United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS-59

Mountain Biking at Tsali:

An Assessment of Users,

Preferences, Conflicts, and

Management Alternatives

J.M. Bowker and Donald B.K. English
J.M. Bowker and Donald B.K. English, Research

Social Scientists, USDA. Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Athens,

GA 30602-2044.

The Authors

October 2002

Southern Research Station

P.O.Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802
1

Mountain Biking at Tsali: An Assessment

of Users, Preferences, Conflicts, and

Management Alternatives

J.M. Bowker and Donald B.K. English

Abstract

Tsali Recreation Area is part of the Cheoah Ranger District of the

Nantahala National Forest. Overlooking the Great Smoky Mountains, it

is one of the premier mountain biking sites in the Eastern United States.

The results of a 13-month on-site survey of 1,359 Tsali visitors examine

the demographics, behavior, current trip profile, and attitudes toward

user fees, current management policies, and future management

alternatives. More than 70 percent of visitors were male, 96 percent

were white, 85 percent had attended college, 90 percent were between

the ages of 20 and 49, and more than 60 percent had incomes over

$50,000. Sixty percent of the visitors had four or more years of

experience; 16 percent were beginners. Visitors averaged 21 biking trips

totaling 59 days yearly, averaging 3 visits to Tsali. Fifty-five percent

were first-time visitors, while 80 percent said Tsali was their “favorite

place” to ride. Trail surface and congestion were the most important site

attributes to visitors. Surfaces rated high in performance, indicating that

management practices are successful. Congestion on trails rated slightly

less than “good” suggesting management consideration. Site facilities

rated “good” or better on average. Parking and security were ranked

highly for both performance and importance. Toilet facilities ranked the

lowest in performance but high in importance suggesting another area

for management consideration. Most visitors (95 percent) agreed that

fees are a “good tool to manage public recreation areas,” in general and

at Tsali. Visitors overwhelmingly supported future management

alternatives that proposed more trail miles, even though these were

combined with fee increases.

Keywords: Amenities, fee demo, importance/performance, mountain

biking, recreation management, site facilities, trail attributes, user fee.

Introduction

Mountain biking is a relatively new and rapidly growing

outdoor recreation activity. Preliminary estimates from the

2000 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/trends/summary1.pdf) indicate that

approximately 21 percent of Americans 16 years and older

participate at least once a year in off-road activities using a

mountain or hybrid bike (Cordell and others, in press).

Mountain biking is an activity of particular interest to many

forest managers because it frequently occurs on the trails

and forest roads that are also used by hikers, horseback

riders, hunters, and other recreationists. However, the rise

of mountain biking as a significant forest recreation activity

has been so rapid that very little information has been

gathered about its participants. The U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) managers in

western North Carolina recognize it as an especially

important activity. The region has become nationally

famous for the quality of the mountain biking experience

provided on trails and forest roads. Tourism for mountain

biking has risen dramatically in recent years. As a result,

nearby areas have begun to implement plans to expand their

mountain biking facilities, which could lead to further

increases in visitation. Land and resource managers need

information about use patterns, preferences, and needs of

this growing market in order to properly plan facility

developments that meet the needs of these customers

without sacrificing quality of the natural resource base.

This influx of visitors from around the country holds the

potential to serve as an important economic force in the

small communities that dot the valleys of western North

Carolina. However, in order to take advantage of this

potential, land managers and local governments need more

information about mountain bikers including their origins,

trip profiles, household characteristics, on-site management

preferences, and use of local area amenities. Knowing more

about these bikers and their needs is essential to the

development of sustainable resource management plans,

which can induce economic development in the region.

This study was undertaken to gather information about

mountain bike users at the Tsali Recreation Area in the

Cheoah Ranger District of the Nantahala National Forest.

Named after a Cherokee Indian, Tsali is considered one of

the premier mountain biking venues in the Eastern United

States. It is situated on a series of peninsulas jutting into

Fontana Lake and overlooks the Great Smoky Mountains.

The area’s primary attraction is a four-loop trail system

(fig. 1) totaling just under 38 miles and offering a variety of

landscapes to hikers, mountain bikers, and horseback riders.

In addition, the area offers dispersed and developed

camping, hunting, and lake access. The primary users of the

area are mountain bikers and equestrians. To accommodate

the needs of these two groups, trails are managed on a

rotational basis, alternating daily between mountain bike

and equestrian use.

Tsali is one of a number of national forest sites where user

fees have been implemented as part of the Forest Service’s

Fee Demonstration Project. Fees are charged for developed

campsites and trail use, whereas parking, dispersed

camping, and lake access are free.
2

0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1

Scale in miles

Nantahala National Forest

Fontana Lake

Murphy Branch

Mouse Branch

Battles Branch

Meadow Branch

Road

Right Loop

Left Loop

Mouse Branch

Loop

Thompson Loop

Connector

Stream

Contour line

28

Lemmons Branch

1286

County Line

Rd.

Figure 1—Map of Tsali Recreation Area and trail system.
3

Objectives

Balancing the ever-growing demand for mountain biking

with traditional activities including horseback riding,

hiking, and hunting is a challenge for managers of the area.

To assist with these challenges, we focused on several

major objectives.

1. Describing mountain biking participants and identifying

market segments.

2. Giving managers at Tsali feedback about customer

perceptions of the area’s attributes, facilities, fees, and

management policies.

3. Giving managers at Tsali feedback about customer

preferences for future management policies, fees, and

facility development.

4. Assisting local community efforts in rural economic

development through tourism by providing information

about spending patterns, use patterns, and sources of

information pertaining to mountain biking tourists.

5. Developing estimates of the economic benefits and

regional economic impacts generated by mountain bike

recreation at Tsali.

This is the first of two reports addressing these major

objectives. In this report, we focus primarily on the first

three objectives by statistically summarizing user

characteristics; current trip profiles; visitor ratings of site

attributes, facilities, and management policies; visitor

ratings of off-site attractions and services; and visitor

preferences for future site facility development and

management. The remainder of this report includes a

discussion of research methods and procedures, followed by

sections on household demographics, mountain biking

behavior in general, a profile of the current trip, perceptions

of current on-site attributes and facilities, perceptions of

local area services and places of interest, perceptions of

current management policies, and preferences for future

facility development and management alternatives.

Research Design

Surveying at Tsali occurred on 129 days from the beginning

of August 1998 to the end of August 1999. Sampling days

were randomly allocated within each of the four seasons.

The number of days sampled each season was based on the

estimated season’s share of annual use. On each of these

days, trained volunteer interviewers randomly surveyed

selected visitors over age 12 as they completed their day’s

Figure 2—Percentage of respondents by gender.

Figure 3—Percentage of respondents by race.

ride at Tsali. Less than 1 percent of those approached

refused to be interviewed. In all, 1,359 contacts were made.

On-site survey questions inquired about the individual’s

number of annual mountain biking trips, in general, and

about Tsali, household demographics, preferences, and

satisfactions with Tsali’s facilities, as well as more

information about their current recreation trip. In addition,

we also asked questions about user fees, management

policies, and future management alternatives. Due to the

large number of questions, we ultimately used two different

surveys, which were administered randomly. These surveys,

versions A and B, are included in appendix A.

Visitor Demographics

The great majority of Tsali users interviewed were white

males—71.5 percent overall (fig. 2); whereas 96.5 percent

of visitors identified themselves as white (fig. 3). The

education level reported by Tsali users was quite high.

More than 20 percent attended graduate school; 40.3

percent had undergraduate degrees; and another 27.1

percent, including current students, reported having had

some college education (fig. 4). Only 10 percent reported

71.5

28.5

0 20 40 60 80

Male

Female

Respondents (percent)

96.5

3.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

White

Other

Respondents (percent)
4

3.8

10.7

17.6

24.4

19.3

17.2

6.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

<10

11- 29

30- 50

51- 75

76-100

>100

No answer

Income (thousand dollars)

Respondents (percent)

4.2

30.4

37.1

22.5

5

0.8

0 10 20 30 40

<20

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

>60

Years

Respondents (percent)

28.6

3.4

38.4

24.9

2.4

2.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

One adult

Adult w/children

Two adults

Two adults w/children

Three or more adults

Three or more adults w/children

Respondents (percent)

97

3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

No disability

Some disability

Respondents (percent)

having a high school education or less. However, the latter

group included all interviewees, and some were not yet 18

years old.

The average age of visitors surveyed was 34.1 years. Eighty

percent of the visitors were between 20 and 49 years old

(fig. 5). Those in the 30- to 39-year-old age group comprised

the largest age cohort at 37.1 percent. Approximately 6

percent of visitors were over 50, whereas < 5 percent were

under age 20. Mountain biking at Tsali does not seem to be

the exclusive domain of the young because nearly 30 percent

of all visitors were over age 40. About 3 percent of those

interviewed reported some disability (fig. 6).

Almost 70 percent of visitors came from households that

had no children (fig. 7). Visitors from households composed

of just two adults accounted for 38.4 percent, and

individuals from single-person households made up 28.6

percent. Visitors from households of more than two adults

who had no children comprised 2.4 percent. Most

households with children in our visitor count also had two

adults. This type of household accounted for 24.9 percent of

all visitors. Only 3.4 percent of visitors reported living in

single-parent households, and only 2 percent reported living

in households with children and more than three adults.

Income levels also were above average. Only 14.5 percent

of visitors reported household incomes below $30,000 per

year (fig. 8). Not quite 20 percent came from households

earning between $30,000 and $50,000 per year. Just under

one-fourth (24.4 percent) lived in households where income

was between $50,000 and $75,000 per year. Another onefifth of the visitors (19.3 percent) had household incomes

between $75,000 and $100,000. Almost one-fifth (17.2

percent) reported having household incomes over $100,000.

Just over 6 percent of those interviewed chose not to report

their household incomes.

Figure 5—Percentage of respondents by age.

Figure 6—Percentage of respondents by disability.

Figure 4—Percentage of respondents by education.

Figure 7—Percentage of households by composition.

Figure 8—Percentage of respondents by income.

9.6

27.1

40.3

21.4

1.6

0 10 20 30 40 50

High school

Some college

College graduate

Graduate school

Other

Respondents (percent)
5

15.9

16.5

13.9

14.1

10.6

15.7

13.3

0 5 10 15 20

>10

11- 20

21- 30

31- 50

51- 70

71-100

>100

Days

Respondents (percent)

7.9

44.2

36.5

6.5

4.9

0 10 20 30 40 50

Expert

Above average

Average

Below average

Beginner

Respondents (percent)

16.6

22.4

31.8

20.4

8.8

0 10 20 30 40

0- 1

2- 3

4- 6

7-10

>10

Years

Respondents (percent)

Although the distribution of reported household incomes

ranges broadly—sizable proportions of visitors fall into the

under $30,000 and over $100,000 categories—nearly 40

percent of those surveyed reported household incomes

> $75,000 a year. An estimate of annual income can be

obtained by multiplying the midpoints of each income

category by the percentages adjusted for those who did not

report income. This yields an average household income for

Tsali visitors of approximately $70,000 a year.

Mountain Biking Profile

Tsali visitors have a wide range of mountain biking

experience and skill levels. On average, visitors reported

5.4 years of mountain biking experience. A relatively large

percentage of the visitors was new to mountain biking.

Thirty-nine percent indicated that they had been mountain

biking for 3 years or less (fig. 9).

In fact, up to 16.6 percent of the visitors had been active in

the sport for < 1 year. Not quite one-third (31.8 percent)

had participated in the sport for 4 to 6 years. Approximately

29.2 percent had been mountain biking for more than

7 years, and a third of the visitors had participated for

more than 10 years.

Self-assessed mountain biking skill levels indicated that

most Tsali visitors had average or above average ability

(fig. 10). Less than 12 percent considered themselves below

average or beginners. Slightly more than one-third (36.5

percent) felt they had average skills. Above average skill

was reported by 44.2 percent of the visitors, whereas 7.9

percent claimed to be mountain biking experts.

Between August 1998 and August 1999, there was wide

variety in the frequency that visitors reported participating

in mountain biking. Two common measures for

participation intensity in an outdoor recreation activity are

days and trips. The average number of days a year over all

visitors was 59.2. Five percent said they did not mountain

bike a single day in the past 12 months, whereas 15.9

percent spent 9 or fewer days participating (fig. 11). At the

other extreme, 39.6 percent claimed to have participated in

mountain biking on at least 50 days in the previous year.

Indeed, 13.3 percent of respondents said they participated

in the sport on at least 100 different days.

On average, visitors to Tsali reported taking about 21 trips

(traveling more than 20 minutes from home to any location)

in the last year to go mountain biking. About 16 percent

said they took one or fewer trips in the past 12 months

(more than half of those having taken no trips) (fig. 12).

Just under 9 percent reported taking more than 50 trips per

year, whereas another 18.2 percent said they took between

21 and 50 trips. The largest percentage for any single

category, 20.9 percent, applied to those taking two to five

trips per year. Nineteen percent took 11 to 20 trips, whereas

17.1 percent took 6 to 10 trips.

Respondents indicated that, on average, they had been

coming to Tsali for just over 2 years. About 50 percent said

that they had been visiting Tsali for 1 year or less (fig.13).

Figure 9—Percentage of respondents by experience.

Figure 10—Percentage of respondents by skill level.

Figure 11—Percentage of respondents by mountain biking days anywhere

in last 12 months.
6

62.6

63.5

73.3

16.4

0 20 40 60 80

Spring

Summer

Fall

Winter

Respondents (percent)

57.3

18.3

8.5

9.9

3.6

2.2

0 20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4- 6

7-10

>10

Trips

Respondents (percent)

41.5

58.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Yes

No

Respondents (percent)

44

6.7

13.5

11.8

17.1

3.9

3.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Never been

1

2

3

4-6

7-9

>9

Years

Respondents (percent)

16.3

20.9

17.1

19

18.2

6.9

1.6

0 5 10 15 20 25

1

2- 5

6- 10

11- 20

21- 50

51-100

>100

Trips

Respondents (percent)

Most (over 40 percent) said that this was their first visit

(fig.14). Just over 25 percent said they had come to Tsali for

either 2 or 3 years, whereas 17.1 percent reported having

visited for between 4 and 6 years. About 7.1 percent said

they had been mountain biking at Tsali for 7 years or more.

Including the current trip, 55.7 percent of respondents

indicated taking one trip to Tsali in the last 12 months

(fig. 15). Again, most were first-time visitors. About 26.2

percent reported taking either two or three trips in the past

year, whereas 10.1 percent took four to six trips. Visitors

who took more than seven trips to Tsali last year comprised

6.2 percent of all respondents. The average number of trips

to Tsali in the past 12 months across all respondents was

just under three (2.86). For those who had visited Tsali

before, the average number of trips was 4.13 for any reason

and 3.88 specifically for mountain biking.

Visitors were asked what season(s) of the year they

typically mountain biked at Tsali. The distribution of trips

appeared to be spread evenly over spring, summer, and fall

with a large drop off in the winter months (fig. 16). With

respect to specific patterns, the most common response was

spring, summer, and fall (23.6 percent). The next most

common pattern was both spring and fall (16.5 percent).

Two other patterns, summer only and all four seasons, were

reported by about 13.9 percent of visitors. About 10

percent said they typically came just in the fall, and about

9.6 percent came in both summer and fall. Various other

combinations of seasonal patterns made up the remaining

percentage.

Figure 16—Percentage of respondents by seasons likely to visit Tsali.

Figure 12—Percentage of respondents by trips to go mountain biking

anywhere in last 12 months.

Figure 13—Percentage of respondents visiting Tsali by years.

Figure 14—Percentage of respondents by first visit to Tsali.

Figure 15—Percentage of respondents by trips to Tsali in last 12 months.
7

93

7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Respondents (percent)

2.1

16.3

28.9

27.1

15.3

7.4

2.3

1.8

0 10 20 30 40

1

1-2

3

4

5

6

7

>7

Hours

Respondents (percent)

12.1

31.1

25.4

10.4

6.2

9.8

5

0 10 20 30 40

0

1

2

3

4

5-10

>10

Trips

Respondents (percent)

35.3

21.9

32.1

8.1

2.2

0.6

0.1

0 10 20 30 40

1- 2

3- 4

5- 10

11- 20

21- 50

51-100

>100

Days

Respondents (percent)

Including time on the current trip, respondents spent an

average of 5.82 days at Tsali. The largest single category,

1 to 2 days, accounted for 35.3 percent of respondents

(fig. 17). Three or four days on site in the last 12 months

were claimed by 21.9 percent of respondents, whereas

another 32.1 percent spent 5 to 10 days. Only 8.1 percent of

respondents spent between 11 and 20 days on site last year,

and fewer than 3 percent spent more than 21 days.

Returning visitors spent an average of 7.88 days recreating

at Tsali in the last 12 months. Dividing the average days per

person by the average number of trips per person (4.13)

yielded an average ratio of about 1.9 days per trip for

returning visitors. For first-time visitors, the ratio was about

2 days per trip. Thus, it would appear that many people

who visit Tsali do so as part of a multiday recreation trip to

the area.

On average, interviewees planned to take 3.34 trips to Tsali

over the next 12 months. Only 12.1 percent said they did

not plan to revisit the area next year (fig. 18). Interviewees

in the two largest categories, 31.1 and 25.4 percent,

respectively, said they would visit once or twice next year.

About 16.6 percent of visitors said they would return 3 or

4 times in the next year, 9.8 percent planned to come back 5

to 10 times, and 5 percent were expected to make more than

10 trips to Tsali.

Visitors spent, on average, 3.67 hours mountain biking.

Only 2.1 percent spent an hour or less on trails (fig. 19).

Slightly more, 4.1 percent, spent more than 6 hours. Over

90 percent spent from 2 to 6 hours riding, 28.9 percent

spent 3 hours, and 27.1 percent spent 4 hours.

Ninety-three percent of those surveyed listed mountain

biking as their main activity (fig. 20). Among the first-time

visitors, over 99 percent said that mountain biking was the

primary reason for their trip.

Nevertheless, 27.3 percent of all respondents reported

actively engaging in other recreation activities. Rafting and

floating sports comprised the most popular alternative to

biking and were enjoyed by about 15 percent of all Tsali

visitors (fig. 21). Hiking and camping, 9.3 and 5 percent,

respectively, were the next most popular activities.

Swimming, running/jogging, and fishing were next at a

combined 6.3 percent.

Figure 17—Percentage of respondents by days at Tsali in last 12 months.

Figure 18—Percentage of respondents by planned trips to Tsali in next 12

months.

Figure 19—Percentage of respondents by hours ridden per day at Tsali.

Figure 20—Percentage of respondents listing mountain biking as favorite

Tsali activity.
8

14.8

3.1

5

1.3

9.3

1.9

0 5 10 15 20

Rafting/kayaking

Camping

Swimming

Fishing

Hiking

Running/jogging

Respondents (percent)

75.6

24.4

0 20 40 60 80

Yes

No

Respondents (percent)

61.4

30.5

22.1

1.5

1.3

17.4

1.2

4.4

8.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Friend/family

Bike shop

Magazine

Newspaper

Public agency

Internet

Chamber of commerce

Tsali area business

Other

Respondents (percent)

5.2

94.8

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Respondents (percent)

83.3

14.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Yes

No

Respondents (percent)

Tsali was listed as the favorite place to mountain bike by

83.3 percent of respondents (fig. 22). However, only 5.2

percent of the respondents obtained annual passes (fig. 23).

Nevertheless, these people took an average of 11.7 trips a

year to Tsali for all recreation activity, including 10.7 trips a

year for mountain biking. Most were single-day trips

because the reported average number of days spent

recreating at Tsali for this group was 13.8 per person per

year.

Visitors were also queried as to where they heard or read

about Tsali. We asked individuals to list all such sources.

The most popular single source of information, listed by

61.4 percent of respondents, was talking with friend/family

(fig. 24). This source was followed by bike shops at 30.5

percent. Mass-media sources such as magazines and the

Internet comprised 22.1 and 17.4 percent of information

sources, respectively. However, newspapers were listed by

only 1.5 percent of respondents. Tsali area businesses and

chambers of commerce together were noted on about 5

percent of responses, whereas a general category of other

was claimed by 8.5 percent of respondents. Only 1.3

percent of all visitors checked the public agency category.

Current Trip Profile

The current trip profile deals with information pertaining

only to the present trip. For three-fourths (75.6 percent) of

surveyed visitors, the Tsali Recreation Area was the primary

destination for their current trip (fig. 25). For 41.5 percent

of the visitors, it was their first trip. Ninety-three percent of

the visitors indicated that mountain biking was their primary

recreation activity while at Tsali, and over 80 percent said

Figure 22—Percentage of respondents listing Tsali as favorite place to

mountain bike.

Figure 23—Percentage of respondents possessing an annual pass.

Figure 24—Percentage of respondents by information source.

Figure 25—Percentage of respondents listing Tsali as primary destination

on current trip.

Figure 21—Types of activities at Tsali other than mountain biking.
9

60

34.6

35.3

31.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Right Loop

Left Loop

Mouse Branch

Thompson Loop

Trail

Respondents (percent)

14.6

49.6

20.4

8.7

6.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

<2

2- 4

5- 7

8-10

>10

Days

Respondents (percent)

8.6

42.5

19.8

15

9

5.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

<2

2- 4

5- 7

8-10

11-13

>13

Hours

Respondents (percent)

12.8

42.3

12.3

10.8

16.9

3.9

0 10 20 30 40 50

1

2

3

4

5-10

>11

People

Respondents (percent)

that Tsali was their favorite place to go mountain biking.

Only 2.8 percent of visitors said they used the services of a

professional guide during their ride.

Most visitors came in relatively small groups. The largest

number of respondents, 42.3 percent, came with one other

person (fig. 26). About 12.8 percent of respondents came

alone, whereas another 12.3 percent reported coming in a

group of three. Groups of between 4 to 10 people made up

27.7 percent of the sample. Only 4.3 percent said they were

in a group of more than 10 people. Not surprisingly, most

visitors came with a group of friends or family. However,

3.9 percent reported coming with an organization or club.

The wide geographic appeal of Tsali is evident in the

distribution of visitors’ reported travel times (fig. 27). Only

8.6 percent of those surveyed said they lived within 2 hours

travel time. The greatest number of people, 42.5 percent,

reported being within a 2- to 4-hour drive of Tsali. This

distance would include such metropolitan centers as

Atlanta, Knoxville, Charlotte, Asheville, Chattanooga,

Athens, and Johnson City. Another 19.8 percent of

respondents lived between a 5- and 7-hour drive, whereas

just over 19 percent traveled from 7 to 10 hours one way to

get to Tsali. More than 10 hours of one-way travel was

reported by 14.1 percent of the surveyed visitors.

Most visitors indicated that their trip involved overnight

travel from home. Only 14.6 percent reported they were

away from home for a day or less (fig. 28). Most (49.6

percent) said they would be away from home for 2 to 4

days. Trips lasting 5 to 7 days were reported by 20.4

percent of visitors. Trips lasting longer than a week were

reported by 15.4 percent.

All visitors were asked which trails they rode on the day

they were interviewed. The Right Loop received the most

use among those surveyed. It is 11 miles long and primarily

single-track with lake views and creek crossings. Sixty

percent of respondents reported biking the Right Loop on

the day they were interviewed (fig. 29). Part of its attraction

is that trails are available to shorten the ride to either 4 or 8

miles. Use of the remaining trails was about equal. The

Thompson Loop, which is 7.7 miles of mixed single-track

and old logging roads with stream crossings and oldhomesite views, was ridden by 31.9 percent of respondents.

Figure 26—Percentage of respondents by group size.

Figure 27—Percentage of respondents by one-way transit time.

Figure 28—Percentage of respondents by length of current trip.

Figure 29—Percentage of respondents by trails ridden on current trip.
10

73.7

26.3

0 20 40 60 80

Yes

No

Respondents (percent)

Mouse Branch, which is 6.5 miles of single-track and old

logging roads with wildlife openings, was ridden by 35.3

percent of respondents. Finally, the Left Loop, which is

single-track, 11.9 miles long, and features views of the

Great Smoky Mountains and Fontana Lake, was ridden by

34.6 percent of respondents.

The trail-use question was worded to allow reporting of

various combinations of trails. Nearly one-fourth (24.7

percent) of those interviewed reported biking just the Right

Loop. Another 21.5 percent reported biking both the Right

Loop and Left Loop. Only 8.8 percent said they rode just

the Left Loop Trail. Combining the Mouse Branch and

Thompson Loops was more common than biking either

alone. Just over 16 percent of visitors said they rode both

Mouse Branch and Thompson Loop on the day they were

interviewed. By comparison, only 7.4 percent said they

rode just Mouse Branch, and 4.7 percent said they rode just

the Thompson Loop. The rest of the visitors reported

various other combinations, and about 3 percent said they

did not know which trails they rode. Hence, about 15

percent reported biking combinations of trails that are not

allowed under the current horse/bike rotation system. This

could indicate that visitors are violating established policy,

or it may mean that some were reporting trails ridden over

a multiday visit, rather than those ridden on the day

surveyed.

If Tsali were unavailable for their current trip, 73.7 percent

of visitors said they would have recreated elsewhere (fig.

30). Of those, 75.8 percent said they would seek an

alternative location for biking. A smaller number said they

would go elsewhere and participate in a different activity

such as paddle sports at 7.2 percent and hiking at 6.7

percent.

Preferences and Satisfaction

In this section, visitor responses pertaining to four

important aspects of the Tsali recreation experience are

summarized. These include trail attributes, site facilities,

area amenities, and the user fee system. Each of the aspects

contains a number of dimensions. Trail attributes include

scenery, signage, trail surfaces, vegetation, congestion, and

the amounts of various types of trails. In addition, the

horse/bike rotation system is included among trail

attributes. Site facilities include toilets, parking, campsites,

bike-washing area, information board, and security/safety.

Area amenities include lodging, off-site public and private

campgrounds, bed/breakfasts, restaurants, guide/outfitter

services/supplies, gifts/crafts, shopping, and other places of

interest.

For each dimension, visitors were asked to assess their

satisfaction with performance and then to rate its relative

importance. Combining performance and importance helps

managers determine where they have met customer needs

and highlights necessary improvement. Items that have high

scores on both satisfaction and importance show where

managers have earned a gold star; i.e., where they have

performed well in dimensions that visitors find important.

Any dimensions that had high importance scores and low

performance ratings need increased attention. Dimensions

with low importance scores and very high satisfaction

ratings could be given less emphasis. For example, although

parking and the bike-washing area may receive similar

performance or satisfaction ratings, e.g., fair, parking might

receive a higher importance rating. This information would

assist managers in directing limited resources toward

parking facilities’ improvement.

Trail Attributes and Types

Table 1 contains trail attribute performance and importance

ratings. Performance contains percentages of respondents’

ratings across the four levels: very good, good, fair, and

poor. For the congestion attribute, the levels from best to

worst are: very low, low, fair, and high. Each of the

performance levels was assigned a quantitative value evenly

divided on a scale of 5 to 1. Table 1 also contains

importance mean and rank of each trail attribute.

Trail scenery rated the top performance mean of 4.55, with

98 percent of respondents rating scenery as good or very

good. Trail surfaces and the horse/bike rotation system

ranked second and third in terms of performance with

means of 4.11 and 4.06, respectively. The percent of

respondents rating trail surfaces as very good or good was

Figure 30—Percentage of respondents by those who would have recreated

elsewhere if Tsali were unavailable.
11

Table 1—Trail attribute performance and importance

 Performance

Trail

attribute Very good (5.0) Good (3.67) Fair (2.33) Poor (1.0) Mean Rank

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scenery 68.4 29.6 1.9 0.1 4.55 1

Signage 30.7 39.8 24.7 4.8 3.62 6

Surface 42.3 49.6 7.3 .7 4.11 2

Vegetation 32.5 44.6 19.2 3.7 3.75 4

Rotation

(horse/bike) 46.3 40.8 8.9 4.0 4.06 3

Very low Low Fair High

Congestion 34.4 36.0 23.0 6.5 3.64 5

Importance

Very Moderately Not

Trail important important important

attribute (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Mean Rank

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scenery 35.4 33.1 25.3 3.7 2.5 3.95 3

Signage 33.5 29.9 24.7 8.0 3.9 3.81 4

Surface 43.9 36.1 16.0 2.3 1.8 4.18 1

Vegetation 21.1 31.1 31.8 8.7 7.1 3.50 6

Rotation

(horse/bike) 37.8 22.9 21.7 7.9 9.7 3.72 5

Congestion 40.0 32.9 21.2 4.0 1.9 4.05 2

91.9, whereas those rating the horse/bike rotation system as

very good or good were 87.1 percent. For each of these

attributes, it appears that users were highly satisfied with

current site conditions.

Three of the six trail attributes earned performance mean

ratings of < 4. These included trailside vegetation

management (3.75), congestion (3.64), and trail signage

(3.62). For each of these attributes, at least 70 percent of

respondents rated conditions at Tsali as either very good or

good (very low or low for congestion). However, a higher

percentage of respondents rated these attributes as fair or

poor. Hence, it would appear that based on current

performance, these latter three attributes are the more likely

to require management attention than scenery, trail surfaces,

or the horse/bike rotation system.

Table 1 also displays information about the relative

importance visitors give each trail attribute. Importance

ratings contain percentages by attribute across five levels,

from very important to moderately important to not

important. Quantitative values for each level were evenly

divided from 1 to 5 allowing the calculation of an

importance rating mean for each attribute and an overall

importance rank. Survey respondents rated trail surfaces

and trail congestion as the two most important attributes,

with mean importance ratings of 4.18 and 4.05,

respectively. These were the only two attributes that more

than 40 percent of users rated very important. Moreover in

both cases, close to 95 percent of interviewees rated them

as at least moderately important. Signage, horse/bike

rotation, and trailside vegetation management were ranked

as the least important, at 3.81, 3.72, and 3.50, respectively.
12

Over 15 percent rated the horse/bike rotation system and

trailside vegetation management as less than moderately

important.

Combining the performance and importance ratings leads to

some fairly clear management implications regarding trail

attributes. Mountain bikers find trail surfaces and trail

congestion very important. Trail surface is among the

highest in terms of performance, suggesting that

management practices have been highly successful. On the

other hand, congestion is the second lowest ranked

performance attribute. Given its relatively high importance,

trail congestion is an issue that management will need to

address. Problems may be compounded by the growing

popularity of mountain biking in general and at Tsali in

particular.

Like congestion, the horse/bike rotation system is ranked

relatively high for performance but low for importance.

Overall, only 12.3 percent of respondents reported any

conflicts on Tsali’s trails. Less than 3 percent reported

conflicts with horseback riders or hunters. The most

conflicts, 7.5 percent, were reported to have occurred with

other mountain bikers. Mountain bikers probably

experience few conflicts with horseback riders and,

therefore, do not find the relatively light horse traffic to be

an important issue. Managers considering increased biking

demand may consider increasing the ratio of biking days to

horseback riding days.

Signage is ranked lowest in terms of performance and near

the bottom in importance. This suggests that bikers

generally do not consider signage a major issue. Such a

conclusion could be misleading. For example, return bikers

probably know the various trails fairly well. On the other

hand, first-time visitors may consider signage important.

Because over 40 percent of those surveyed were first-time

visitors, and 63.4 percent of interviewees rated signage as

more than moderately important, management may find it

beneficial to improve signage at the site.

In addition to evaluating the quality of trails, we asked

visitors to rate the relative amounts of easy, difficult, and

single-track trails. Performance and importance ratings for

the various trail types (table 2) give managers information

that can be useful in redesigning or constructing trails.

Performance ratings of current trail types are too much,

about right, or too little. Overall, it appears that the mix of

trail types at Tsali is quite good, with nearly 90 percent of

bikers rating the number of single-track trails as about right,

and 88 percent similarly rating the number of easy trails.

The only performance issue appears to be that 15.9 percent

Table 2—Trail type performance and importance

Performance

Trail type Too much About right Too little

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Single-track 3.0 89.6 7.3

Easy trails 4.3 87.9 7.8

Difficult trails 2.5 81.6 15.9

Importance

Very Moderately Not

important important important

Trail type (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Mean

 - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - -

Single-track 41.6 23.5 26.4 6.7 1.8 3.96

Easy trails 16.8 21.4 37.1 14.7 9.9 3.20

Difficult trails 23.4 29.1 34.9 9.0 3.5 3.60
13

of bikers would like to see more difficult or highly technical

trail mileage. The importance ratings in table 2 suggest that

current users found single-track trails more important (3.96)

than easy trails (3.20).

Combining performance and importance information, the

percentage of riders rating the amount of difficult trails as

too little is about the same as the percentage rating easy

trails as very important. These results suggest that the

current mix of trail types at Tsali is close to optimal. If

changes are to be considered or new trail segments added,

these data suggest an increase in the amount of difficult,

single-track trail mileage.

Comparing importance means of trail types (table 2) to

importance means of trail attributes (table 1), one sees that

the importance of the amount of single-track trails (3.96) is

similar to trail scenery (3.95) but less important than trail

surfaces (4.18) and trail congestion (4.05). By far, the least

important trail-related item is the amount of easy trails

(3.20).

Site Facilities and Services

Site facilities and services include toilets, parking areas,

campsites, bike-washing areas, visitor information boards,

and security/safety features designed to facilitate the natural

resource-based experience that Tsali visitors desire. Visitors

were asked about the quality and relative importance of

these facilities.

Toilet facilities at Tsali include one permanent structure

adjacent to the parking area (two pit toilets). In addition,

there are four flush toilets in the campground area along

with separated showers. Parking facilities consist of a main

lot at the trailhead with approximately 60 spaces. There is

additional parking in the campground and adjacent to

access roads. Overnight campground facilities have 42

individual sites. Additional constructed facilities include an

information board and a bike-washing area, both at the

trailhead. The bike-washing area consists of hoses with

good pressure and a hanging stand.

Performance and importance ratings for site facilities and

services are reported in table 3. Table 3 is similar to table 1

except that an additional column in the performance section

records don’t know/care responses. These responses were

not used in calculating performance means.

Parking ranks first among site facilities in terms of current

performance with a mean of 4.10. Approximately 90.4

percent of those surveyed indicated that parking at Tsali

was either good or very good. This suggests that at current

visitation rates, visitors are quite satisfied based on parking

availability, proximity to trailheads, and condition of the

parking area.

The second highest ranking item is security/safety with a

mean of 4.07. About 77.5 percent of respondents reported

security/safety to be either good or very good. Interestingly,

nearly 16 percent reported don’t know/care for this item.

Some people may feel that given visitation levels and

characteristics of current users, security/safety is not much

of an issue. Although there is no regular security service,

uniformed Forest Service employees and senior-citizen

volunteers visit the area, particularly around trailheads and

the parking lot. Their presence likely contributes to low

rates of vandalism and a feeling of visitor security.

Campsite quality (3.94) and availability (3.70) ranked third

and sixth, respectively, among site facility performance

means. However, in both cases over 47 percent of

interviewees chose the don’t know/care rating, suggesting

that almost half simply do not use these facilities. Of those

not registering don’t know/care responses, 88.2 percent

rated campsite quality good or very good. Only 76.5

percent of the same subset rated campsite availability good

or very good.

Trailhead features such as the bike-washing area and the

information board rated performance means of 3.78 and

3.93, respectively. It appears that about 9 percent of visitors

do not use the bike-washing area, and about 6 percent do

not use the information board. Seventy-three percent of

visitors rated the washing area as good or very good,

whereas over 80 percent rated the information board

similarly. Just over 15 percent rated the washing area as fair.

Clearly, the poorest performing site facility is toilets with a

mean of 3.39. Although nearly 7 percent of interviewees

responded don’t know/care, approximately 30 percent rated

the toilet facilities as fair or poor. This low rating is

probably driven by the fact that only one set of toilets is

available in the area between the main parking lot and the

trailhead.

Importance ratings for site facilities and services are also

found in table 3. Security, parking, and toilet facilities are

the most important features to visitors with importance

means of 4.13, 3.88, and 3.82, respectively. Campsite

availability and quality, the bike-washing area, and the

information board were all considerably less important,

with means around 3.5. However, the similarity of the

means could be misleading. For example, the campsite
14

variables have higher percentage responses at the

extremes—very good or not important—than either the

information board or the bike-washing area. This suggests

that there is a significant number of campers, and that

campsite features are quite important to them, although

there are also many who do not camp. Conversely, it

appears that use of the bike-washing area and the

information board is more general across the population of

visitors, and that the means for these features are more

representative of all users.

In combining performance and importance information

across site facilities and services, we find some apparent

issues. Parking facilities and security/safety are highly rated

in both areas, indicating that management need only

continue the current course. This does not imply that

managers maintain the status quo but, rather, that as

visitation increases, they maintain the same proportion of

parking spaces to visitors. Campsite quality and availability

are not important to about half of the users, but the other

half finds them pretty important. It appears that the quality

Table 3—Site facility performance and importance

 Performance

Site facilities

and services Very good (5.0) Good (3.67) Fair (2.33) Poor (1.0) Don’t know/carea Mean Rank

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Toilets 17.2 46.2 23.4 6.5 6.7 3.39 7

Parking 41.9 48.5 8.1 .8 .6 4.10 1

Campsite

(availability) 18.3 22.1 7.8 4.6 47.2 3.70 6

Campsite

(quality) 17.6 28.6 5.3 .9 47.7 3.94 3

Bike wash 30.3 42.7 15.6 2.9 8.5 3.78 5

Information

board 30.6 52.1 10.6 .9 5.9 3.93 4

Security/safety 32.6 44.9 5.9 .6 15.9 4.07 2

Importance

Very Moderately Not

Site facilities important important important

and services (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Mean Rank

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Toilets 32.2 33.3 23.5 5.9 5.1 3.82 3

Parking 26.5 44.5 23.2 2.4 3.4 3.88 2

Campsite

(availability) 32.7 23.0 21.2 6.4 16.8 3.49 7

Campsite

(quality) 31.1 28.6 17.9 9.2 13.2 3.55 4

Bike wash 19.4 35.5 30.1 9.6 5.5 3.54 6

Information

board 20.9 30.9 34.1 10.5 3.6 3.55 5

Security/safety 44.5 32.8 17.0 2.7 3.0 4.13 1

a No value assigned to this visitor rating.
15

of such facilities is not as important as their availability.

Finally, among site facilities, management should be most

concerned about toilets. Toilets are the third most important

item among the seven facilities examined and rank last in

terms of visitor satisfaction.

Area Amenities and Services

We asked visitors about the performance and importance of

a number of local amenities and services that could

complement their experience at Tsali. These included

lodging, off-site campgrounds, bed and breakfasts,

restaurants, guide/outfitter services and supplies, gifts and

craft shopping, general shopping, and other areas of

interest. Although management has no control over such

things, understanding visitor preferences may foster

working relationships with local governments and

businesses to develop infrastructure that is vital to the Tsali

experience, as well as providing potential community

development.

Four amenity and service items received performance

ratings averages of good (3.67) or very good (table 4). They

include guide/outfitter service/supply (4.00), other areas of

interest (3.93), general lodging (3.90), and off-site

campgrounds (3.84). The remaining four received average

Table 4—Local area amenities and services

 Performance

Area amenities

and services Very good (5.0) Good (3.67) Fair (2.33) Poor (1.0) Don’t know/carea Mean Rank

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lodging 24.2 41.1 7.9 1.7 25.1 3.90 3

Campgrounds 16.6 31.8 7.0 1.1 43.5 3.84 4

Bed/breakfasts 8.7 19.8 7.4 2.1 62.0 3.57 5

Restaurants 14.3 37.7 22.2 6.9 18.9 3.31 7

Guide/outfit

service/supply 28.3 35.4 7.5 1.3 27.4 4.00 1

Gifts/crafts 7.0 27.4 11.6 2.1 51.9 3.42 6

Other shopping 7.5 26.9 17.7 6.1 41.8 3.15 8

Other interest 24.1 37.2 7.0 1.6 30.0 3.93 2

Importance

Very Moderately Not

Area amenities important important important

and services (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Mean Rank

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lodging 28.4 28.8 20.6 9.2 13.0 3.50 2

Campgrounds 25.0 21.3 22.5 14.6 16.6 3.24 4

Bed/breakfasts 7.6 12.2 22.3 22.8 33.8 2.36 6

Restaurants 25.6 30.6 29.9 7.0 6.9 3.61 1

Guide/outfit

service/supply 24.7 30.4 23.5 8.3 13.1 3.45 3

Gifts/crafts 3.6 10.7 20.9 19.0 45.1 2.08 8

Other shopping .8 11.9 28.6 18.9 32.5 2.24 7

Other interest 19.2 23.2 30.6 12.9 14.1 3.21 5

a No value assigned to this visitor rating.
16

performance ratings below good. These items included bed

and breakfasts (3.57), gifts and craft shopping (3.42),

restaurants (3.31), and other shopping (3.15). Although we

did not use don’t know/don’t care responses in calculating

mean performance ratings, it is important to note that for

only three items—restaurants, lodging, and guide/outfitter

service/supplies— < 30 percent of interviewees marked that

column.

In terms of importance (table 4), six of the eight items

received mean importance scores below 3.50. This compares

to only one site-facility item, campsite availability (3.49),

and one trail-related item, easy trails (3.20). In fact, three

local area amenity and service items had mean scores of

< 3.00, indicating that, on average, visitors found them less

than even moderately important. The items that Tsali visitors

found very unimportant included bed and breakfasts (2.36),

other shopping (2.24), and gifts and craft shopping (2.08).

Combining performance and importance marks for local

amenities and services, we can report a number of

observations. First, very high percentages of visitors

selected don’t know/don’t care for various items. Second,

similar high percentages in the importance columns

represented ratings less than moderately important. Given

this correlation, it appears that a sizeable number of visitors

do not feel that many of the listed area amenities and

services add much to their experience. Given the extremely

low importance means for bed and breakfasts, gifts and craft

shopping, and other shopping, the performance of these

items probably is irrelevant. For each, more than 50 percent

of respondents indicated they are less than moderately

important; < 10 percent found any of them very important.

On the other hand, restaurants, lodging, guide/outfitter

services/supplies, and campgrounds were important to large

segments of Tsali users, as evidenced by the fact that 40 to

60 percent of respondents indicated that each item is more

than moderately important. With performance rankings of 1,

3, and 4, respectively, guide/outfitter services/supplies,

lodging, and campgrounds appear to respond relatively well

to visitor needs, especially guide/outfitter service/supplies.

However, the high importance rank (1) of restaurants

combined with its low performance ranking (7) makes it

very clear that better restaurant facilities in the area would

be welcomed and probably used.

Preference and Satisfaction Conclusions

Looking at performance and importance ratings across trail

attributes, site facilities and services, and area amenities and

services, we can make a number of general conclusions.

First, the most important things to most visitors are trail

attributes and on-site facilities. Visitors come to Tsali first

to mountain bike; ancillary and off-site activities are given

relatively minor importance.

Generally, among trail attributes and site facilities and

services, performance and importance ratings are highly

correlative, suggesting that the things visitors find important

are being done well. The only exceptions appear to be

addressing trail congestion and providing sufficient toilet

facilities. Although the mean performance score for trail

congestion (3.64) is barely below the good rating of 3.67,

both items merit management’s attention. Trail congestion

can be addressed either by altering the current horse/bike

rotation system, or by developing more single-track trail

miles. The former would come at the expense of the

shrinking proportion of horse riders, whereas the latter

would involve additional capital and maintenance

expenditures. Toilet facilities are clearly lacking; and

increasing toilet capacity near the main parking lot and

trailhead would help. A more subtle finding pertains to Tsali

camping facilities. About half of those surveyed said such

facilities are basically unnecessary, whereas the other half

said they are very important. This split resulted in relatively

low importance means for these two items.

Local services and amenities are basically less important to

Tsali visitors than trail attributes or on-site facilities and

services. With the exception of restaurants, items in this

category appear adequate. In the case of restaurants,

importance rating is relatively high (ranked first in the

category, mean of 3.61). Fully 56.2 percent of interviewees

rated restaurants as more than moderately important.

However, restaurants were the second worst performers in

the category; 35.9 percent of those not responding don’t

know/don’t care rated them fair or poor. From these data it

would appear that Tsali visitors would provide a potential

market for the development of improved restaurant services

in the area.

User Fees, Management Options, and Stated Behavior

Because Tsali is a fee demonstration site, issues related to

how visitors perceive the payment system, fee levels, and

the value of provided services are all relevant to site

management. Generally, mountain bikers at Tsali do not

object to the idea of user fees. We asked three general

questions of all survey respondents pertaining to fees as a

management tool there and at other public lands, fee levels

at Tsali, and the convenience of fee collection at Tsali

(appendix A, questions 35, 36, and 37 in survey A and

questions 8, 9, and 10 in survey B. Fees there and on other

public recreation land, user cost, and the convenience of fee

collection (appendix A—questions 35, 36, and 37 in survey
17

A and questions 8, 9, and 10 in survey B). Ninety-five

percent reported that user fees could be a “good tool to

manage public recreation areas.” Only 1.5 percent

disagreed; the remaining 3.5 percent were undecided. Most

were satisfied with the fee levels. The vast majority (96.4

percent) supported their use. Most (89.4 percent) felt the

current $2-per-day or $15-per-year fee level is about right

although 6.9 percent felt the fees at Tsali were too low. Only

3.7 percent said the fee was too high. An overwhelming

number of mountain bikers (95.5 percent) felt the current fee

collection system, which consists of a locked steel drum

with entry slot and envelopes with detachable permits, is

convenient. Only 3 percent deemed the system

inconvenient, and 1.5 percent were undecided.

We asked one subset of visitors about their willingness to

accept a slight increase in the user fee (to $3 per person per

day and to $20 per year), if more services also were

provided. We asked them to indicate which service or set of

services they would like to see for the higher fee (appendix

A—questions 38 through 48 in survey A). A little more than

three-fourths (76.2 percent) indicated that they would be

willing to accept this fee increase for more services. Among

those willing to pay for increased services, 76.8 percent

wanted more trail miles. The two services next most

frequently indicated were showers near the trailhead (45.9

percent) and more toilets (39.1 percent). Improving trail

maintenance (28.8 percent) and trail surfaces (27.6 percent)

followed. Increasing the number of campsites (23.8

percent), bike-washing areas (20.0 percent), and parking

spaces (15.5 percent) were the only other improvements

supported by at least 10 percent of these users. Clearly, a

number of visitors wanted more than one additional service

in conjunction with a fee increase. Not quite 16 percent

chose only one service to improve, whereas most (57.4

percent) chose at least two from the proposed improvements

listed on the survey form.

We presented a second subset of visitors with management

options considered feasible for Tsali under the Forest

Service’s Fee Demonstration Project. One was to retain the

status quo; the others involved increasing the use fee with

promise of a specific set of changes (appendix A, survey B).

The options were as follows:

1. Continue with present trail and rotation system while

maintaining current fee structure of $2 per day and $15

per year. Fee receipts would be used to maintain existing

conditions.

2. Add a new 6- to 8-mile trail loop at Tsali. This loop would

be part of the existing rotation system on the Mouse

Branch side and have about the same level of difficulty.

Fees would increase to $3 per day and $20 per year. Fee

receipts would be used to maintain trails and facilities at

existing conditions and to construct and maintain the

new loop.

3. Construct a 6- to 8-mile section of a long (60 to 80 miles)

point-to-point trail originating at Tsali and terminating

within the Graham/Swain two-county area. The trail

would be of similar difficulty as current trails at Tsali.

Fees would increase to $3 per day and $20 per year with

the annual pass good at all trails. Fee receipts would be

used to maintain trails and facilities at existing conditions

and to construct and maintain a new 6- to 8-mile segment

of the long trail each year until completed.

4. Construct a loop trail system at a new location within the

Graham/Swain two-county area. Each year a 6- to 8-

mile section of the loop system would be constructed

until the new area had about the same amount of trails

and conditions as Tsali. Fees would increase to $3 per

day and $20 per year with the annual pass good at both

sites. Fee receipts would be used to construct the trails at

the new site and to maintain trails and facilities at

existing conditions at both Tsali and the new site.

5. Improve nontrail facilities at Tsali. Four new showers

(two male and two female) and two new bathrooms (one

male and one female) would be constructed. In addition,

two new dispersed camping areas would be created with

room for five tent sites at each. Fees would increase to

$3 per day and $20 per year with the annual pass good at

both sites. Fee receipts would be used to construct the

new facilities and to maintain existing trails and facilities

at current conditions.

After viewing the options, interviewees were asked to rate

them on a 5-point scale (5 being most preferred and 1 being

least preferred). Results of the choices among options are

listed in the performance section of table 5. Ratings by

percentage and the mean and relative rank for each option

are also listed.

Examining the means and relative ranking of each option

provides a number of insights. First, option A (status quo) is

the least preferred option (mean ranking 2.56). Although

appreciating the existing conditions at Tsali, as evidenced

by the high performance ratings for on-site entities

discussed in the previous section of this report, visitors

prefer changes involving moderate cost increases that add

to the suite of services currently provided. This finding is

consistent with findings from the first subset above, wherein

more than 75 percent indicated they would accept higher

fees for desired improvements.
18

A second obvious finding is that visitors most prefer

improvements that increase trail miles. The top three

options, B (new 6- to 8-mile on-site loop, 3.55), D (new

area near Tsali, 3.31), and C (new linear trail system from

Tsali, 3.21), all involve additions to the current inventory of

trails as well as fee increases. Options A (status quo, 2.56)

and E (improve nontrail facilities on site, 2.61) are much

less preferred. Moreover, fully 68.5 percent rated either as

their least preferred. The two options with the highest

percentage of most preferred choices were option D (30.8

percent) and option B (24.9 percent). However, option B

surpassed option D in overall rankings because fewer

people chose it as the least preferred option, and the largest

number of people chose it as the second most preferred

option (30.8 percent).

We also asked interviewees about future trips. Each was

asked to indicate the expected change in their annual

number of trips to Tsali under the five management

scenarios. Choices included a range of -3 (3 fewer trips) to

no change to +3 (3 additional trips), along with the option

of selecting any number outside this range (appendix A,

survey B). Results are reported in table 5. For each of the

options, columns 2 through 8 represent the percentage of

respondents indicating the change at the top of the column.

Column 2 represents anyone listing a decrease of more than

2 trips a year, whereas column 8 contains anyone listing

more than 2 trips a year. In both cases, very few indicated

changes exceeding an absolute value of three. Column 4

lists the percentages of interviewees indicating no expected

change in their number of annual trips under the various

management plans.

Under current and proposed management plans, the

percentage of visitors expecting to make fewer trips to Tsali

is < 2.5 percent in all cases. Those expecting to maintain

their current number of trips (no change) are by far the most

numerous in any given option. Under option A (status quo)

and option E (nontrail improvements), 80.2 and 72.5

percent of respondents, respectively, say that they will

neither increase nor decrease their number of trips. The no

change percentages drop for options C, D, and B to 60.0,

Table 5—Management preferences and stated behavior

Performance

Management Most Least

option preferred (5.0) (4.0) (3.0) (2.0) preferred (1.0) Mean Rank

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A 15.6 12.3 16.3 23.9 31.9 2.56 5

B 24.9 30.8 24.2 15.0 5.1 3.55 1

C 19.4 24.2 25.3 19.8 11.4 3.21 3

D 30.8 14.7 23.1 17.2 14.3 3.31 2

E 17.8 15.9 12.3 17.4 36.6 2.61 4

Change in trips per year

Management Mean Percent

option <-2 -2 -1 No change +1 +2 >+2 change change

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A 0 0.4 2.0 80.2 8.7 5.6 3.2 .266 7.96

B 0 .4 .8 54.4 21.6 13.6 9.2 .748 22.40

C 0 .4 1.6 60.0 18.8 9.2 10.0 .652 19.52

D 0 .4 .8 56.2 23.7 10.4 8.4 .683 20.45

E 1.6 .4 .4 72.5 9.6 8.0 7.6 .422 12.63
19

56.2, and 54.4, respectively. All of these options guarantee

more trail miles. For options E and A, annual trips will

increase by at least one for 25.2 and 17.5 percent of

respondents, respectively. However, the percentage who

said they would visit Tsali at least once more per year was

much larger under option B (44.4 percent), option D (42.5

percent), and option C (38.0 percent).

Column 9 contains the mean change in trips per visitor

under each option. Option B yields the largest change at

0.748, whereas options D and C are close behind at 0.683

and 0.652, respectively. Once again, options that do not

include trail improvements lag behind [option E (0.422),

option A (0.266)]. Combining current trips with intended

trips under each management alternative allows calculation

of percentage change by the average user (column 10).

Option B yields a 22.4-percent increase whereas options D

and E yield changes of 20.45 and 19.52 percent,

respectively. Options E and A provide increases of 12.63

and 7.96 percent, respectively.

A number of conclusions can be deduced from the

information in table 5. First, regardless of the management

plan, interviewees plan to increase their use of Tsali.

Second, there is little question that mountain bikers prefer

and will positively respond to changes that increase trail

miles. Third, the four most preferred options (B, D, C, and E)

all involved an increase in user fees, though an increase of

$1 per day is insignificant in comparison to the travel

expenses for the great majority of visitors. Finally, although

mountain bikers are quite happy with conditions at Tsali,

maintaining the status quo is the least preferred alternative.

Acknowledgments

This research project would not have been undertaken nor

completed without the support and effort of Frank Findley,

USDA Forest Service, Region 8; Kathy Ludlow, USDA

Forest Service, Region 6 (formerly of Region 8); Janet Smith,

Nantahala Outdoor Center; and Dale Wiggins, Government

of Graham County. We also acknowledge the assistance of

Jonathan Kind, Melissa Lacina, and Jamie Lewis, interns

with the undergraduate environmental economics program,

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics,

University of Georgia. Finally, we are grateful to Gary T.

Green, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies,

University of Georgia, and Allan Marsinko, Department of

Forest Resources, Clemson University, for their

constructive comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript

and to Shela Mou for manuscript preparation and graphics

development.

Literature Cited

Cordell, H.K.; Green, G.T.; Betz, C.J. [In press]. Outdoor

recreation 2003. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
20
21

Appendix A

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—A1

1. Interviewer code: _______________________ 2. Interview site: _________________________________

3. Date: _______________ 4. Weather: __________________ 5. Trail condition: __________________

6. Time:_______________ 7. Survey number: ____________________ 8. Party number: ______________

9. Race: ____________________ 10. Gender: ____________________

INTRODUCTION—Read attached statement

Have you been interviewed here since August 1, 1998? Y___ N___ If Yes, how many times? ___________

TRIP PROFILE

1. Is Tsali your primary destination on this trip? Y___ N___

2. Is this your first trip to Tsali? Y___ N___ (If Yes, go to question 4)

3. How many years have you been coming to Tsali? ______________ years

4. What is your residence zip code? ________________

5. What was the approximate one-way transit time to Tsali? _______________ hours

6. Did you begin this trip from a place other than your primary residence? Y___ N___ (if No, go to question 10)

Where did you begin this trip? 7. City: __________________ 8. State: __________ 9. Zip: _________

On what date and time did you begin this trip? 10. (month-day-year) _____________ 11. Time: ________

On what date and time did you arrive at Tsali? 12. (month-day-year) ______________ 13. Time: _______

When will you leave Tsali? 14. (month-day-year): ____________________ 15. Time: ________________

Will you spend more than 50 percent of your time on this trip visiting areas other than Tsali? 16. Y___ N___

What do you estimate will be your total time away from home on this trip? 17. ______ days

VISITOR PROFILE

Including this visit, how many trips have you made to Tsali in the last 12 months? 1. _________________trips

What is the total number of days for all of these trips? 2. ____________ days

Not including this trip, how many trips do you plan to Tsali in the next 12 months? 3. ___________ trips

Is mountain biking your main activity while at Tsali? 4. Y___ N___ (if No, go to question 13)

How many years have you been mountain biking? 5. ___________ years

continued
22

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—A1 (continued)

How many of your trips in the last 12 months to Tsali were for mountain biking? 6. _____________________

Regardless of location, how many days in the last 12 months did you spend at mountain biking? 7. _____ days

How many trips in the last 12 months, to any location more than 20 minutes from home,

have you made to specifically engage in mountain biking? 8. _______________ trips

How would you rate your skill level at mountain biking? 9. ____________ (Circle one)

a. Expert b. Above average c. Average d. Below average e. Beginner

Where is your favorite place to mountain bike? 10. Tsali or area name: _______________________________

11. Nearest city: ___________________________ 12. State: ____________________________

Do you regularly participate in other recreation activities while at Tsali?

13. Y___ N___ (if No, skip questions 14 and 15)

What are one or two of these activities at Tsali? 14. _____________________ 15. ____________________

Where did you obtain your information about Tsali? (Circle all that apply)

16. Friend/family 17. Bike shop 18. Magazine 19. Newspaper 20. Public agency

21. Internet 22. Chamber of commerce 23. Tsali area business 24. Other___________________

Suppose Tsali was unavailable for this trip. Would you have recreated elsewhere?

25. Y___ N___ (if No, skip questions 26 through 29)

Where would you have recreated? 26. Area name: ______________________________________________ in

27. City: ___________________________________ 28. State: _______________

What would have been the main activity? 29. ____________________________

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

How many people, including yourself, are recreating with you on this visit? 1. __________________________

Which best describes the group recreating with you? 2. ______________________

a. Family b. Friends c. Family and friends d. Club or organized group f. Traveling alone g. Other

Did you use a professional guide? 3. Y___ N___

How would you describe your household? 4. _____________________

a. Single adult (no children) b. Single adult with children (under 18)

c. Two adults (no children) d. Two adults with children (under 18)

e. Three or more adults (no children) f. Three or more adults with children (under 18)

Which best describes your level of education? 5. ________

a. High school b. Some college c. College graduate d. Graduate school e. Other______________

What is your age? 6. ______ Do you have a disability? 7. Y___ N___

What interval best describes your annual household income? 8. __________

a. Under $10,000 b. $10,001 to 30,000 c. $30,001 to 50,000

d. $51,000–75,000 e. $75,001 to 100,000 f. Above $100,001 g. No answer

continued
23

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—A1 (continued)

Which category best describes your current main occupation? 9. _____________ (Circle one)

a. Student b. Trades c. Sales d. Management e. Technical

f. Educator g. Medical h. Law i. Government j. Recreation professional

k. Retired l. Forestry/agriculture/mining m. Unemployed n. Other

INFORMATION ABOUT TSALI

Which trail(s) did you ride today? (Circle all that apply) 1. a. Right Loop b. Left Loop

c. Mouse Branch d. Thompson Loop e. Don’t know names

Do you have an annual pass? 2. Y___ N___

Which seasons of the year would you normally use Tsali? (Circle all that apply)

3. Spring 4. Summer 5. Fall 6. Winter

How many hours do you spend riding per day on a typical visit to Tsali? 7. ____________ hours

Please rate the following trail attributes (on the trail(s) you rode today). Also rate the relative importance, on a

scale of 1 through 5, of each attribute toward the overall quality of your visit to this site (for example, 1 = not

important, 3 = moderately important, 5 = very important).

Importance

8. Trail scenery: Very good Good Fair Poor _________

9. Trail congestion: Very low Low Fair High _________

10. Trail surfaces: Very good Good Fair Poor _________

11. Trailside vegetation: Very good Good Fair Poor _________

12. Trail signage: Very good Good Fair Poor _________

13. Bike/horse rotation system: Very good Good Fair Poor _________

14. Single-track availability: Too much About right Too little _________

15. Amount of easy trails: Too much About right Too little _________

16. Amount of difficult trails: Too much About right Too little _________

Have you experienced any conflicts with other users at Tsali? 17. Y___ N___

(If No, skip questions 18 through 21)

Which user groups have been a source of conflict for you? (Circle all that apply)

18. Mountain bikers 19. Horse riders 20. Hunters 21. Other _________________________________

Please rate the following site facilities as you found them on THIS VISIT. Also rate the relative importance, on a

scale of 1 through 5, of having these facilities toward the overall quality of your visit to this site (for example,

1 = not important, 3 = moderately important, 5 = very important).

Importance

22. Toilets: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

23. Parking availability: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

24. Camp-site availability: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

25. Camp-site quality: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

26. Security/safety: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

27. Bike-washing area: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

28. Information board: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

continued
24

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—A1

(continued)

Please rate the following services found within a 25-mile distance of Tsali. Also rate the relative importance, on a

scale of 1 through 5, of each service toward the overall quality of your visit to this site (for example, 1 = not

important, 3 = moderately important, 5 = very important).

Importance

29. Lodging: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

30. Other campgrounds: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

31. Eating places: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

32. Shopping Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

33. Guide/outfitter services/

supplies: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

34. Other places of interest: Very good Good Fair Poor DK _________

The following relate to the USE FEE at Tsali and on public lands in general:

35. Use fees can be a good tool to manage public recreation areas: Y___ N___ Don’t know___

36. For the current services the use fee at Tsali is (circle one): Too high About right Too low

37. Using the fee collection system at Tsali is (circle one): Convenient Inconvenient Don’t know

The current use fee is $2 per day or $15 for an annual pass. Would you consider paying a higher use fee

($3 per day and $20 for an annual pass) to get more services? 38. Y___ N___

(if Yes, circle all that apply; if No, skip questions 48 through 57)

39. More trail miles 40. More parking 41. More campsites 42. More bathrooms

43. Trailhead showers 44. More site maintenance 45. Better trail surface maintenance

46. Better trailside maintenance 47. More bike-washing areas 48. Other _________________________

EXPENDITURE MAIL-BACK INFORMATION

We need to collect additional information about trip expenditures. This information is best compiled when the

traveler has returned home and can think about the costs of the completed trip. This information is very important

to site managers, local area planners, and regional planners. Would you complete a mail survey detailing your

expenditures on this trip? WE WILL DESTROY YOUR ADDRESS WHEN THE STUDY IS COMPLETED.

49. Y___ N___ (if No, end interview)

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________

City: _________________________________________________ State: __________ Zip: _______________

1 OMB approval #0597-0110.
25

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—B1

1. Interviewer code: ___________________________ 2. Interview site: _____________________________

3. Date: __________________ 4. Weather: ________________ 5. Trail condition: __________________

6. Time: ______________ 7. Survey number: ________________ 8. Party number: _________________

9. Race: _______________ 10. Gender _______________

INTRODUCTION—Read attached statement

Have you been interviewed here since August 1, 1998? Y___ N___ If Yes, how many times? ___________

TRIP PROFILE

1. Is Tsali your primary destination on this trip? Y___ N___

2. Is this your first trip to Tsali? Y___ N___ (If Yes, go to question 4)

3. How many years have you been coming to Tsali? ______________ years

4. What is your residence zip code? ________________

5. What was the approximate one-way transit time to Tsali? _______________ hours

6. Did you begin this trip from a place other than your primary residence? Y___ N___

(if No, go to question 10)

Where did you begin this trip? 7. City: ___________________ 8. State: ________ 9. Zip: ____________

On what date and time did you begin this trip? 10. (month-day-year) ______________ 11. Time: ________

On what date and time did you arrive at Tsali? 12. (month-day-year) ______________ 13. Time: ________

When will you leave Tsali? 14. (month-day-year): ______________ 13. Time: ___________

Will you spend more than 50 percent of your time on this trip visiting areas other than Tsali? 16. Y___ N___

What do you estimate will be your total time away from home on this trip? 17. ______ days

VISITOR PROFILE

Including this visit, how many trips have you made to Tsali in the last 12 months? 1. __________ trips

What is the total number of days for all of these trips? 2. ____________ days

Not including this trip, how many trips do you plan to Tsali in the next 12 months? 3. ___________ trips

Is mountain biking your main activity while at Tsali? 4. Y___ N___ (if No, go to question 13)

How many years have you been mountain biking? 5. ___________ years

continued
26

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—B1

(continued)

How many of your trips in the last 12 months to Tsali were for mountain biking? 6. ______________________

Regardless of location, how many days in the last 12 months did you spend at mountain biking? 7. _____ days

How many trips in the last 12 months, to any location more than 20 minutes from home,

have you made to specifically engage in mountain biking? 8. _______________ trips

How would you rate your skill level at mountain biking? 9. ____________ (Circle one)

a. Expert b. Above average c. Average d. Below average e. Beginner

Where is your favorite place to mountain bike? 10. Tsali or area name: ____________________________

11. Nearest city: ________________________ 12. State: ________________________________________

Do you regularly participate in other recreation activities while at Tsali? 13. Y___ N___

(if No, skip questions 14 and 15)

What are one or two of these activities at Tsali? 14. _____________________ 15. ____________________

Where did you obtain your information about Tsali? (Circle all that apply)

16. Friend/family 17. Bike shop 18. Magazine 19. Newspaper 20. Public agency

21. Internet 22. Chamber of commerce 23. Tsali area business 24. Other _________________

Suppose Tsali was unavailable for this trip. Would you have recreated elsewhere? 25. Y___ N___

(if No, skip questions 26 through 29)

Where would you have recreated? 26. Area name: ______________________________________________ in

27. City: ___________________________________ 28. State: _______________

What would have been the main activity? 29. ____________________________

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

How many people, including yourself, are recreating with you on this visit? 1.___________________

Which best describes the group recreating with you? 2. ______________________

a. Family b. Friends c. Family and friends d. Club or organized group f. Traveling alone g. Other

Did you use a professional guide? 3. Y___ N___

How would you describe your household? 4. _____________________

a. Single adult (no children) b. Single adult with children (under 18)

c. Two adults (no children) d. Two adults with children (under 18)

e. Three or more adults (no children) f. Three or more adults with children (under 18)

Which best describes your level of education? 5. ________

a. High school b. Some college c. College graduate d. Graduate school e. Other ________________

What is your age? 6. ______ Do you have a disability? 7. Y ___ N ___

What interval best describes your annual household income? 8. __________

a. Under $10,000 b. $10,001 to 30,000 c. $30,001 to 50,000

d. $51,000–75,000 e. $75,001 to 100,000 f. Above $100,001 g. No answer

continued
27

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—B1

(continued)

Which category best describes your current main occupation? 9. _____________ (Circle one)

a. Student b. Trades c. Sales d. Management e. Technical

f. Educator g. Medical h. Law i. Government j. Recreation professional

k. Retired l. Forestry/agriculture/mining m. Unemployed n. Other

INFORMATION ABOUT TSALI

Which trail(s) did you ride today? (Circle all that apply) 1. a. Right Loop b. Left Loop

c. Mouse Branch d. Thompson Loop e. Don’t know names

Do you have an annual pass? 2. Y___ N___

Which seasons of the year would you normally use Tsali? (Circle all that apply)

3. Spring 4. Summer 5. Fall 6. Winter

How many hours do you spend riding per day on a typical visit to Tsali? 7. ____________ hours

The following relate to the USE FEE at Tsali and on public lands in general:

8. Use fees can be a good tool to manage public recreation areas: Y___ N___ Don’t know ___

9. For the current services the use fee at Tsali is (circle one): Too high About right Too low

10. Using the fee collection system at Tsali is (circle one): Convenient Inconvenient Don’t know

The recreation fee demonstration project at Tsali provides the Forest Service with an opportunity for more

innovative and flexible management strategies thus allowing us to better serve the public. In order to make the

best management decisions, we need your input.

Consider the following five potential management options for mountain biking at Tsali:

A. Continue with present trail and rotation system while maintaining current fee structure of $2 per day and $15

per year. Fee receipts would be used to maintain existing conditions.

B. Add a new 6- to 8-mile trail loop at Tsali. This loop would be part of the existing rotation system on the

Mouse Branch side and have about the same level of difficulty. Fees would increase to $3 per day and $20 per

year. Fee receipts would be used to maintain trails and facilities at existing conditions and to construct and

maintain the new loop.

C. Construct a 6- to 8-mile section of a long (60 to 80 miles) point-to-point trail originating at Tsali and

terminating within the Graham/Swain two-county area. The trail would be of similar difficulty as current trails

at Tsali. Fees would increase to $3 per day and $20 per year with the annual pass good at all trails. Fee

receipts would be used to maintain trails and facilities at existing conditions and to construct and maintain a

new 6- to 8-mile segment of the long trail each year until completed.

D. Construct a loop trail system at a new location within the Graham/Swain two-county area. Each year a 6- to

8-mile section of the loop system would be constructed until the new area had about the same amount of trails

and conditions as Tsali. Fees would increase to $3 per day and $20 per year with the annual pass good at both

sites. Fee receipts would be used to construct the trails at the new site and to maintain trails and facilities at

existing conditions at both Tsali and the new site.

continued
28

Tsali 1998–99

Mountain Bike Survey—B1

(continued)

E. Improve nontrail facilities at Tsali. Four new showers (two male and two female) and two new bathrooms (one

male and one female) would be constructed. In addition, two new dispersed camping areas would be created

with room for five tent sites at each. Fees would increase to $3 per day and $20 per year with the annual pass

good at both sites. Fee receipts would be used to construct the new facilities and to maintain existing trails and

facilities at current conditions.

Please rank these options 1 to 5, with 1 being your top choice and 5 being your least preferred choice. Also, next

to each ranking, indicate by circling the number how your trips to the area in a typical year would change under

the listed conditions.

Rank Change in trips per year

A. ___________ -3 -2 -1 No change +1 +2 +3 Other _________

B. ___________ -3 -2 -1 No change +1 +2 +3 Other _________

C. ___________ -3 -2 -1 No change +1 +2 +3 Other _________

D. ___________ -3 -2 -1 No change +1 +2 +3 Other _________

E. ___________ -3 -2 -1 No change +1 +2 +3 Other _________

EXPENDITURE MAIL-BACK INFORMATION

We need to collect additional information about trip expenditures. This information is best compiled when the

traveler has returned home and can think about the costs of the completed trip. This information is very important

to site managers, local area planners, and regional planners. Would you complete a mail survey detailing your

expenditures on this trip? WE WILL DESTROY YOUR ADDRESS WHEN THE STUDY IS COMPLETED

50. Y___ N___ (if No, end interview)

Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________

City: _________________________________________________ State: __________ Zip: _______________

Address correspondence to either co-principal investigator c/o U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 320 Green St., Athens, GA 30602 or

denglish@fs.fed.us.

1 OMB approval #0597-0110.
Bowker, J.M.; English, Donald B.K. 2002. Mountain biking at Tsali: an assessment of users, preferences,

conflicts, and management alternatives. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–59. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 28 p.

Tsali Recreation Area is part of the Cheoah Ranger District of the Nantahala National Forest. Overlooking the

Great Smoky Mountains, it is one of the premier mountain biking sites in the Eastern United States. The

results of a 13-month on-site survey of 1,359 Tsali visitors examine the demographics, behavior, current trip

profile, and attitudes toward user fees, current management policies, and future management alternatives.

More than 70 percent of visitors were male, 96 percent were white, 85 percent had attended college, 90

percent were between the ages of 20 and 49, and more than 60 percent had incomes over $50,000. Sixty

percent of the visitors had four or more years of experience; 16 percent were beginners. Visitors averaged 21

biking trips totaling 59 days yearly, averaging 3 visits to Tsali. Fifty-five percent were first-time visitors, while

80 percent said Tsali was their “favorite place” to ride. Trail surface and congestion were the most important

site attributes to visitors. Surfaces rated high in performance, indicating that management practices are

successful. Congestion on trails rated slightly less than “good” suggesting management consideration. Site

facilities rated “good” or better on average. Parking and security were ranked highly for both performance and

importance. Toilet facilities ranked the lowest in performance but high in importance suggesting another area

for management consideration. Most visitors (95 percent) agreed that fees are a “good tool to manage public

recreation areas,” in general and at Tsali. Visitors overwhelmingly supported future management alternatives

that proposed more trail miles, even though these were combined with fee increases.

Keywords: Amenities, fee demo, importance/performance, mountain biking, recreation management, site

facilities, trail attributes, user fee.
The Forest Service, United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation.

Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private

forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide

increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,

disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office

of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call

(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.