edgewood % Enderby 2 1.6% Fruitvale 1 0.8% Genelle 2 1.6% Glenbank 1 0.8% Hudson s Hope 1 0.8% Kamloops 2 1.6% Kelowna 6 4.9% Kimberly 1 0.8% Lumby 2 1.6% Maple Ridge 1 0.8% Nakusp % Nelson 2 1.6% Okanagan 1 0.8% Pass Creek 1 0.8% Penticton 1 0.8% Prince George 2 1.6% Pritchard 1 0.8% Revelstoke %

43 Table 33 (cont d). Communities that respondents live in. (N = 123) Community n % Robson 2 1.6% Robson/Castlegar/South Slocan 1 0.8% Rossland 2 1.6% Salmo BC 1 0.8% Salmon arm 5 4.1% Sicamous 4 3.3% Summerland 1 0.8% Surrey 1 0.8% Thrums 1 0.8% town 1 0.8% Trail 2 1.6% Vernon 2 1.6% Victoria 1 0.8% Warfield 1 0.8% More than one-quarter (27.6%) of respondents reported being members of 35 different outdoor recreation clubs or organizations (Table 34)

44 Table 34. Please list any outdoor recreation clubs or organizations that you belong to. Response Acorn outdoor club Alpine Club of Canada ATV club BC Wildlife BC Wildlife Federation Canoe club Castlegar Fly Fishing Club Castlegar Friends of Parks and Trails Eagle Valley Snowmobile Club Good Sam RV Club (2) Hiking club in Kelowna IRC (3) Kelowna Canoe and Kayak Club (2) KMC Lower Arrow Lake Conservation Club Nakusp Cross-Country Ski Club Nakusp Launch Club Nakusp Paddling Club (2) Nelson & District Riding Club Nelson Rod and gun club Nordic cross-country ski club Okanagan Naturalist Club Parks - Edgewood Community Revelstoke Rod and Gun Club Revelstoke Snowmobile Club Riding club Seniors hiking club The Penticton Model Aviation Club Trail Archery Club Trail Wildlife Association West Kootenay ATV Club

45 5. DISCUSSION This short pilot study has provided some useful initial insights into the people, activities, experiences, attitudes and satisfaction of recreationists on the Arrow Lakes. Though the pilot was limited to only a portion of one fall season it does provide a better understanding that there is a significant amount of tourist use and thus significant socio-economic impacts to be considered. Fifty-seven percent of respondents live in communities that are more than 50 km from an Arrow Lake community. As expected, heaviest use is on weekends. Over 60% of respondents participated in the following recreation activities, in descending order of participation: fishing (72%), camping (66%), scenic viewing (65%), hiking/walking (63%), swimming (62%) & beach activities (61%). Forty-two percent of respondents identified fishing as their most important activity while 20% felt camping was number one. On the day they were interviewed, 42% said they had gone fishing while the next highest response was walking/hiking at 23%. Among the many activities available in and near the Arrow Lakes, consideration of, assisting in, and planning for the above, in consultation with all appropriate bodies, would appear to be the main drivers in developing a mutually beneficial operational management plan. Based on the frequency of visits, respondents seem to be familiar with the Arrow Lakes as the mean annual visits to the Lake was 90, or roughly once every four days. Visits to the Arrow Lakes were highest in summer (approximately 2-3 visits per week) and lowest in the winter (approximately one visit per week). Respondents had longstanding involvement with the activity that they identified as most important to them, which was also identified as playing an important role to their lifestyles. Respondents indicated that they were generally familiar with the Arrow Lakes as they had been visiting the Lake for an average of 17 years. The provision of recreation opportunities was identified as the most important management goal most frequently. The Arrow Lakes provides recreation opportunities for a variety of people and groups. Respondents indicated that they visit the Arrow Lakes most often with their families and friends (which was also identified as a motivation for the majority of respondents), which may indicate an important social function of the reservoir. The popularity of the Arrow Lakes does, in some instances, lead to issues of crowding, which can be considered to be meeting more than ten other recreationists per visit. Despite these instances of crowding, reports of conflicts with other people or recreation activities while visiting the Arrow Lakes was low (and may generally be related to inappropriate behaviour). Viewing scenery was the

46 most frequently identified motivation for visiting the Arrow Lakes, which is likely related to the majority of respondents reporting that being close to nature was also a motivation. This pilot succeeded in testing the survey documents and procedures and in enabling refinements and improvements to them. The final outcomes of this five year study will assist in developing a model that will better predict the recreational use impacts associated with changing water levels of the Arrow Lakes. This pilot, on its own, was not intended to generate year round use characteristics or of recreational use tied to great fluctuations in water level. However, it does provide an indication of what is important to the recreational users of the lake and what might be important to consider in developing management strategies

47 6. CONCLUSION Fishing appears to be the most important activity and the prime recreation activity of choice on the Arrow Lakes in the fall. Also in that season, more tourists (57%) use the boat launches and associated campsites than residents. Almost all respondents (over 98%) would return for another visit, thus indicating a reasonable level of satisfaction with recreation opportunities and management practices. The pilot results do not provide sufficient data to predict whether improvements in facilities and water level management of the Arrow Lakes would significantly affect the use and satisfaction of recreationists or economic impacts for local communities. Though this pilot has been a successful and productive start to an informative and progressive initiative, the full implementation and completion of the 5 year study will provide much more reliable information, interpretations and conclusions on which to base future management

48 7. LITERATURE CITED Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 9(3), Bultena, G. and L. Klessig. (1969). Satisfaction in camping: A conceptualization and guide to social research. Journal of Leisure Research, 1, Choi, S., D.K. Loomis, and R.B. Ditton. (1994). Effect of social group, activity, and specialization on recreation substitution decisions. Leisure Sciences, 16, Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dillman, D.A., J.L. Eltinge, R.M. Groves, and R.J.A. Little. (2002). Survey nonresponse in design, data collection, and analysis. In R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge & R.J.A. Little (Eds.), Survey Nonresponse (pp. 3-26). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Driver, B., P. Brown, and G. Peterson (Eds.). (1991). Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Interaction and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Gregoire, T.G. and G.J. Buhyoff. (1999). Sampling and estimating recreational use. (General technical report No. PNW-GTR-456). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest research Station. Jackson, E. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment. Leisure Studies, 5, Manning, R.E. (1999). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (2 ed.). Corvallis OR: Oregon State University Press. McFarlane, B.L. (2001). Comments on recreational specialization: A critical look at the construct. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(3), McFarlane, B.L. (1994). Specialization and motivations of birdwatchers. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 22, McFarlane, B.L., P.C. Boxall, & D.O. Watson. (1998). Past experience and behavioral choice among wilderness users. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), Moore, R.L. and B.L. Driver Introduction to Outdoor Recreation: Providing and managing natural resource based opportunities. Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, PA

49 Murphy, Peter E. (1991). Data gathering for community-oriented tourism planning: case study of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Leisure Studies, 11(1), Rollins, R. and D.W. Robinson. (2002). Social science, conservation, and protected areas. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management (2 ed., pp ). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Salant, P. and D.A. Dillman. (1994). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Salz, R.J., D.K. Loomis, and K.L. Finn. (2001). Development and validation of a specialization index and testing of specialization theory. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(4), Scott, D. and C.S. Shafer. (2001). Recreational specialization: A critical look at the construct. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(3), TRAFx. (2009). Vehicle Counter FAQs. Accessed February, 16, Vaske, J.J., M.D. Needham, and R.C. Cline Jr. (2007). Clarifying interpersonal and social values conflict among recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(1), Vaske, J.J. and M.P. Donnelly. (2002). Generalizing the encounter-norm-crowding relationship. Leisure Sciences, 24(3-4), Vaske, J.J., P. Carothers, M.P. Donnelly, and B. Baird. (2000). Recreation conflict among skiers and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 22(4),

50 APPENDIX A TRAFx Vehicle Counters How were traffic counters used in this study? Traffic counters were configured and installed at all monitoring sites with boat launch facilities (nine of the eleven survey sites). The TRAFx G3 magnetic field controlled vehicle counters were selected for use in this study as they are the preferred and recommended traffic counter of BC Parks and National Parks. How does the traffic counter work? Ferrous metal (i.e., metals with iron content) objects distort the earth's magnetic field as they move through it. Pure aluminum (non-alloy aluminum) will not be detected. Moving the counter (i.e., pointing it in different compass directions, or tilting it, or jiggling or jolting it) will also cause counts to occur. This is because the earth's magnetic field has different strengths for different directions and tilts, and the counter senses this. As vehicles move, they disturb the earth s magnetic field. The TRAFx Vehicle Counter digitizes and analyzes these disturbances using highly sophisticated hardware and software. Thus, as a vehicle passes within the detection zone it changes the earth s magnetic field in that area which triggers a count. Different modes are used to meet the particular needs and traffic pattern of a given site. That is why the modes and sensitivity settings were selected at each site to best reflect the local conditions. Can the vehicle counter be buried? Does it perform differently when buried? Yes it can be buried. Because it responds to changes in the earth s magnetic field, the TRAFx Vehicle Counter functions the same whether the counter is buried or installed above ground. Will the counter still function if a vehicle parks over or near the counter? Yes. Unlike most other types of vehicle counters, the TRAFx Vehicle Counter will automatically adjust to the presence of a vehicle parked over top or nearby, and continue to function properly. Likewise, if the counter is placed near a metal pole (e.g., signpost) or similar static metal object (e.g., guard rail, cattleguard, bridge beam etc.) it will automatically adjust to its presence. Information courtesy of Trafx,

51 APPENDIX B ARROW LAKES VISITOR SURVEY

52 - 49 -

53 - 50 -

54 - 51 -

55 - 52 -

56 APPENDIX C RESPONDENT COMMENTS

57 Table x. Do you have any additional comments about recreation on the water or onshore of the Arrow Lakes (n = 45)? Comment Stock more fish in the lake. They took the restroom to the other end of the campsite and now it is one on each end; why not do doubles? Keep campsites plowed out for winter camping and launching of boats. A beautiful area to visit. Clean and well kept. Always enjoy coming out on the lake and meeting new people and anglers. An off leash doggie beach area. At present it is good as there are so few people. People always spoil everything. Beautiful area, but better when water level is lower. Boat launch for Siringa creek should be at campground or at least closer. Boaters: facilities are not up to par, better ramps and docks and access to fuel. Kokanee-spawning questions. Swimmers: water levels questions. Landmarks: - preserving some shorelines, safe harbour bays. Do the water levels contribute to global warming? Eagle Bay campsite is our preferred site for recreational use on Arrow Lakes. Fish should be restocked in the arrow lakes on a regular basis. Great place to be!!! Have friends that come here often and they always seem to have a good time. Hope Eagle bay stays a free site. I enjoy the facilities provided. I love it here. I really hope that this park remains here - should be expanded because of summer use (hard time to get a site during summer months June 01 to end of August). I would like to see the water level on the Arrow Lakes at a more constant level. Not too high and not too low. If the water level is too low or too high we lose our beaches. It would be better to have consistent water levels. It would be nice if there were more boat access beaches on the lake. Keep it at one level all summer 1,444-1,438. Keep it higher longer (June - September inclusively) Keep the pristine shore line as is no cottages, thanks. This year has been more challenging for fishing. Water level was much higher for summer months both in Arrows and Revelstoke Lake. The temperature of the water ranged degrees. October saw the water level down much lower. For what ever reason it makes for more challenges toward fishing. We love the Kootenay Lakes area too bad it wasn t closer to Armstrong but then it would become more polluted with??? A few more parks in other areas would be nice. We love the clean lakes. Keep water level higher during summer

58 Longer docks would greatly benefit potential recreational usage of the lakes; when lake levels are low there is no place for boats. Low water levels make it difficult to carry canoe to water. Sand storms come with with high winds and drive us off the beach when water is low. Make people put their dogs on a leash and pickup after them! More docks. More recreation sites for the people. My family was surprised (disappointed) to see the water level dip in late July. The beach in town was rocky. Need fueling station. Need pay phone service at Shelter Bay ferries. Need year round boat access to lake especially in winter, which requires ramp maintenance. Needs to be fixed up and promoted as a tourist destination. Docks are awful. Provide more forestry rec sites. Clean up beach area at Syringa by dozing rocks off beach during low water. Require a boat ramp at Deer Park. Plus improve the road condition. Present road is very, very poor restricts people from travelling this way. Thanks for preserving such a great place! The only adverse item I encounter with the Arrow Lakes is very low water levels. Although we still recreate and use the lake/shoreline a consistent and higher water level would be better for all recreation users and all wildlife. Too many captain assholes speed, not considering other boaters, garbage left on surf Water levels, docks on seasonal ramp. Water too high: no beaches, debris on water. We are doing fish studies so not actually recreating. We are very fortunate to have access to such a beautiful place. No complaints. Where s the best fishing spots?

59 APPENDIX D OBSERVATIONAL DATA FORMS

60 - 57 -

61 - 58 -