White Salmon River Case Study. Robert C. Burns West Virginia University

Transcription

1 White Salmon River Case Study Robert C. Burns West Virginia University

2 Vicinity Map Seattle, WA White Salmon River Portland, OR Washington Oregon

3 White Salmon Wild and Scenic River --The clear, blue waters and unique beauty draw visitors to the White Salmon River as well as the opportunity for an exciting ride. Continuous Class I, II, and III rapids with an occasional Class IV keep boaters on their toes. Husum Falls is rated Class V and should always be portaged. --Classification/Mileage: Wild 6.7; Scenic 22.3 miles; Total 29.0 miles

4

5 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

6 Scoping Identify significant public issues, management concerns, problems, and opportunities Identify stakeholders and a plan of collaboration Access the quantity and quality of scientific data and monitoring information

7 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

8 Planning Criteria Laws, regulations, agency mission, policies Principles (e.g., biodiversity, visitor capacity, social justice, etc.) Planning horizon, resources, and scale Decision criteria to assess consequences of alternatives Identification of units that have had similar experiences (Best Practices benchmarking)

9 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

10 Inventory of the affected planning area Resources, types, locations, conditions, uniqueness, and ecosystem function Social use and users, locations, types, quality of experience, regional demand/supply and trends Management infrastructure, services, programs, personnel, budget, partners and expected changes Recreation opportunities provided by other agencies/private sector within the visitation region

11 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

12 Formulate Alternatives Management prescriptions, description and objectives Desired future conditions and standards for important resource, social and managerial attributes Application of prescriptions to all or parts (zones) of planning area Selected management tools and actions, budget requirements, expected level of monitoring Numeric capacity range and allocation (when appropriate) Decision analysis tools that can help create a reasonable range of alternatives

13 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

14 Evaluate Alternatives Application of decision criteria Application of decision analysis tools Best available science and sliding scale of analysis Consideration of trade-offs and mitigation activities

15 Evaluate Alternatives Management Objectives Desired Conditions Indicators and Standards Management Actions Zones Capacities Allocations Budget Requirements Other Descriptors A B C D

16 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

17 Select Preferred Alternatives Principles and decision criteria Sound professional judgement

18 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

19 Implement and Monitor Implement planned management activities/programs

20 Scoping Planning Process Planning Criteria Inventory Formulate Alternatives Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Implement -- Monitor Evaluate -- Adapt

21 Evaluate and Adapt Systematically evaluate monitoring data and new information science, and circumstances Application of appropriate decision criteria and decision tools to proposed changes Sound professional judgement

22 Principles and Visitor Capacity Decision Criteria

23 Principles for Visitor Capacity Decision-making 1. Visitor capacity is defined by management direction (e.g., Park or Forest Management Plan) 2. helps to sustain the integrity of resources and the benefits they afford to people 3. is a complex decision based on sound and professional judgement 4. A visitor capacity decision is made by a responsible person as part of a public planning process 5. Quantifies supply of recreation opportunities 6. Considers the larger regional landscape and system

24 Principles for Visitor Capacity Decision-making 7. Provides clarity for focused dialog and analysis of consequences of various alternatives 8. Uses a sliding scale rule based on the potential consequences of the decision 9. Serves as a trigger for managers and all other stakeholders 10. Visitor use approaching a capacity limit may trigger a full range of potential management responses 11. Must be adaptive to new science, information, etc. 12. Effectiveness of a capacity depends of good monitoring

25 Determining Appropriate Use Decision Protocol Yes No Does the use comply with applicable statutory requirements? Is the use consistent with applicable USFS/Forest policy? Is the use consistent with current management objectives? Will the use significantly impact desired future conditions? Is the use dependent on the national/cultural/historic resources? Will the use contribute to the resource stewardship? Does the use have local, regional, and national public support? Is there duplication of similar or same opportunities nearby? Is use consistent with the area s archeological, cultural and historical integrity? Is use consistent with the area s experiential integrity? Is there an acceptable level of risk or uncertainty surrounding the use? Will the use increase or cause a public safety concern

26 Determining Appropriate Use Decision Protocol Yes No Can the area be accessed with less intrusive means? Will the use make the area more accessible for disadvantaged people? Will the use make more people visit who currently do not visit? Can the use be effectively and efficiently managed? Does the use require additional or reallocated resources? Will the use affect other management programs or priorities? Can the negative impacts be reasonably mitigated? Will the use set a precedent or contribute to another new or different use? Other Other Other Other

27 Information Audit Visitor capacity decisions need to consider the best available science and information Managers need to decide if the amount and quality of available science and information are adequate and commensurate with the potential consequences with the potential consequences of the decision to be made Use the sliding scale rule of analysis

28 Information Audit Exercise Issue/Concern/Goal Priority Level Best available science and information Level of confidence in the information Adequacy of Information Information Needed/Level of Confidence Ability to Secure Not reasonable to secure Obtain more Information Future Priority A B C D

29 Sliding Scale of Analysis The manager must understand if the consequences of the decision are minor, moderate, or significant There may be different levels and types of information needed, tools and techniques used, time and effort required, levels of certainty involved, and responses to other regulatory requirements

30 Sliding Scale of Analysis Purpose of decision Level 3 Analysis Significance of decision (development, impacts, limits) Level of uncertainty and risk Level 2 Analysis Level of analysis and scientific basis (precision and accuracy) Type and amount of data collected Level 1 analysis Time, money, personnel, and public input required Significant changes of consequences Minor changes or consequences General inventory/administrative record Level 1=measure recreation supply for planning and routine admin functions Level 2=to proactively address moderate-level land use allocation and visitor management decisions Level 3=to assess decisions of significant consequences (safety, visitation limits, land use development)

31 Determining the Appropriate Level of Analysis How much is at risk? How significant will the consequences of the decision be to important ecological, social, cultural, or economic values What level of certainty is adequate What is the likelihood of imminent and significant changes? What is the likelihood that the situation involves sensitive, rare, or irreplaceable resources of opportunities? How close are current conditions to the minimum acceptable conditions? Low Medium High

32 White Salmon River Scenario

33 Lower White Salmon Wild & Scenic River 13 km are designated as a Wild and Scenic River Administered by the U.S. Forest Service Whitewater rafting was identified as an outstanding and remarkable value on this river

34 Recreation Use: White Salmon River Recreation Access 70% commercial / 30% private Located about 75 minutes from Portland Easy day trip opportunity for visitors FS permits are required for river guiding No permits are required for private boaters

35 The US Forest Services updated their rules about Special Use Permits

36 Change in USFS Policy In 2008, special use permitting (SUP) policies were updated for the first time since 1984 A result of changing public demands, changing industry and litigation Difficulty meeting demand for spontaneous, short-term requests

37 Local Management Situation River permits were to expire at the end of The White Salmon River management plan allows for 10 permits (rafting companies). No limits on service days, people, boats, etc. The US Forest Service policy on outfitter guide permits has changed since the last permits were issued. Environmental reviews are required to reissue priority permits.

38 First Steps Use reviews: How many service days are the companies actually using? Resource inventory: Are current use levels impacting resources? Outstanding & Remarkable values of the river and the desired conditions and goals of the Management Plans Physical resources: vegetation, water quality, cultural resource Social situation: Visitor experience, recreation providers

39 Commercial Clients by Year

40 Research Team

41

42

43 Visitor Surveys

44 Commercial Use Private Use Respondents Valid Percent Commercial Use Private Use Total Survey Days % commercial use, 30% private use

45 High Use Low Use Percent Survey Days Use Level of Use High Use Days Low Use Days Total Survey Days 77 High Use= 300+ visitors on the river Low Use= 299 or less visitors on the river

46 Visitor Profile Commercial Private Differences Commercial Private Overall Age ----percent to to to to to to Over Gender* Male Female Commercial users include a higher proportion of females

47 Visitor Profile High Use Low Use Differences High Low Overall Age* ----percent to to to to to to Over Gender Male Female Slightly younger users during high use days

48 Recreation Patterns Commercial Private Differences Commercial Private Overall In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating at the White Salmon River? Average Number Days * In a typical year, how many days do you spend recreating at other rivers besides White Salmon River? Average Number Days *

49 Satisfaction and Crowding

50 Crowding and Overall Satisfaction with Experience on White Salmon River How crowded did you feel during your visit to the White Salmon River? (Scale of 1 9) Crowding Mean Score Experience Perfect Excellent Very good Good or below

51 Encountering Other Groups Number encounters Appropriate number

52 Perception of Crowding Segmented Differences Perception of Crowding (%) Not at all Crowded Slightly Crowded Moderately Crowded Extremely Crowded Mean High <1 < Low <1 < Perception of Crowding (%) Not at all Crowded Slightly Crowded Moderately Crowded Extremely Crowded Mean Commercial <1 < Private <1 <1 2.84

53 Trip Satisfaction Commercial Private Differences Commercial Private Overall ---Mean--- Health and cleanliness * Safety and security * Condition of facilities * Responsiveness of staff * Recreation setting * Response Code: 1= Awful and 5 = Excellent Commercial users report higher service quality ratings

54 Trip Satisfaction High Use Low Use Differences High Low Overall ---Mean--- Health and cleanliness * Safety and security * Condition of facilities * Responsiveness of staff * Recreation setting * Response Code: 1= Awful and 5 = Excellent Lower quality ratings on high use days

55 Overall Satisfaction Segmented Differences Overall Satisfaction (%) High Low Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Perfect (6) Mean Overall Satisfaction (%) Commercial Private Poor (1) Fair (2) Good (3) Very Good (4) Excellent (5) Perfect (6) Mean Response Code: 1 = Poor and 6 = Perfect

56 Presenting Ideas to Guide Companies

57 Proposed Changes Implement a service-day allocation based on the highest year for each company, and add 15% for growth. In 5-years, the terms of the permit require reallocation based on the highest year, plus 15% or 25%, but not to exceed original allocation. Implement a monitoring program with standards and indicators, if the level of use is shown to exceed a standard, then implement a quota system in addition to the annual allocation.

58 Scoping Period August 23 rd, 2010 September 23 rd individuals, organizations and government agencies were contacted via the scoping process 22 responses were received during the scoping period These 22 responses resulted in 56 individual comments and suggestions The Forest Service considering and implemented the suggestions which met the intent of policy and the management plans

59 Comment Summary 14 General support of outfitters 11 Opposed to allocation system 7 Concerns over commercial use 6 Uncategorized, misc. 4 Management plan consistency 4 Concerned use will be driven to peak days 2 Congestion at Husum 2 Forest Service monitoring 2 Wild and Scenic River consistency

60 Modifications Implemented Created a pool of priority use days to be available to permit holders who reach their annual allocation. Apply use limit on service days to the peak use time (June 1 September 1). Include the 2010 actual use in the formula for allocation. Add operating procedures for the area around Husum Falls.

61 What Line Officers and Mangers Try to Balance in Decision Making:

62 Including the Users Voice Adds Balance

63 Bottom Line Users Perceptions Perception of Environmental Groups Perceptions of Outfitter Guides

64 What is the situation today? 2012: Condit hyrdo-power dam allowing river to provide river recreation opportunities was removed Z-U River recreation disturbed by dam removal Continue monitoring Amendments may be made as conditions change

65 White Salmon River Case Study Scenario 1. Describe how recreation use changed (or not changed) over the period of Should we increase/decrease/keep same the number of visitor use days available to guides? Why? 3. The presentation showed that half of all annual use occurs on 8 weekends in the hot summer months. How does this impact your recommendation to increase/decrease/keep same use? 4. Is there a significant difference in the satisfaction, crowding, and conflict levels on those 8 critical weekends versus the rest of the year? 5. Are the visitors different on those 8 critical weekends? Trip characteristics? 6. If you determine that social variables are not a problem, what else would stop you from increasing use? 7. What is happening in the two years since the Condit Dam was removed?

66 Questions?