Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area 

2003 Visitor Use Survey – Completion Report 

By Phadrea Ponds, Shana Gillette, and Lynne Koontz, U.S. Geological Survey 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 

Open-File Report 2004-1281 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area 

2003 Visitor Use Survey – Completion Report 

By Phadrea Ponds, Shana Gillette, and Lynne Koontz, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2004-1281
 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2004 

For product and ordering information: 
 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod
 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 
 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 
 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 
 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 
 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 
 

Suggested citation: 

Ponds, P., S. Gillette, and L. Koontz. 2004. Colorado Canyons National Conservation 


Area 2003 Visitor Use Survey: completion report. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological 


Survey. Open-File Report 2004-1281. 68 p.
 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 
Contents 

Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................1 
 

Format of Report......................................................................................................................2 
 

Section 1...........................................................................................................................................2 
 

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2 
 

Survey Methods and Sampling Procedures ............................................................................3 
 

Intercept Survey ..............................................................................................................3
 

Sampling Periods ............................................................................................................4 
 

Attentive Public Survey ...................................................................................................6 
 

Findings ............................................................................................................................................7 
 

Demographics..........................................................................................................................7 
 

Recreational Use Patterns ..............................................................................................7 
 

Attitudes Toward Management and Fees .......................................................................8 
 

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................9 
 

Section 2.........................................................................................................................................10 
 

CCNCA Visitor Survey ...........................................................................................................10  

Recreational Profile: Loma, Kokopelli Loops, and Rabbit Valley..................................10  

Attitudes Toward Management and Fees: Loma, Kokopelli Loops, and 

 Rabbit Valley ...............................................................................................................12 
 

Section 3.........................................................................................................................................15 
 

Attentive Public Survey ..........................................................................................................15 
 

Recreational Profile.......................................................................................................16 
 

Attitudes Toward Management and Fees .....................................................................18 
 

Section 4.........................................................................................................................................21 
 

Economic Analysis.................................................................................................................21 
 

Visitor Trip Spending Results........................................................................................21 
 

Economic Impacts Associated with Visitor Spending ...................................................23 
 

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................24 
 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................25 
 

Literature Cited ...............................................................................................................................26 
 

Appendix A – Intercept Survey – Question Summaries .................................................................29 
 

Appendix B – Intercept Survey – Respondent Comments.............................................................34 
 

Appendix C – Attentive Public Survey – Question Summaries ......................................................54 
 

Appendix D – Attentive Public Survey – Respondent Comments..................................................62 
 

Figures 

Figure 1. Proportions of people engaging in trail related activities ..................................................2 
 

Figure 2. Colorado Canyons Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canons Wilderness..................3 
 

Figure 3. Map of the Intercept Survey sites......................................................................................4 
 
Tables 

Table 1. Response rate for Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area visitor use survey......5  

Table 2. Demographic data from each survey ................................................................................5  

Table 3. Estimates for sample sizes based on different levels of response variation and margins  

of error ..............................................................................................................................................8 
 

Table 4. Demographic data from each site and the aggregate sample .........................................11 
 

Table 5. Recreational patterns at each site and the aggregate sample.........................................11 
 

Table 6. Mean scores by site for management options from Q17 .................................................12 
 

Table 7. Mean scores by site for the use of fees from Q18 ...........................................................13 
 

Table 8. Mean scores by site for the type of fees from Q19 ..........................................................14 
 

Table 9. Mean scores by site for fee equity options for Q23..........................................................15 
 

Table 10. Comparison between sites on whether fees would affect visitation from Q22...............15 
 

Table 11. Response rate for Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area visitor use survey..16 
 

Table 12. Importance of recreational experiences by respondent characteristics. ........................17 
 

Table 13. Distribution of recreational activities by respondent characteristics...............................17 
 

Table 14. Percentages of respondents who agreed that the following management options
 

were a “good idea.”.........................................................................................................................18 
 

Table 15. Frequency distribution of respondents’ willingness toward paying a fee to use 
 

Colorado Canyons NCA. ................................................................................................................19 
 

Table 16. Distribution of respondents answering “no” concerning the payment of $1– 5 fee to 
 

visit the CCNCA..............................................................................................................................19 
 

Table 17. Distribution of how monies collected from fees should be spent, as a percentage .......20 
 

Table 18. Percentage of respondents that agreed that the following fee permitting operations
 

was a “good idea” ...........................................................................................................................20 
 

Table 19. Annual summer visitation and percent of non-local visitors ...........................................22 
 

Table 20. Average NCA visitor spending in Mesa County, Colorado ............................................23 
 

Table 21. Total annual spending in Mesa County, Colorado by non-local visitors (in millions of
 

dollars) ...........................................................................................................................................23 
 

Table 22. Economic impacts of non-local visitor spending in Mesa County, Colorado .................24 
 

iii 
Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area 

2003 Visitor Use Survey – Completion Report 

By Phadrea Ponds, Shana Gillette, and Lynne Koontz, U.S. Geological Survey 

Executive Summary 

This report represents the analysis of research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose is to provide socio-economic and recreational use information 

that can be used in the development of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Colorado Canyons National 

Conservation Area (CCNCA). The results reported here deal primarily with recreation-based activities in four areas: 

Kokopelli Loops, Rabbit Valley, Loma Boat Launch, and Devil’s Canyon. 

In the fall of 2002, researchers from the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Program (PASA) of the 

Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) in the USGS met with the staff of the CCNCA to discuss the issues related to 

social, economic, and human dimensions of natural resource management related to the RMP. As a result, a research 

study was designed to investigate the recreational experiences of visitors and their attitudes toward the management 

of the conservation area. 

In the spring of 2003, PASA conducted an intercept survey of recreational users at the CCNCA and a mail 

survey of local residents who were actively involved in decision-making regarding recreation on public lands in 

Mesa County, Colorado. Two hundred and three (203) mail surveys (66%) were returned and all of them were 

completed in full and considered usable. The intercept survey had a response rate with a range from 56%–64% 

among the four sites that were surveyed. We developed a questionnaire (OMB Control Number: 1040-0001) to 

answer the following questions: 

• What are the important differences in citizens’ attitudes regarding recreation at the CCNCA? 

• What are the factors that explain the differences in attitudes and preferences regarding recreation 

management of the NCA? 

• What are citizens’ attitudes and preferences regarding their attitudes about paying a fee to visit the 

CCNCA? 

In general, respondents at all sites reported having an excellent or good recreation experience and almost all 

indicated that they intended to return. The results from the intercept survey indicated that across four sites 1

(Kokopelli Loops, Devil’s Canyon, Loma Boat Launch, and Rabbit Valley) respondents reported support for 

undeveloped use and recreation restrictions to limit resource impacts. Respondents indicated that managing sites for 

undeveloped use was a good idea. 

The respondents from the mail survey generally had a positive orientation toward current management 

practices of the CCNCA. According to our surveys, non-motorized trail related activities were among the three most 

popular activities people engaged in both close to home and while away. These trail-based recreational activities 

included walking, running, mountain bike riding, and horseback riding. Research has shown that people participate 

in these activities for many reasons including learning about nature, exercising, to learning about paleontology, 

escaping for awhile, and socializing with family and friends (Taylor, 2000). National data indicate that larger 

percentages of the general American population engage in trail activities than in many other traditional outdoor 

1

The response rate at Dinosaur Hill was not significant enough to include in this report. 

1 
activities (Cordell, 1999). Over 65% of people in the U.S. engage in walking as a recreational activity (Figure 1). 

We found that people wanted to experience the outdoors and the CCNCA provided a good place to do it. 

0% 

walking/running 

biking 

hiking 

horseback 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

National Attentive at CCNCA 

Figure 1. Proportions of people engaging in trail related activities. 

Trail activities are often those that people participate in on a regular basis as a way to exercise. This can 

make trail related activities more attractive from a management standpoint because people who participate in an 

activity may be more likely to be repeat visitors. 

Format of Report 

After the summary and introduction, the report is divided into four sections. Section 1 provides an 

introductory overview of the project. Section 2 briefly describes the results of the on-site CCNCA Visitor Survey 

and outlines the issues related to visitor attitudes toward management and fees and acceptance of a hypothetical fee 

demonstration program at the CCNCA. Section 3 briefly discusses the results of the mail survey and likely effect of 

proposed management options and proposed fees on visitor use and recreational experiences. Section 4 presents the 

results of the visitor spending and economic analysis of the on-site survey. The frequency distributions and 

comments from both surveys are presented in Appendices A through D. 

Section 1 

Introduction 

The Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area (CCNCA) is located in Mesa County, Colorado, and 

Grand County, Utah. This area was found to have unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use 

opportunities, paleontological, natural, and wildlife components along with wilderness value that are worthy of 

additional protection. The CCNCA is comprised of 122,300 rugged acres of sandstone canyons, natural arches, 

spires, and alcoves carved into the Colorado Plateau along a 24-mile stretch of the Colorado River. Included in the 

CCNCA are 75,550 acres of wilderness designated as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness and at the western 

boundary of the CCNCA, 5,200 acres stretch into eastern Utah (Figure 2). The area contains an array of 

opportunities for many outdoor recreational activities anywhere from wilderness backpacking to off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) activities. 

2 
2

Figure 2. Colorado Canyons Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. 

The purpose of this study was to investigate the recreational experiences of visitors and their attitudes 

toward the management of the conservation area. To this end, we conducted an intercept survey of recreational users 

at the CCNCA and a mail survey of the “attentive public” (a select group of citizens who participated in public 

planning process regarding recreation on public lands in Mesa County between 2001 and 2003). 

Survey Methods and Sampling Procedures 

Administration of both surveys followed a modified Dillman (2000) procedure that included handing 

intercept surveys out at specified sites in the CCNCA, initial and subsequent follow-up mailings. A pretest of the 

questionnaires was conducted with a small sample of students and recreational users at Colorado State University to 

clarify instructions and wording on survey instruments. The questionnaires and sampling designs then went through 

a revision and peer review process as required by the USGS. 

Intercept Survey 

The CCNCA visitor survey of the recreational user public was designed to provide input from members of 

the general public who recreate at the CCNCA. The visitation estimates were calculated from the monthly totals of 

laser counts of vehicles at Rabbit Valley, Loma, and Kokopelli Loops and from laser counts of individuals at Devils 

Canyon in 2003 (Figure 3). 

2

Retrieved April 19, 2004, from http://www.co.blm.gov/colocanyons/ccncalandsmap.htm 

3 
3 Figure 3. Map of the Intercept Survey sites. 

In order to obtain a composite profile of the CCNCA visitor population, a multiple frame approach was 

used. Five main recreational areas were selected within the CCNCA from which to sample. The population sample 

estimates were then combined at each site to arrive at a general population estimate1. Table 1 presents two sampling 

designs for the visitor population, based on different criteria for margins of error and response variation (Rea and 

Parker, 1997, Dillman, 2000). These differences in turn are based on frame population sizes and recreational use 

patterns. Due to smaller size of the other two sites, Devils Canyon and Dinosaur Hill were sampled at a higher 

margin of error, but with a 50/50 variance due to the homogenous user profiles of both sites (Table 1). 

Response rates were good at all sites except Dinosaur Hill. Loma was a bit lower than the expected 65%, 

but the other sites were very close to the expected return rate, achieving samples that were statistically significant 

(Table 2). Because Dinosaur Hill was so difficult to sample due to the erratic nature of visitor use of the site, the 

sample received was not significant and thus not included in the analysis. Frequency distributions of Dinosaur Hill 

responses are included in Appendix D. 

Sampling Periods 

Intercept surveys were handed out to visitors to the CCNCA during the peak spring visitation period (midMarch to mid-June in all sampling frames except Loma Boat Launch where visitation peaks in the months of June 

and July). The days and times that surveyors were at the five sites varied in order to achieve a good representation of 

recreational user activity. To disseminate surveys, surveyors intercepted users at the trailhead. Given the dispersed 

nature of Rabbit Valley recreationists, surveyors intercepted recreationists in their vehicles as they left or entered the 

site. Usually, one survey was handed to one member of a recreation group if it was a family, if more than one 

member of a family took the survey, it was noted on the intercept survey sheet and recorded in the data analysis if 

more than one survey came from one household. If the group was a group of friends, everyone received the survey. 

3

Source: CCNCA visitor map and brochure. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Estimates for sample sizes based on different levels of response variation and margins of error. 

Estimated sampling sizes 

Estimated 

Sample frames 

Recreational uses 

in CCNCA 

recreational areas 

spring 

visitor 

population 

Sample size 

80/50 variance 

5% margin of error 

Surveys 

handed 

out 

Surveys 

received 

Response 

rate (%) 

Rabbit Valley 

OHVs, 

motorcycles, 

mountain-biking, 

horseback riding, 

hiking, camping 

20,000 243 375 235 63 

Kokopelli Loops Mountain-biking, 

horseback riding 35,000 243 375 229 61 

Loma Boat Launch Water activities 12,000 240 370 209 56 

Estimated sampling frames 

Estimated 

Sample frames 

Primary 

recreational uses 

spring 

visitor 

population 

Sample size 

50/50 variance 

10% margin of error 

Surveys 

handed 

out 

Surveys 

received 

Response 

rate (%) 

Devils Canyon Horseback-riding, 

hiking 5,000–8,000 95 145 93 64% 

Dinosaur Hill Hiking 3,000 94 120 40 33% 

Table 2. Response rate for Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area visitor use survey. 

Attentive public 

survey 

CCNCA Visitor’s Survey 

Rabbit Valley Loma Kokopelli Loops Devil’s Canyon 

Sample size 

Respondents 

Response rate (%) 

400 

203 

66 

375 

235 

63 

370 

209 

56 

375 

229 

61 

145 

93 

64 

The purpose of the survey and the importance of its results to future management of the CCNCA were 

explained to the visitor. Visitors were also informed that their participation was voluntary. Incentives were provided 

in the form of bottles of cold ice water and CCNCA posters. People were thanked for their co-operation and asked to 

fill out their responses at the end of the visit and mail back the survey (a stamped, self-addressed envelope was 

provided). The participant’s address was recorded at the time the survey was handed out to allow for follow-up of 

non-respondents. Based on some earlier surveys in this region, a response rate of 65% or higher was expected.4 

Efforts to Increase the Response Rate 

•	 The questionnaire was an easy-to-read, 6-page magazine format that took about 12 minutes to 

complete for non-residents. Residents could skip certain travel cost questions, which made the survey 

shorter to complete. 

The 2002 NAU Colorado Canyon National Conservation Area Visitor Study received slightly lower response rates 

with an intercept survey in the same area. 

5
 

4
• The interview team members were trained in the administration of the interview protocol, including 

procedures to increase the effectiveness of respondent communications, before they handed out the 

survey instrument. A well-trained survey team helped decrease non-response error by effectively 

communicating the survey’s purpose and the BLM’s desire for input from all recreational users. 

• In order to encourage response, the BLM staff provided the incentive of CCNCA posters and cold 

bottled water. 

Attentive Public Survey 

A mail-back questionnaire was sent to local residents and others who had attended a BLM public meeting 

or who had been actively involved in decision-making processes regarding recreation on public lands in Mesa 

County, Colorado within the past two years as determined by the BLM staff. The target response goal was 280 

usable surveys for this group. 

This survey employed fixed alternative questions plus space for comments. The respondents were queried 

about their attitudes in the form of responses to potential ecosystem management practices. Technical terms and 

management strategies were developed and evaluated in conjunction with natural resource managers who were 

partners in this study. Data were collected using a non-probability sampling method described by Parker and Rea 

(1997). With non-probability sampling, population elements are selected on the basis of their availability (e.g., 

because they volunteered) or because of the researcher's personal judgment that they are representative. The 

consequence is that an unknown portion of the population is excluded (e.g., those who did not volunteer). One of the 

most common types of non-probability sample is called a convenience sample – not because such samples are 

necessarily easy to recruit, but because the researcher uses whatever individuals are available rather than selecting 

from the entire population (Babbie, 1975). 

For the attentive public survey we used a mailing list, consisting of 400 names, provided to us by the BLM 

Grand Junction Field Office. This list consisted of members of the local communities and other people who had 

attended a BLM public meeting or were actively involved in decision-making processes regarding recreation on 

public lands in Mesa County, Colorado within the past two years. Several studies have looked at the difference 

between the general and attentive publics (Pierce and others, 1982: Lamb and Cline, 2003). These studies have 

found that the attentive public is composed of individuals who are more likely to have direct personal experience in 

dealing with recreation management issues, tend to be members of civic organizations, and are more frequently 

involved in policy issues that might help shape public opinion. Although there were many more people who could 

have been identified as having concerns or opinions regarding the management of the CCNCA, this list of 

respondents were of key interest and were accessible given the time are resources available. The respondents were 

not meant to be representative of the larger population potentially affected by CCNCA management strategies, 

rather they were selected to obtain a view of the ranges of attitudes regarding recreation management. Because some 

members of the population had no chance of being sampled, the extent to which this sample actually represents the 

entire population cannot be known. Therefore this data is not intended to be representative or generalizable of the 

members of the local community. 

The survey instrument was administered as a mail survey. We anticipated a deliverable rate of 95% 

(useable addresses). The results of the mail survey were expected to provide us with input from the “attentive 

public” and to determine if there are differences in fee attitudes between members of the general public who recreate 

on public lands and members of the “attentive public” who are actively involved in decision-making regarding 

recreation on public lands. 

Following the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000), a cover letter accompanied the survey explaining 

the purpose and goals of the study, and requesting participation. The survey instrument was mailed by the staff at the 

BLM Grand Junction field office and received by PASA. For the purposes of confidentiality, all connections 

between respondent address and identification number were eliminated when completed questionnaires were 

received. No lists of respondent addresses were retained after data collection was completed. Respondent address 

lists, return envelopes, and address labels were disposed of by shredding. Only the identification number was 

recorded in the database. These efforts expected to yield a response rate of at least 70%. A total of 203 respondents 

completed and returned the survey for a response rate of 66% (Table 2). 

6
 
The data were analyzed through the use of SPSS®11.0. In order to meet the stated objectives of our study 

plan, we subjected the data to a series of comparative analyses. Data analysis began with descriptive statistics to 

display the responses from the respondents. Parametric, nonparametric and cross tabulations were performed to 

identify any major differences or similarities in the responses to survey questions. The use of means, distribution, 

cross-tabulations, etc. provided information about program areas that are being considered as possible fee 

demonstration sites. One objective of the attentive public survey was to obtain rough indicators of relative 

acceptance of proposed management strategies. The general trends discovered can be used to assist the CCNCA 

recreation planners and staff with the development of the alternative strategies for the RMP. This research can also 

benefit management by providing an understanding of current public attitudes about events and preferences for 

management alternatives that may be related to the benefits of a fee demonstration program. This research could be 

used to enhance the ability of resource managers to forecast changes in public sentiment, in turn, improving 

mutually beneficial relationships between the agency and stakeholders. The managers and planners will be able to 

use the results of this survey to focus their attention on resources and areas addressed in their RMP. 

The mail survey was not intended to generalize an entire population; it was designed to provide information 

that will help the BLM meet the requirements of their RMP process. However, from these results, managers will be 

aware of the concerns of an attentive public, people who have an active interest in the CCNCA, and that public’s 

response to proposed management actions and their preferences for resource conditions. 

Findings 

Demographics 

CCNCA Visitor Survey – recreational users were similar in their income distribution and work status while differing 

in age, gender, education, and the number of people in a household. 

• Kokopelli Loops had the youngest age distribution, Loma the most equal split of older and younger 

respondents, and Rabbit Valley the greatest percentage of respondents over 50. Kokopelli Loops had 

the largest percentage of young male, nonresident respondents with college degrees or higher who 

reported one-person households. Rabbit Valley had the largest percentage of local respondents and 

Loma had the largest number of respondents reporting a household of 3 or more people. 

• The Devils Canyon respondents were predominately local, with a mean age and income similar to that 

of other sites. Age groups were split almost equally between the 35–49 age range and 50 and above. 

Respondents were predominately female, not retired, college graduates, and part of a two-person 

household. 

Attentive Public Survey – respondents were predominately middle-aged males (mean age of 53.5 years). More than 

two thirds of the respondents were self-reported as being residents of Mesa County, CO (Grand Junction, Fruita, 

etc.). Incomes varied widely, the self reported mean income was $55,000 annually (Table 3). 

Recreational Use Patterns 

CCNCA Visitor Survey – the majority of respondents across sites reported having an excellent or good experience. 

The travel distance and time spent recreating differed significantly among sites. 

• A large majority of respondents at Kokopelli Loops, Loma, and Rabbit Valley reported having an 

excellent or good experience recreating and almost all indicated that they intended to return. The 

majority of users reported visiting a site 1–3 times in the last 12 months. 

7
 
Table 3. Demographic data from each survey. 

Median age 

Median income 

Attentive 

public survey 

CCNCA Visitor’s Survey 

Rabbit 

Valley Loma 

Kokopelli 

Loops 

Devil’s 

Canyon 

54 

$70,289 

44 

$75,283 

42 

$68,678 

39 

78,938 

49 

62,500 

100% because of non-response. 

The following responses are reported as percentages (%) unless otherwise noted. Also note that frequencies may be less than 

Gender (n = 196) (n = 225) (n = 200) (n = 229) (n = 92) 

Male 73 57 59 73 40 

Female 27 43 41 27 60 

Level of education (n = 196) (n = 228) (n = 195) (n = 226) (n = 91) 

 High school or less 6 1 1 2 1 

Some college/Associate Degree 21 14 6 2 14 

 College Graduate or Post-graduate degree 73 58 69 78 63 

Income (n = 154) (n = 203) (n = 188) (n = 213) (n = 83) 

 Less than $24,999 12 10 13 12 14 


 $25,000 – $49,999 
 31 30 25 22 29 


 $50,000 – $74,999 
 58 24 20 25 33 


 $75,000 – $99,999 
 15 
 13 19 19 12 

 More than $100,000 38 
 24 15 21 12 

• There is a significant difference among sites with regard to travel distance and time spent recreating. 

Kokopelli Loops respondents reported traveling farther and recreating longer than respondents at other 

sites. The Rabbit Valley recreational pattern differs significantly from the other two sites in that there 

are opportunities for more multi-use activities and it includes users from a larger region. 

• At Devils Canyon, more than 95% of recreational users reported their intent to return, with 75% fewer 

respondents reporting that their recreational experience was excellent or good. Due to the proximity of 

the site to a residential area, use patterns are predominately local, frequent, and between two–three 

hours in duration. 

Attentive Public Survey – although there were no significant differences among the respondents. 

• Close to half of the respondents traveled less than 2 hours, one way, to reach their recreational site. 

One quarter traveled between 3 and 5 hours, while the remaining 25% travel more than 6 hours to 

reach their recreational site. 

• 88% reported that their recreational experience was either excellent or good. 

• More than three quarters of the respondents reported that they were able to enjoy physical exercise in a 

natural environment. And 82% said that the time at their chosen recreational site allowed them to get 

away from a developed setting to a natural setting. Almost all (95%) indicated that they would return 

to the site. 

Attitudes Toward Management and Fees 

CCNCA Visitor Survey – willingness to pay a fee varied between sites while support for undeveloped use was 

evident across sites. 

• At the Loma and Kokopelli Loops sites, more than 70% of the respondents were willing to pay a fee 

(of the fee ranges presented). However, at Rabbit Valley where there were more local respondents, 

there was slightly less willingness to pay a fee and at Devils Canyon, where the majority of users were 

local and it is near a residential area, less than half (around 45%) were willing to pay a fee. 

8 
• Respondents at Kokopelli Loops, Loma, and Rabbit Valley reported support for undeveloped use and 

recreation restrictions to limit resource impacts. Across sites, respondents indicated that not developing 

any facilities, and managing sites for undeveloped use was a good idea. Respondents at all sites also 

indicated that restricting recreation to limit impact on rare plants and wildlife species was a good idea. 

Differences appeared in management options that included some degree of development action. There 

are significant differences between sites regarding developing for more recreational experiences, trails, 

and day use. 

• Across sites, respondents noted that guided tours of the area were a bad idea while using fees for 

education/interpretive materials (such as maps and brochures), toilets, and maintenance for roads and 

trails was a good idea. Respondents at all sites registered even greater support for wildlife protection, 

indicating that it was a good idea. 

• No significant differences were found among sites regarding fee equity for low-income recreational 

users. Overall, respondents indicated that it was a good idea to not assess a fee on weekdays or on 

select weekends. 

• No significant differences were found between sites in regards to recreational displacement if a fee 

were imposed. Slightly more than half of all respondents reported that they would continue to visit as 

often if a fee were implemented at the site. Devils Canyon respondents were fairly evenly distributed 

between the three possibilities on the affect of fees on visitation. Almost 30% would continue to visit, 

while slightly more than 30% would visit less often or would go recreate at another location and/or do 

some other activity. 

Attentive Public Survey – the majority of the respondents were willing to pay a fee, however there were several 

caveats linked to this willingness – such as wanting the managing agency to receive the fees and the monies should 

be spent to manage and protect the resources of the area. 

• Nearly three-quarters of the attentive public survey respondents indicated that they thought that it is a 

good idea to spend monies collected from fees on wildlife/habitat protection, dinosaur/fossil 

protection, educational materials, law enforcement, toilets and parking, and roads and trails. 

• A total of 107 out of 203 attentive survey respondents were willing to pay a small fee (between $1–5) 

to use NCA. Responses of willingness to pay $1, $2, $3, or $4 accounted for 90% of all respondents. 

Conclusions 

This study was conducted to seek information about the perceptions and experiences of visitors to the 

CCNCA and sought to identify future recreation and visitation patterns. The results from the surveys reflect the 

visitor’s direct experiences at the CCNCA. Managers can use this information to develop a range of management 

options associated with visitor use and natural resource management. 

What should managers and land-use planners take from these results? First, our research has highlighted 

that people prefer collective activities like spending time with friends, families, equally as well as time alone to 

experience the landscape (Taylor and others, 1999; Ponds, 2000). Managers could highlight the places and 

landscapes, described by this research, that provide opportunities for family-related activities, as well as 

opportunities for spending time alone. Next, this information allows managers to develop management plans that 

include quality of life, sense of place, and recreation resource management referred to in the BLM’s priorities for 

recreation and visitor services (see BLM Work Plan FY2003–2007). By doing this, managers and planners will be 

able to provide quality experiences for people who have varying degrees of attachments to the resource. 

There are two messages that emerge from this study: one is that finding strategies that engage people, 

encourage partnerships, and elevate the idea of public service requires multiple efforts, combining different means 

of discovering the values that ensure a quality experience and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources on public 

lands. Value of place and quality of life are critical elements to consider when making land and resource decisions, 

these values are especially sensitive to changes imposed on the landscape. 

9
 
The second message is that, people who are more engaged in the landscape tend to be more critically 

concerned with its maintenance, and more likely to have factored the environment into their decision to choose the 

locale, in this case the CCNCA, as their place of preferred recreation. Schreyer and Knopf (1984) suggested that 

individuals with a strong place attachment serve as reliable indicators of place quality for a variety of user groups. 

Finally, this type of research can serve as a useful tool for identifying individuals or groups who ought to 

be included in public involvement processes. One of the most important roles for the agency is to establish 

mechanisms to listen to citizen concerns. Community residents and visitors can contribute invaluable knowledge 

about local, ecological, societal, and economical perspective to the discussion of natural resource management. 

Integrating this type of knowledge into resource planning and management would represent a significant shift in the 

natural resource and land management philosophy, because it would recognize that people are an integral part of 

ecological systems. 

Section 2 

CCNCA Visitor Survey 

Recreational Profile: Loma, Kokopelli Loops, and Rabbit Valley 

Demographic Description 

Differences in age, number in household, and education were found to be significant between sites. 

Kokopelli Loops had the youngest age distribution, Loma the most equal split of older and younger respondents, and 

Rabbit Valley the greatest percentage of respondents over 50. The differences in income distribution between Rabbit 

Valley and Kokopelli Loops respondents were not significant, nor were differences in work status—most 

respondents were not retired. There were significant differences between sites in residency, education, the number of 

people in a household, and residency. Kokopelli Loops had the largest percentage of male, nonresident respondents 

with college degrees or higher who reported one-person households. Loma had the largest number of respondents 

reporting a household of three or more people. Rabbit Valley had the largest number of respondents who live within 

Mesa County, Colorado and/or within 65 miles of the CCNCA sites. A comparison of demographics across sites is 

presented in the Table 4 below. 

Recreational Use Pattern 

There is a significant difference between sites with regards to travel distance and time spent recreating. 

Kokopelli Loops respondents reported traveling farther and recreating longer than respondents at other sites. The 

Rabbit Valley recreational pattern differs significantly from the other two sites in that there are opportunities for 

more multi-use activities and includes users from a larger region. The largest percentage of respondents traveling 

less than 100 miles was at Rabbit Valley. Motorcycle/OHV riding, mountain bike riding, and hiking were the three 

main activities reported at Rabbit Valley while Kokopelli Loops respondents listed mountain biking as their primary 

main activity and Loma respondents listed kayaking and rafting. A large majority of respondents at all sites reported 

having an excellent or good experience recreating and almost all indicated that they intended to return. The range in 

number of visits was the same across sites, some respondents reported visiting for the first time while the majority 

has visited the site 1–3 times in the last 12 months. A comparison of recreational patterns between sites is presented 

in Table 5 below. 

10
 

Table 4. Demographic data from each site and the aggregate sample. 

Rabbit Valley Loma Kokopelli Loops 

Median age 43 42 39 42 

Median income $68,678.19 $78,938.97 $74,516.56 

Age groupsa

 Below 35 

35–49 

29.7% 

34.7 

35.6 

26.2% 

45.6 

28.2 

33.9% 

52.0 

14.1 

30.1% 

44.1 

25.8 

21.2 22.3 18.3 20.5 

41.9 39.4 39.0 40.1 

36.9 38.3 42.7 39.4 

Non-local (residing more than 65 a 58.7 67.7 87.0 71.4 

Maleb 57.3 59.0 72.9 63.3 

87.6 93.0 91.1 91.4 

Post-graduate degreea 58.4 69.5 78.3 65.9 

Number in householdb

 1 person 18.0 15.4 24.0 19.3 

2 people 42.8 32.8 44.0 40.2 

39.2 51.8 32.0 40.5 

All three sites 

$75,283.25 

 50 and above 

Income levels 

 Below $40,000 

 $40,000–$69,000 

 $70,000 and above 

miles away from the site) 

Not retired 

College graduate or 

 3 people or more 

a

P <.000 

b

P <.001 

Table 5. Recreational patterns at each site and the aggregate sample. 

Rabbit Valley Loma Kokopelli Loops 

152.53 165.96 257.82 193.21 

3.13 3.76 5.09 4.01 

Mean number of hours recreated 2.28 1.60 2.12 2.02 

a

 Less than 100 47.0% 42.6% 16.7% 35.1% 

100–199 17.2 13.8 18.6 16.6 

200–299 20.7 29.8 46.1 32.4 

15.2 13.8 18.6 15.9 

1–3 68.4 71.2 74.1 74.2 

4–6 11.4 17.8 11.1 13.8 

8.8 11.0 14.8 12.0 

Hours recreateda 

11.0 51.3 14.4 24.3 

3–8 49.3 37.4 59.0 49.2 

39.6 11.3 26.6 26.5 

Day hiking, mountain 

biking Rafting/ 

a 

Motorcycle/OHV 

62.7 

kayaking 

72.1 

Mountain biking 

89.6 

mountain biking 

63.9 

93.7 87.0 99.6 93.7 

Intend to return 98.2 93.8 99.6 98.9 

All three sites 

Mean travel distance 

Mean number of visits in 12 months 

Travel distance 

 300 and above 

Number of times visited 

 7 or more 

 2 or less 

 9 and up 

Kayaking/rafting or 

Most important activity 

Excellent/good recreational experience 

a

P<.000 

11 

Attitudes Toward Management and Fees: Loma, Kokopelli Loops, and Rabbit Valley 

Management Options 

In a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of management options, there are significant differences 

between sites regarding developing more recreational experiences, developing trails, and developing day use areas. 

On average, respondents at all sites reported support for undeveloped use and recreation restrictions to limit resource 

impacts. Across sites, respondents indicated that not developing any facilities, and managing sites for undeveloped 

use was a good idea. Respondents at all sites also indicated that restricting recreation to limit impact on rare plants 

and wildlife species was a good idea. Differences appeared in management options that included some degree of 

development action. Respondents differed in their support of developing “recreational experience opportunities”. 

Rabbit Valley registered less support for that option than Loma and Kokopelli Loops. Respondents also differed in 

their support of trail development for motorized off-road vehicle trail loops. Kokopelli Loops and Loma respondents 

reported that such development was a bad idea while Rabbit Valley respondents were more mixed, leaning more 

toward support. Day use areas were supported more by Kokopelli Loops respondents than respondents from Rabbit 

Valley or Loma. In written comments, Kokopelli Loops respondents mentioned the need for potable water, more sun 

shelters and perhaps more toilets. A comparison of mean scores is presented in Table 6 below. 

Table 6. Mean scores by site for management options from Q17. 

“Listed below are a few management options for Rabbit Valley. Please circle the number that indicates what you think about the following 

options.” [range: “1”very good idea – “4” very bad idea] 

Devmorea Nodev Restrict a Devtrail Dayusea 

Kokopelli Loops Mean 2.55 2.00 2.25 3.44 2.61 

N 228 227 228 232 229 

Standard 

deviation .994 .984 .892 .919 .860 

Loma Mean 2.93 2.11 2.40 3.56 2.33 

N 199 202 201 202 203 

Standard 

deviation 1.144 1.168 1.059 .972 .913 

Rabbit Valley Mean 2.52 2.22 2.25 2.51 2.26 

N 220 218 219 220 219 

Standard 

deviation 1.062 1.006 1.051 1.214 .864 

Total Mean 2.66 2.11 2.30 3.17 2.40 

N 647 647 648 654 651 

Standard 

deviation 1.079 1.054 1.002 1.141 .890 a 

P <.000
 


Devmore: Developing more recreational experience opportunities at ________ (name of recreational site). 
 


Nodev: Not developing any facilities, and managing Rabbit valley for undeveloped use only. 
 


Restrict: Restricting recreation at Rabbit Valley to limit impact on rare plants and wildlife species. 
 


Devtrail: Developing motorized off-road vehicle trail loops, managing for all-terrain vehicles and motorcycle use. 
 


Dayuse: Adding day-use areas such as picnic areas, etc.
 


12
 

Site Educ Tours Toilet Road Lawenfa 

Camp 

areas b 

Wild 

pro Dinoproa 

Cultural 

resources a 

Kokopelli Loops Mean 2.34 3.12 2.10 1.89 2.83 2.48 1.80 1.76 1.80 

Loma 

N 

Standard 

deviation 

Mean 

223 

.822 

2.43 

224 

.816 

3.25 

228 

.804 

2.04 

227 

.733 

2.16 

223 

.970 

2.73 

227 

.928 

2.37 

226 

.766 

1.86 

225 

.860 

2.00 

224 

.871 

2.05 

N 

Standard 

deviation 

Mean 

198 

.979 

2.17 

199 

.982 

3.15 

201 

1.001 

2.14 

199 

.918 

1.99 

197 

1.094 

2.45 

200 

1.029 

2.16 

198 

.943 

1.75 

199 

1.110 

1.56 

202 

1.218 

1.59 

Total 

N 

Standard 

deviation 

Mean 

217 

.863 

2.31 

214 

.826 

3.17 

224 

.939 

2.10 

220 

.924 

2.01 

216 

1.046 

2.67 

222 

.862 

2.34 

222 

.912 

1.80 

223 

.768 

1.76 

223 

.833 

1.81 

N 638 637 653 646 636 649 646 647 649 

Rabbit Valley 

Options for Using Fees 

In a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of options for using fees, there are significant differences 

between sites regarding the use of fees for law enforcement, camping areas, and the protection of dinosaur fossils 

and cultural resources (such as prehistoric rock art and historical buildings). Across sites, respondents noted that 

guided tours of the area were a bad idea while using fees for education/interpretive materials (such as maps and 

brochures), toilets, and maintenance for roads and trails was a good idea. Respondents at all sites registered even 

greater support for wildlife protection, indicating, on average, that it was a good idea. Kokopelli Loops respondents 

indicated greater support for using fees to subsidize camping areas with some written comments indicating that 

either primitive campsites or passes to the state park would be preferred options. Support for using fees on the 

protection of dinosaur fossils and cultural resources differed in part because of the presence of either at the site. 

Kokopelli Loops and Rabbit Valley respondents, on average, indicated that protecting fossil and cultural resources 

was a very good idea, while Loma respondents were less supportive. A comparison of mean scores is presented in 

Table 7 below. 

Table 7. Mean scores by site for the use of fees from Q18. 

 “If fees were collected at Rabbit Valley, the money could be used in a number of ways. Please circle the number that indicates what you think 

about the following options.” [range: “1”very good idea – “4” very bad idea] 

Standard 

deviation .892 .874 .914 .865 1.047 .947 .874 .932 .997 

a

P <.000 

b

P <.001 

Educ: Educational and interpretive materials such as maps Tours: Guided tours of the area 

Toilet: Toilets and parking Road: Road and trail maintenance 

Lawenf: Law enforcement Campareas: Camping areas 

Wildpro: Wildlife and habitat protection Dinopro: protection of dinosaur fossil locations 

Cultural Resources: Protection of cultural resources such as historical buildings 

and prehistoric art 

Options for the Types of Fees 

Across sites, no significance difference was found on preferences for fee types. On average, respondents at 

all sites supported the different types of fees proposed and indicated that they would be a good idea. Some 

respondents (<5%) did not respond to this question and many instead wrote “No Fees!” in large letters across the 

question. Other respondents added comments to help explain their choices. These written comments are provided in 

Appendix (B). A comparison of mean scores is presented in Table 8 below. 

13
 
Table 8. Mean scores by site for the type of fees from Q19. 

“What do you think about fee-permitting options at Rabbit Valley? Please circle the number that indicates what you think.” [range: “1”very good 

idea – “4” very bad idea] 

feestay feeres ncapass feehiuse feerec blmpass fedpass 

Kokopelli Loops Mean 2.22 2.55 2.25 2.63 2.08 2.07 2.12

N 225 226 222 224 224 222 216 

Standard 

deviation .889 .971 .907 .938 .900 .970 .992 

Loma 

2.11 2.12 

2.14 2.17 

Mean 

Mean 2.10 2.66 2.19 2.60 2.26 

Mean 2.21 2.62 2.26 2.63 2.20 

2.32 2.66 2.35 2.68 2.27 2.25 2.26 

N 198 197 194 196 197 199 195 

Standard 

deviation 1.020 1.001 1.044 .973 .972 1.047 1.088 

Rabbit Valley 

N 218 221 217 220 220 219 219 

Standard 

deviation .908 .943 .936 .904 .948 .968 .967 

Total 

N 641 644 633 640 641 640 630 

Standard 

deviation .940 .970 .961 .937 .942 .995 1.015 

Feestay: Different fees for different lengths of recreational stay (for example, a week versus a day). 
 


Feeres: Different fees for residents vs. non-residents 
 


Ncapass: An annual pass that includes the Colorado National Monument and the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area.
 


Feehiuse: An entrance fee for high-use periods such as holidays and weekends. 
 


Feerec: A fee for specific recreation use, such as the use of camping sites.
 


Blmpass: An annual pass that would allow you to visit all BLM locations as often as you would like.
 


Fedpass: An annual pass for all of the areas within the region managed by different federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
 


National Park Service, and the BLM).
 


Fee Equity

 No significant differences were found among sites regarding fee equity for low-income recreational users. 

Overall, respondents indicated that it was a good idea to not assess a fee on weekdays or on select weekends. As 

with the other fee question, some respondents chose not to respond to this question and instead wrote “No Fees!” 

across the question. Other respondents took the time to provide other suggestions that they thought might be feasible 

as well as their thoughts on fee equity. These written comments are provided in the Appendix. A comparison of 

mean scores is presented in Table 9 below. 

Recreational Displacement 

No significant differences were found between sites in regards to recreational displacement if a fee were 

imposed. Slightly more than half of all respondents reported that they would continue to visit as often if a fee were 

implemented at the site. An almost equal percentage of respondents report that they would either visit less often 

(22.5%) or go somewhere else/do something else (24.6%). A comparison between sites is presented in Table 10 

below. 

14
 

Table 9. Mean scores by site for fee equity options for Q23. 

“If a fee were collected at Rabbit Valley, people with a limited income may stop visiting this location. The BLM would like to know which fee 

options would allow people with a limited income to continue to visit Rabbit valley. Please circle the number that indicates what you think about 

the following options” [range: “1”very good idea – “4” very bad idea] 

nofeewk nofeewknd 

Kokopelli Loops Mean 1.99 2.16 

N 195 194 

Standard deviation .969 .946 

Loma Mean 2.15 2.16 

N 174 173 

Standard deviation .997 .998 

Rabbit Valley Mean 2.03 1.96 

N 182 182 

Total 

Standard deviation 

Mean 

.907 

2.05 

.885 

2.09 

N 551 549 

Standard deviation .959 .947 

Nofeewk: No fees would be charged on weekdays 

Nofeewknd: No fees would be charged on selected weekends 

Table 10. Comparison between sites on whether fees would affect visitation from Q22. 

“If the BLM collected a recreation fee at Rabbit Valley, how likely would the fee affect your visits to Rabbit Valley in the future?” 

Options Rabbit Valley (%) Loma (%) Kokopelli Loops (%) All sites (% )

Continue to visit as often if fee 44.7 58.9 54.9 52.9 

Would visit less often if fee 27.4 20.8 19.6 22.5 

Would go / do something else 27.9 20.3 25.5 24.6 

Section 3 

Attentive Public Survey 

In addition to the primary ob ective of the overall study, the attentive public survey also investigated: (1) j

visitors’ preferences regarding visitor use and recreational experiences at the CCNCA, (2) the important differences 

between local and non-local residents regarding their attitudes about the management of the CCNCA and; (3) the 

important difference between local and non-local regarding their attitudes about paying a fee to visit the CCNCA. 

In the spring of 2003 we sent a questionnaire 5 by mail to 400 potential respondents who had attended BLM 

public meetings, within the past two years, or were actively involved in decision-making regarding recreation on 

public lands in Mesa County, Colorado. A total of 203 respondents completed and returned the survey for a response 

rate of 66% (Table 11) which is above the minimum response rate of 50% called for by Dillman (2000). Response 

rates ranged from just 75% of Mesa County Residents (local) to 25% of Non-Residents (non-local). These analyses 

Approval to conduct the survey was obtained through the formal OMB approval process (OMB Control Number 

1040-0001. 

15
 

5 
separate the visitor into two groups: local and non-local visitors. The division reflects the likelihood that local 

visitors would have a different propensity to visit a near area than non-local visitors pursuing other recreation 

activities. The assessments presented in this section generally focus on the relationship between the local and nonlocal visitor. 

Table 11. Response rate for Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area visitor use survey. 

Total addresses 400 

Undeliverable addresses 91 

Respondents 203 

Response rate 66% 

This section of the report provides a recreational profile and a summary of responses from the attentive 

public survey. Please note that frequencies may range from 99% to 101% due to rounding. 

Recreational Profile 

Questionnaire results are presented in sections beginning with a descriptive approach to survey 

respondents, moving to a comparison of respondent characteristics, then proceeding to focused questions designed 

to understand willingness to pay user fees, as well as perceived impacts and general opinions about recreation and 

resource management. A complete listing of all survey data is given in Appendix C. 

Demographic Description – in general, a majority of the respondents were males (73%), middle-aged 

(mean age of 53.5 years), and well educated (73% had a college or post-graduate degree). Two thirds of the 

respondents (75%) are self-reported as being residents of Mesa County, Colorado (Grand Junction, Fruita, etc.). 

Incomes varied widely, the self reported mean income was $55,000 annually (Appendix C). 

Recreational Use Patterns – a variety of researchers have explored the emotional attachments, feelings, and 

personal experiences that people have about specific places or landscapes (Mitchell and others, 1991; Rasker and 

Glick, 1994; Purcell and others, 1994; Taylor and others, 1995, 1999, 2000; Ponds, 2001; Warzecha and Lime, 

2001). A close relationship between humans and their surroundings often leads to an attachment to important places 

that ultimately hold special meaning or value (Warzecha and Lime, 2001). The concept of sense of place in 

environmental management represents an integral component of ecosystem management, because it recognizes that 

people are a part of ecosystems; and that human pursuit of past, present, and future desires, needs, and values 

(including perceptions, beliefs, values, and behaviors) influences ecosystem management (Cordell et al. 1999). 

Cordell and his colleagues go further to suggest that in principle and practice, contemporary ecosystem management 

should consider physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, social, cultural, and economic well being (Cordell and others, 

1999). 

Most visitors come to the area to slow down/relax and get way from the city to an undeveloped area (83%), 

enjoy physical exercise in natural environment (91%). On average the respondents reported that being able to 

experience the environment in a setting such as the CCNCA was very important to their recreational experiences. 

There was not a significant enough difference between the visitors in each category to report here. Table 12 shows 

the percentages of the responses in each category. 

In some of our previous research on the Colorado Plateau, for example, local residents and “old timers” had 

issues with new comers coming into the area and “messing up everything” (Ponds, 2001). All of the respondents 

seemed to have a healthy respect for the environment and wanted to preserve it for future generations. 

Recreational and use patterns were consistent between both groups as well. Most of the respondents live in 

the area and acknowledged the CCNCA as being a part of their “backyard.” This is a place where they can enjoy 

everyday activities such as walking, running, bike riding, etc. There was not a noticeable concern among local 

residents about non-locals using the area for recreational purposes (Table 13). 

16
 
Table 12. Importance of recreational experiences by respondent characteristics. 

Mesa County Non- Not 

Male Female resident resident Retired Retired 

Importance of experience (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Total (% )

Able to enjoy physical exercise in a 

natural environment 75 87 7 0 74 81 91 

while 

Helped me to slow down and relax for a 67 83 73 63 52 80 83 

Helped me to better understand the 

environment and the history of the area 61 46 56 29 63 56 82 

Able to be active in a dynamic setting 

instead of reading about it 72 73 75 62 70 75 79 

Allowed me to enjoy a range of physical 

challenges 52 50 56 40 55 51 77 

family 

I was able to share this experience with my 54 64 61 40 57 57 65 

It was intellectually stimulating 39 39 38 39 39 40 62 

Allowed me to get away from a developed 

setting to a natural environment 81 90 13 15 81 85 60 

I did something here that I've never done 

before 9 25 11 21 7 17 55 

Table 13. Distribution of recreational activities by respondent characteristics. 

Mesa County Non- Not 

Male Female resident residential Retired Retired 

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

Day hiking 73 79 77 65 82 72 

Walking/running 19 27 22 19 14 24 

Picnicking 23 17 21 27 24 21 

Mountain bike riding 29 14 23 25 19 31 

Motorcycle/OHV riding 8 10 10 4 7 8 

Backpacking/backcountry 18 12 11 29 7 21 

Camping near vehicles 12 6 11 17 2 1 

Horseback riding 8 19 13 4 16 8 

Tubing 3 2 2 6 3 3 

Kayaking/rafting 28 25 22 40 15 33 

Fishing 8 6 8 6 0 11 

Sunbathing 6 10 5 13 9 3 

Viewing fossils or rock art 30 48 34 35 31 37 

Wildlife watching 54 44 50 50 55 50 

Scenery 69 56 69 54 81 59 

Photography 46 48 43 54 47 47 

Motor boating 3 6 4 4 0 6 

Hunting camp 4 4 4 4 0 6 

17 

Attitudes Toward Management and Fees 

Management Options – regarding management options for the CCNCA, more than half of the respondents 

were in favor of not developing any facilities and that recreation in the area should be restricted to limit the impacts 

on rare plants and wildlife species (Table 14). The largest percentage of respondents indicated that not developing 

any facilities, and managing the area for undeveloped use was a good idea. In a written comment one respondent 

stated: 

“The BLM is a crucial and very important entity in the preservation and protection of our natural 

lands. It is our increasing perception that the emphasis for the BLM and many lands in Colorado 

is a bias to development and more intensive and inappropriate uses and activities on these lands. 

It seems the needs for short term exploitation or inappropriate uses such as off-road vehicles is 

taking precedent over the need for long term balanced preservation and appropriate human 

activities on these lands. We are active users of recreational low impact visitation to these lands 

and it seems most of the citizens of this state would agree with this. Often more local and intrusive 

users are given too much influence over these decisions. These lands belong to all not just those 

whom by reason of geography or location may be closer to these areas” (Appendix D). 

Respondents differed in their support for day use areas. Non-residents were more supportive of adding 
 

picnic areas, toilets, and camping areas for day camping. Local respondents were less in favor of these types of 
 

amenities (Table 14). Local respondents indicated greater support for limiting the amount of recreational 
 

opportunities (65%) and motorized vehicle use in the area (79%). One responded suggested the following in their 
 

written comment: 
 

“Restrict the number of motorized conveniences. While mountain bikes are mechanized they are 

quiet. Put the 4-wheelers out at the Go-Kart track east of GJ. Don't let Rabbit Valley be the 

Yellowstone of ATVs!” (Appendix D) 

Table 14. Percentages of respondents who agreed that the following management options were a “good idea.” 

Mesa County Non- Not 

Male Female resident resident Retired Retired 

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

Developing more recreational opportunities 

at this location 35 17 34 22 34 29 

Not developing any facilities, and manage 

this area for undeveloped use only 57 65 49 83 53 62 

Restrict recreation in this area to limit 

impact on rare plants and wildlife species 55 71 55 71 61 58 

Develop a series of motorized off-road 

vehicle trail loops, managing for all-terrain 
 

vehicles and motorcycle use. 
 

24 19 21 22 15 26 

Add all-day use areas such as picnic areas 46 42 38 48 46 45 

Attitudes Toward Fees – charging fees for use of public lands can be controversial (Kerr and Manfredo, 

1991; McCarville, 1995) and managers of public lands are often concerned about public acceptance of the 

introduction of new fees. In order to understand the respondent’s attitudes toward paying a fee to visit the Colorado 

Canyons NCA and how monies collected from fees should be spent, we asked four questions. The third question 

asked consisted of two parts: part A asked the respondent if they would be willing to pay an amount between $1 and 

$5 to visit the CCNCA. (This amount was agreed upon in consultation with the BLM management staff as the lower 

18 
 
and higher amount for fees.) In general, 107 out of 203 respondents (53%) were pretty open to paying a small fee 

(between $1–5) to use NCA (Table 15). 

Table 15. Frequency distribution of respondents’ willingness toward paying a fee to use Colorado Canyons NCA. 

Fee amount 
 

Number of respondents 

answering 

“Yes” 

Number of respondents 

answering 
 

“No” No answer 

$1 23 13 0 

$2 24 3 1 

$3 25 20 7 

$4 26 23 3 

$5 10 23 2 

Total (n = 203) 108 82 13 

Because we were also concerned about public acceptance and the risks of reduced visitation, part B of this 

question, asked the respondents who indicted that they would not be willing to pay the amount listed to indicate why 

(Table 16). Of the 82 respondents answering “No” to this question 28 (34%) said that they were opposed to paying 

for the use and maintenance of public lands. 

Table 16. Distribution of respondents answering “no” concerning the payment of $1– 5 fee to visit the CCNCA. 

I would pay but not this much 6% 
 

I cannot afford to pay this much 
 3% 
 

It is unfair to expect me to pay for better management of these lands 
 3% 
 

I am opposed to paying for the use of public lands for recreational purposes 
 17% 
 

I am opposed to paying the government for maintenance of these public lands 
 17% 
 

I come here now because it is free. 
 2% 
 

No answer 48% 
 

We wanted to know how the respondent felt about fee collection as a future management option for the 

BLM. These questions were structured for response on 5-point Likert scales of agreement. The responses shown in 

the table below were collapsed into good idea and bad idea. The respondents were asked, “... if fees were collected 

at the Colorado Canyons NCA, how should the money be used? (Table 17). Three-quarters of the respondents 

indicated that they thought that it is a good idea to spend monies collected from fees on wildlife/habitat protection 

(75%), dinosaur/fossil protection (73%), educational materials (69%), law enforcement (67%), toilets and parking 

(64%), and Roads and trails (61%). Local residents agreed that monies collected from fees should be spent on 

wildlife habitat protection (78%), increased law enforcement (74%), educational materials (73%), and more toilets 

and parking (71%). However, more than half of the local residents said that it was a bad idea to spend monies on 

guided tours of the area. 

More than one third of the respondent agreed that if recreation use fees were implemented, then they would 

like for them to be in places where the user can easily recognize and appreciate generally what the fee provides. At 

the same time, more than three quarters of the respondents said that any recreation use fees should first be used to 

operate and maintain the facilities from which they are collected and that managers should be given authority to use 

the balance of collected fees elsewhere in the CCNCA on other recreational priorities. 

19
 

Table 17. Distribution of how monies collected from fees should be spent, as a percentage. 

Good idea (%) Bad idea (%) 

75 6 

Dinosaur and fossil protection 73 8 

Educational materials 69 18 

67 20 

Toilets and parking 64 23 

Roads and trails 61 24 

Camping areas 41 43 

23 59 

/ 

Table 18 

Mesa 

County Non- Not 

Male Female resident resident Retired retired 

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

61 67 67 50 63 64 

resident 70 46 30 10 15 29 

68 75 71 62 73 70 

Monument 

An entrance fee for high use periods 41 42 43 40 44 41 

the use of camping sites 65 62 67 60 68 60 

visit all BLM locations as often as you 66 65 71 52 63 68 

would like 

61 65 66 52 68 60 

Wildlife/habitat protection 

Law enforcement 

Guided tours of the area 

Options for Types of Fees – we asked seven conditional acceptance-type questions concerning fee 

permitting options for the CCNCA (Table 18). In general, respondents supported the idea of an annual pass that 

included the CCNCA and the Colorado National Monument as well as an annual pass that would allow them to visit 

all BLM locations as often as they would like. There were a few comments that suggested that fees were a good idea 

for large recreational groups and overnight campers. Many respondents (37%) wrote “NO FEES” across this section 

without answering any of the questions. Several respondents offered suggestions for alternatives to charging fees: 

“Local Pass" or Pass exchange for say 2 days a year of working with bonafided trail maintained 

efforts or trash pick up days. For Mack/Loma Fruita and Redlands residents this is part of your 

backyard. 3–5 remote hike-in, only overnight camp spots on a pre-reserved (extra fee to anyone 

using) basis for full moons, holiday weekend, etc.” (Appendix D). 

. Percentage of respondents that agreed that the following fee permitting options was a “good idea.” 

Different fees for different lengths of 

recreational stays 

Different fees for resident versus nonAn annual pass that includes the 

CCNCA and the Colorado National 

such as holidays and weekends 

A fee for specific recreation use, such as 

An annual pass that would allows you to 

An annual pass for all of the areas 

within the region managed by different 

federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 

U.S. Forest Service, and the BLM) 

20 
 
Half of the local respondents felt that they should not have to pay for something that they have “been using 

for free” all of their lives.” However, many written statements, in response to this question, revealed that the 

respondents were open to paying a small fee, if the monies from fees were used to improve the NCA and “not go 

back to Washington, DC.” While other’s suggested that paying a fee would be “double taxation” or double billing – 

because they are already paying the government once in property and income taxes. BLM should not implement a 

practice of collecting user fees for casual recreation use. Many respondents reported that the BLM should not collect 

fees to substitute for tax based funding for the basic management of public lands. 

“Stewardship of these lands and resources is the responsibility of all of the citizens and should 

continue to be funded through the managing agency budget process.” (Appendix D) 

It is interesting to note that local and non-local respondents reacted the same way to the possible collection 

of fees at the CCNCA. Both groups were interested in paying a fee only if the monies were going be used directly 

for the upkeep and maintenance of the CCNCA. The responses were almost identical concerning the distribution of 

how monies collected from fees should be spent. Across both groups the respondents felt that protecting the 

resources was the most important use of funds collected from fees followed closely by increased law enforcement. 

Although there was some disagreement about guided tour groups, there was an interest in educational awareness and 

law enforcement information about the area. This could come in the form of updated outreach materials or personal 

contact with a resource professional. In general people are more accepting of fees when they have paid fees for 

recreational experiences in the past and if the perceived benefit of paying the costs is linked to services provided. 

Finally, the dilemma associated with charging for use of public recreational opportunities is the adverse affect of 

public loyalty to particular places and the managing agency. Those most loyal to public recreation may prefer it 

primarily because of price, which is typically subsidized and therefore lowered or free (Bogle and others, 1992). 

Section 4 

Economic Analysis 

Visitor Trip Spending Results 

Spending associated with recreational and tourism activities generate considerable economic benefits for 

the local economy. A tourist usually buys a wide range of goods and services while visiting an area. Major 

expenditure categories include lodging, food, supplies, and gasoline. NCA management activities can impact the 

numbers and types of visitors. As more visitors come to an area, local businesses will purchase extra labor and 

supplies to meet the increase in demand for additional services. The income and employment resulting from visitor 

purchases from local businesses represent the direct effects of visitor spending within the economy. In order to 

increase supplies to local businesses, input suppliers must also increase their purchases of inputs from other 

industries. The income and employment resulting from these secondary purchases by input suppliers are the indirect 

effects of visitor spending within the county. The input supplier’s new employees use their incomes to purchase 

goods and services. The resulting increased economic activity from new employee income is the induced effect of 

visitor spending. The indirect and induced effects are known as the secondary or multiplier effects of visitor 

spending. Multipliers capture the size of the secondary effects, usually as a ratio of total effects to direct effects 

(Stynes, 1998). The sums of the direct and secondary effects describe the total economic impact of visitor spending 

in the local economy. 

Economic impacts are typically measured in terms of number of jobs lost or gained, and the associated 

result for employment income. Economic input-output models are commonly used to predict the total level of 

regional economic activity that would result from a change in visitor spending. The IMPLAN modeling software 

was used to analyze the economic impacts associated with NCA visitor spending. IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for 

PLANning) is a computerized database and modeling system that provides a regional input-output analysis of 

economic activity in terms of 10 industrial groups involving as many as 528 sectors (Olson and Lindall, 1996). 

21
 

For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all 

counties within a 30–60 mile radius of the impact area. Only spending that takes place within this local area is 

included as stimulating the changes in economic activity. The size of the region influences both the amount of 

spending captured and the multiplier effects. Most NCA visitor spending takes place in the Grand Junction and 

Fruita area therefore, Mesa County was assumed to comprise the economic region for this analysis. The IMPLAN 

Mesa County level data profile for the year 2000 was used in this study. The IMPLAN employment data estimates 

were comparable to the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Information System data (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003) at the 1 digit Standard Industrial Code level for the 

year 2000. 

To analyze the local economic impacts, visitors were split between locals (e.g., residents of Mesa County) 

and those living outside of the local area (hereafter referred to as non-locals). The reason for this split is two fold. 

First, Mesa County is the main focus of our impact analysis. It is the impact area. Money flowing into Mesa County 

from outside is considered new money injected into that economy. Second, if local residents visit the NCA more or 

less, they will correspondingly change their spending of money elsewhere in the local area, resulting in no net 

change to the local economy. These are standard assumptions made in most regional economic analyses at the local 

level. 

Table 19 shows the percentage of non-local visitors by area and the corresponding number of non local 

visitors per year. Annual summer visitation estimates for each visitor area were provided by the BLM. The visitation 

estimates were calculated from the monthly totals of laser counts of vehicles at Rabbit Valley, Loma, and Kokopelli 

Loops and from laser counts of individuals at Devils Canyon in 2003. The visitor survey results were used to 

determine the annual percentage of visitors that are non-local. As shown in Table 19, the majority of summer 

visitors to all three areas are non-local with Kokopelli Loops having the highest percentage of annual non-local 

visitors (86%). 

Table 19. Annual summer visitation and percent of non-local visitors. 

Annual visitation Annual # of non local 

estimates % of non local visitors visitors 

Kokopelli Loops 35,000 86% 29,936 


Loma Boat Launch 12,000 64% 7,663 


Rabbit Valley 20,000 58% 11,579 


Table 20 illustrates the average amount non-local visitors indicated spending locally in Mesa County on 

their most recent visit. Not every group had expenditures in every category, so the numbers reported in Table 20 

represent an average across all visitors, including some who had no expenditure in that category. Besides the 

categories reported in Table 20, the survey also included expenditure categories related to hunting activities (hunting 

license, taxidermy, and game processing). However, the visitor survey was distributed during the summer visitor 

season and no hunting expenditures were reported. 

Table 20 shows that on average, non local Kokopelli Loops visitors spent the most per trip ($85.42) while 

Loma Boat Launch visitors spent the least per trip ($35.42). This difference in spending per trip between the visitor 

areas is due to the average length of trip and the types of expenditures. Loma Boat launch visitors spend on average 

5 1⁄2 hours per trip, while Kokopelli Loops visitors spend on average 1.1 days and Rabbit Valley visitors spend on 

average 1.6 days. Even though Rabbit Valley visitors have a longer trip length on average than Kokopelli Loops 

visitors, average spending per trip is higher for Kokopelli Loops visitors due to spending more on local hotels and 

restaurants. 

22
 

Table 20. Average NCA visitor spending in Mesa County, Colorado. 

$ per person per trip 

Hotels 

Camping 

Restaurants 

Grocery stores 

Rental car 

Other costs 

Total spending 

Gasoline/related automobile costs 

Supplies & souvenirs 

Equipment rental 

Kokopelli Loops Loma Boat Launch 

Rabbit 

Valley 

12.60 

22.39 

5.22 

22.54 

9.46 

7.39 

1.36 

2.30 

2.16 

85.42 

7.77 

5.74 

0.85 

6.71 

9.51 

1.42 

1.21 

0.00 

2.21 

35.42 

14.59 

5.79 

1.55 

10.57 

8.46 

10.96 

2.62 

0.24 

2.16 

56.94 

Economic Impacts Associated with Visitor Spending 

The economic impacts associated with spending by NCA visitors are estimated by the following equation: 

Number of NCA visitors*average spending* regional multiplier = Economic Impact 

For the purposes of this analysis, NCA annual visitation estimates for each visitor area were provided by 

the BLM (Table 19). Survey results on visitor spending (Table 20) provide the average spending per visitor day. The 

IMPLAN modeling system was used to derive the multipliers that capture the secondary (indirect and induced) 

effects needed to determine the economic impacts of visitor spending. 

Visitor spending is typically estimated on an average per day (eight hours) and/or an average per trip basis. 

For this analysis, visitor spending was calculated on a per trip basis to keep consistent with NCA visitation records. 

As shown in Table 19, the annual non-local summer visitor trips are estimated at 29,936 for Kokopelli Loops, 7,663 

for the Loma Boat Launch site, and 11,579 for Rabbit Valley. Multiplying the annual non-local visitation estimates 

by the dollar spent per person per trip (Table 20) yields the total annual non-local visitor spending in Mesa County. 

Table 21 shows the current level of annual spending in Mesa County by non-local visitors for each management site. 

Table 21. Total annual spending in Mesa County Colorado by non-local visitors (in millions of dollars). 

Kokopelli Loops Loma Boat Launch Rabbit Valley Total 

$2,557,148 $271,436 $659,305 $3,487,889 

As shown in Table 21, the current level of NCA visitation accounts almost $3.5 million of spending 

annually by non-local visitors in Mesa County. Table 22 shows the economic impacts associated with the current 

level of NCA visitation for Mesa County by visitor area. The table shows the direct impact, the indirect impact (e.g., 

the multiplier effect), and the summed total impact of income and jobs. 

23
 

Table 22. Economic impacts of non-local visitor spending in Mesa County, Colorado. 

Mesa County 

Kokopelli 

Loops 

Loma Boat 

Launch 

Rabbit 

Valley Total 

Income ($/year) 

Jobs 

Income ($/year) 

Jobs 

Direct Effects 

Indirect and Induced Effects 

$786,498 

46.6 

$699,206 

24.0 

$70,973 

3.9 

$63,721 

2.1 

$171,070 

9.4 

$152,985 

5.1 

$1,028,541 

59.9 

$915,912 

31.2 

Total Effects 

Income ($/year) 

Jobs 

$1,485,704 

70.6 

$134,694 

6.0 

$324,055 

14.5 

$1,944,453 

91.1 

As shown in Table 22, annual CCNCA non-local visitation accounts for $1,944,453 in personal income and 

91 jobs in Mesa County. Most of the CCNCA visitor spending personal income and job impacts are in the eating 

and drinking and the hotel and lodging places industries. In 2000, Mesa County total personal income was estimated 

at $2,922,073,000 and total employment was estimated at 71,081 jobs (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003). 

Therefore, CCNCA non-local visitor spending represents approximately one-tenth of 1% of total income and 

employment in the overall Mesa County economy. Any decrease in visitation associated with a change in CCNCA 

management will not have a significant economic effect at the County level. An increase in both the length of stay 

on the CCNCA (and in the local economy) and the number of people visiting the CCNCA could have a considerable 

impact on increasing the role NCA visitors play in the local economy. 

Discussion 

The results from this study represent a snapshot of the challenges that the CCNCA managers and planner 

face concerning the increasing demands for natural resources. This study, and many others, point out that recreation 

is at the forefront of those demands. In order to provide a satisfactory or higher level of service, changes in the 

current management paradigm are seen by some as a necessary part of the future. The controversy of multiple use 

paradigms has been expressed, both from the perspective of public land managers and the publics that they serve 

(McCarville 1995). Any anticipated public response to land management strategies is important, therefore, managers 

equipped with an understanding of the likely response to proposed strategies are better positioned to develop 

programs that will enhance and expand visitor services, expectations and satisfaction. 

There are several messages that managers and land-use planners could take from these results. First, BLM 

manager should recognize that undeveloped use is important to the overall CCNCA recreational experience. The 

desire to recreate in an undeveloped area is indicated across multiple measures of visitor satisfaction and experience. 

Second, although the economic impacts associated with current CCNCA visitation are somewhat limited in terms of 

the general local economic activity at the County level, the CCNCA plays an important part in the overall 

recreational opportunities and scenic open space that makes the area a popular tourist destination. Finally, outreach 

strategies by managers could involve educating the community about activities that will encourage ecosystem 

stewardship. However, if funds are limited, managers could dedicate resources toward building ecosystem 

management plans that better reflect an understanding of the people and communities they serve (Johnson and 

Bowker, 1999). Field (1996) suggested that most managers today require training that involves interdisciplinary 

development of ecological strategies that enable integration of social, cultural, and biophysical values within the 

ecosystem management process (Brunson 1993; Decker et al. 1996). 

Our findings suggest that the CCNCA could consider a fee demonstration program. We found that in 

general, visitors would support a minimal user fee. However, this support may come with some opposition from 

local users who may consider the CCNCA to be an extension of their “backyard.” We found that local users reported 

slightly less support for fees than non-locals. At Devils Canyon where use is predominately local, 60% of 

respondents indicated that they would reduce the number of visits or go elsewhere to recreate. If user fees are 

24
 

implemented, the BLM should recognize that recreational user support for the fees may be contingent on the 

following factors: fees are spent at the local level, fees are used to limit resource impacts, and fees are used to 

maintain current trails and facilities. We also found that support for fees for trail and facility development varies 

among sites. 

To address this, natural resource managers and planners could focus on working toward an easy-tounderstand, consistent, and efficient means of studying visitors. New methods in monitoring and analyzing visitor 

flows can benefit BLM management in more accurately assessing recreational use over a widely dispersed area. 

Conclusion 

Because people are a part of the ecosystem we must continue to integrate human-ecosystem relationships 

into land management practices; this type of integration will enhance the ability to manage natural resources and 

minimize conflicts among competing uses of the resource (Cordell and Bergstrom 1999; Galliano and Loeffler, 

1999). Natural resource managers and administrators are beginning to recognize the importance of multidisciplinary 

information on the magnitude and potential effects of disturbances that affect human use of and access to natural 

resources. Increases in human population, recreational activities, and industrial and residential developments all 

create divergences in human behavior and resource management. A human-ecosystem or human dimensions 

perspective can document a variety of viewpoints and by studying the attitudes and perceptions of the general public 

we can attempt to build a more holistic understanding of the science that informs ecosystems management (Cordel 

and Bergstrom, 1999). 

The results from this study attempted to assist BLM managers in making informed decisions about the 

development of future management plans and practices that will impact visitor and the residents of the local 

community. Our research gives an idea about the trends and issues that the management agencies are beginning to 

face (i.e. overlapping visitor use, rising levels of visitation, and a mismatch between visitor and manager 

expectations). We feel that by focusing on the environmental values that ultimately contribute to quality of life, 

research such as this has the potential to assist natural resource managers develop policies that will result in publicly 

acceptable and politically viable programs. 

Finally, conducting research on visitor use patterns involves a close, cooperative working relationship 

between scientists and natural resource managers. The close working relationship between the BLM NCA managers 

and the U.S.G.S. scientists was the fundamental component of this research effort. Through the development of this 

relationship we were able to identify at several areas of additional research that should be considered for the 

CCNCA: 

• What are the national trends in recreational use and management on federally managed lands? 

• What are the current and potential visitors’ needs, expectations, and motivations for visiting public lands 

areas? 

• What are the demographic shifts that are going to affect recreational behaviors and attitudes in the next 10 

to 20 years? 

• Do socioeconomic and demographic shifts affect local or regional public preferences for resource use and 

management 

• Are there differences in the way that different culture groups use the CCNCA 

• Does the current management strategy reflect the diversity of cultural values in the local community? 

• What are the information and educational needs of current and potential visitors of the CCNCA? 

Natural resource and outdoor recreation managers, planners, and researchers have been primarily concerned with the 

effects of how recreationist habits and behaviors alter wildland communities. The majority of existing research has 

largely focused on recreation use patterns and behaviors of the general population. However, with the expected 

socio demographic changes natural resource researchers are encouraged to study the recreation use patterns of ethnic 

and minority groups, older visitors, women, and other nontraditional users. Cooke and Borrie (1995) noted that 

because visitor attitudes towards recreation use have remained relatively consistent despite socio demographic 

changes in the U.S., it is time to move beyond the characteristics we have typically monitored (age, income, 

education, etc) and focus on quality of life and sense of place issues, ethnicity changes in communities, disabled and 

25
 

minority uses of natural resource areas. We must begin to consider how diverse groups and people experience and 

value places such as the CCNCA. Quality of life and sense of place depends not only on how we use or value 

wilderness when we are there, but how we value it when we are not there. 

Literature Cited 

Babbie E. R., 1975, The Practice of Social Research: Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 510 p. “The BLM’s 

priorities for recreation and visitor services.” BLM Work Plan Fiscal Years 2003–2007, 

(http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/data/recvisit.pdf) (Retrieved May 5, 2004). 

Bogle, T., Havitz, M., and Dimanche, F., 1992, Sector bias in adults’ recreation fitness selections: Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. vol. 10, no. 3, p. 49–74. 

Brunson, M.W., 1993, Socially acceptable forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem management?: Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 116–119. 

Cooke B., and W. Borrie, 1995, Trends in Recreation Use and Management of Wilderness: International Journal of Wilderness, 

vol. 1, no. 2, p. 

Cordell H.K., and Berstrom, J.C., (eds.), 1999, Integrating Social Sciences with Ecosystem Management: Human Dimensions in 

Assessment, Policy and Management: Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 

Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., and Knuth, B.A., 1996, Human Dimensions Research: Its importance in natural resource management, in 

A.W. Ewert (ed.) Natural resource management: The human dimension: Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Dillman, D.A., 2000, Mail and Internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2d ed.): New York, John Wiley and Sons. 

Field, D.R., 1996, Social Science: A lesson in legitimacy, power and politics in land management, in A.W. Ewert (ed.) Natural 

resource management: The human dimension: Boulder, CO, Westview Press. 

Galliano, S. J. and Loeffler, G. M., 1999, Place assessment: How people define ecosystems: General Technical Report PNW-GTR462, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 31 p. 

Johnson, C.Y. and Bowker J.M., 1999, On-site wildland activity choices among African Americans and White Americans in the 

rural south: Implications for management: Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 21–39. 

Kerr, G.N. and Manfredo, M.J., 1991, An attitudinal based model of pricing for recreational services. Journal of Leisure Research, 

vol. 23. no. 1, p. 137–50. 

Lamb, B.L., and Cline, K, 2003, Public knowledge and perceptions of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs: Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 

vol. 8, no. 2, p.127–143. 

McCarville, R.E., 1995, Pricing for leisure services: An ethical dilemma?: Journal of Applied Recreation Research, vol. 20 no. 2, p. 

95–108. 

Mitchell, M.Y., Force, J.E., Carroll, M.S., and Mclaughlin, W.J., 1991, Forest places of the heart: Incorporating special places into 

public management: Journal of Forestry, vol. 914 p. 32–37. 

Olson, D. and Lindall, S., 1996, IMPLAN Professional Software, Analysis, and Data Guide: Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc,. 

Pierce, J.C., Beatty, K., and Hagner, P., 1982, The Dynamics of American Public Opinion: Patterns & Processes: Glenview, IL, Scott, 

Foresman & Company. 

Ponds, P.D., 2001, Quality of life on the Colorado Plateau: A report to the respondents in southwestern Colorado and northwestern 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 01-233, 23p. 

Purcell A.T., Lamb, R.J., Mainardi, E., and Falchero, S., 1994, Preference or preferences for landscape?: Journal of Environmental 

Psychology, vol.14, p. 195–209. 

Rasker, R., and Glick, D., 1994, The footloose entrepreneurs: Pioneers of the new west?: Illahee, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 34–43. 

Rea, L. and Parker, R., 1997, Designing and Conducting Survey Research: a Comprehensive Guide: San Francisco, CA, JosseyBass Inc., Publishers. 

Stynes, D., 1998, Guidelines for Measuring Visitor Spending: Department of Park Recreation and Tourism Resources: Michigan 

State University. 

Taylor, J.T., Burkardt, N., Caughlan, L., and Lamb, B.L., 2000, Thinking outside the lines: Parks and the quality of life in area 

communities: Park Science, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 14–17. 

Taylor, J.G., Reis-Ruehrwein J.B., Sexton, N.R., and Blahna, D.J., 1999, Quality of life on the Colorado Plateau: A report to camerasurvey collaborators in southeast Utah. Fort Collins, CO: USGS, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center 

(http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/products/presentations/rep/rep.shtml), (Retrieved April 20, 2004). 

26
 
Taylor, J.G., Czarnowski, K.J., Sexton, N.R., and Flick, S., 1995, The importance of water to Rocky Mountain National Park Visitors: 

An adaptation of visitor employed photography to natural resource management: Journal of Applied Research, vol. 20 

no. 1, p. 61–85. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, 2003, www.bea.gov 

Warzecha, C, and Lime, D., 2001, Park attachment in Canyonlands National Park: Visitors’ assessment of setting attributes on the 

Colorado and Green Rivers, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, vol. 19, no.1, p. 59–78. 

27
 

28
Appendix A 

Intercept Survey – Question Summaries 

29 
Appendix A 
 


30 
Appendix A 
 


31 
Appendix A 
 


32 
Appendix A concluded 
 


33 
Appendix B 

CCNCA Visitor Survey – Respondent Comments 

34
 

Loma 

Comment: Fees collected for use of "public lands" 

should not be allowed, except where someone is 

using that land to make money I.e. grazing of 

livestock, commercially guided tours and/river. Once 

fees are charged, a whole government industry of 

collection, accounting, law enforcement grows out of 

them. This "government industry" only grows in size 

and cost thus fees always rise, they never go down. 

Also, in this process policing regulation increases and 

some of the values that brought people here in the 

first place are lost. 

Comment: Please restrict motorized boat travel 

please do not require permits to float ruby/Horsetheif. 

We are happy to pay fees and would like camping 

areas at Loma. Thank you!* River camping on first 

come first serve instead of signing up. 

Comment: High speed motor boat and jet ski activity 

in Ruby Horsetheif Canyons detracted from our 

raft/kayak accessed wilderness experience. Would 

prefer ban on motorized boats or restricting them to 

wakeless speeds. 2) Would like to see more ranger 

activities related to educating the river users on leave 

no trace concepts, particularly in the Black Rock 

camping areas. 3) currently, I like the permitless 

access to Ruby Horsetheif canyons, but would be 

receptive to permit system if in the future river use 

and associated problems increase. 

Comment: The ability to camp at the put-in would be 

great. 

Comment: A ban on gasoline motors would help with 

water and noise pollution. (Electric motors OK) 

Developing a trail for all terrain vehicles and 

motorcycles would SUCK! The thought of it makes 

me sick. Tell the OHV owners to get off their lazy 

assess and try hiking or paddling through this 

amazing country. It's hard to enjoy when you are 

going 45 mph. It would ruin the experience for 

everyone else on the river, and completely thrash the 

natural environment. <respondent name 

Comment: As a canoe guide for a commercial 

outfitter my biggest concerns center around 

convenient access and regulation of river users 

(proper toilets, removal of trash, etc.) private users 

have a poor history of compliance. There needs to be 

a comprehensive "on" river patrol and regulation. 

Any fees collected I would spend to that end. Further 

signage and interpretive material say along 

Rattlesnake Canyon, Mee Canyon, Black Rock, and 

McDonald (and Knowles) would be good. I 

STRONGLY disapprove of motorized traffic in the 

down river corridor, i.e., ATVS and jet boats. 

Comment: Please don't limit the number of boats or 

people to use this area. There are already too many 

restrictions for the number of people on the White 

H2O areas. It is nice to just go and not have many 

government rules to follow. The size of the 

government is already too large! 

Comment: If campsites are added. Provide restrooms 

with showers, like California. 

Comment: <answer no to $4> Personally would use 

no difference I'm sure the USFWS a sister DOI 

agency would be example. 

Comment: <a. answer is does not apply> just 

camping for boat launches <b. answer is very bad 

idea> there are just going to be more people do 

something else–fees ok. 

Comment: Please come up with fees and camping for 

this resource it needs financial input badly before it 

gets ruined more. Its like on one is minding the store 

and we're getting robbed blind. We need gates and 

fees at Loma (boat launch, Kokopelli trail) and 

Rabbit Valley ATV trails and ATV enforcement with 

ATV's motor less trails and areas. There will just be 

more use, no one can stop it. Make it self-supporting­

-it can do it--with nominal fees!! 

Comment: I use this launch as part of a contracted 

guide job with a canoe company only. If there were 

use fees, I'm not sure if the company would continue 

to use the launch or not. Maybe such companies 

could pay an annual fee for unlimited use. 

Comment: 1) Prohibit motorized boats from the 

Loma-Westwater section 2) Develop a 2nd take 

out/put in at Westwater and designate one for the 

commercial boaters and one for private boaters. 

Thank you! 

Comment: The fees are just fine of they are not too 

high. I think people should have the ability to camp at 

the put in when they are doing a multi day raft trip. 

When we used the boat ramp, we arrived at 10:30pm. 

The ranger told us to leave at about 11:30. Too late to 

find a public camp ground. I also would not like to 

see the river permitted. 

Comment: I've only had this one visit but my 

experiences with camping and putting in a raft at the 

boat launch were excellent. It was not too crowded 

and would be great if the launch could stay the same 

but with increased use there is always a need to 

protect the environment. 

Comment: Loma boat launch is such an amazing 

gateway to incredible places. Of course I would love 

to see its access remain free, but I also understand 

that funding must come from 

35
 

Comment: The number of people, vehicles, amount 

of noise, etc. at the Loma put-in really detracts from 

the experience of getting on the water. Full campsites 

are also a problem. 

Comment: In my opinion, the biggest need for the 

Loma boat ramp is to limit the number of river 

launches on big weekends (I.e. Memorial Day, Labor 

Day, July 4, etc.) The only other improvement that 

would help me is some campsites at the Loma boat 

ramp. 

Comment: Loma boat Launch is a small area with too 

much going on. It is maxed out at peak times, just 

with boat launching, rangers did a good job of 

organizing and facilitating flow on the boat ramp. Do 

something about the dogs. Too many loose dogs. We 

to move a couple of droppings piles to be able to rig 

our boat. Then two loose dogs decided to have a dog 

fight in the middle of our gear. Suspect dogs 

harassing wildlife in the canyon is also a problem. 

Ban--limit or restrict dogs. Look at Desolation 

Canyon dog policy. 

Comment: The BLM range was very informative and 

helpful. Thank you!! 

Comment: During my last visit there were a few 

fairly large boats with noisy outboard motors racing 

up and down the river, including through the "Black 

rocks" area where people were canoeing, kayaking, 

and swimming. I felt the motorboats were a nuisance 

and an endangerment to most people on the river. I 

wish they would not be allowed on the river. That is 

the only reason I might not return to Loma. 

Comment: Have more trashcans available. Outhouse 

needs to be cleaned more often. Otherwise it's a great 

place. 

Comment: 1) Some seriously drunk bait fishermen 

congregate here and play loud music at night 2) small 

but increasing numbers of motorboats and jet skis 

impact non-motorized use. 3) This is the only 

overnight river trip in the region which can be done 

without getting a permit. Please leave us one canyon 

we can just go visit on the spur of the moment 4) I 

am a citizen and a taxpayer. I OWN this region. You 

provide little or no services down in the canyon and I 

like it that way. Don't charge me a fee to visit MY 

public lands. 

Comment: 1) This is the only no fee, no permit, no 

application process or restricted number of launches 

river canyon left. 2) How can you charge a fee for no 

services and no facilities? Leave it undeveloped, 

don't charge. 

Comment: during summer when water drops on 

Colorado River, Loma Boat Launch is only place 

where you can launch aluminum river boat. The only 

activity at the Loma Launch is the Launching of rafts, 

canoes, and boats. To ask $5 to spend 10 minutes 

launching a boat is a lot. We would probably try to 

find an alternative somehow. 

Comment: CAMPING!! We love to rig our boats the 

night before in order to launch early the next morning 

but we can't rig if we can't camp. 

Comment: I don't like the idea of paying to use 

public lands, however I completely understand that 

agencies such as BLM, NPS, etc. have been reeling 

from sever budget cuts over the years, while dealing 

with rising visitors and conservation concerns. You 

have my support--keep up the great work! 

Comment: There is no right answer to the question of 

how to develop this area. Please err on the side of 

developing it too little—not too much. 

Comment: I think that keeping the area natural is a 

good idea. Too many facilities or allowing offroading in the area may cause problems and would 

also be expensive. A small fee to use the site would 

be okay, but it should be universal. I greatly enjoyed 

my experience at Loma! My survey actually got 

soaked during some rough water in the canoe, so I 

appreciate another copy <draws smiley face> 

Comment: Bush's plan to trash the west is horrible. I 

hope you as BLM employees who are to protect the 

land, you will continue to manage the land, for what 

is best for the land and wildlife and protect it for 

future generations. Thank you. 

Comment: I think the launch should be kept the way 

it is. Campgrounds would destroy the area by 

increasing the traffic. Primitive sites are acceptable, 

but developed ones would detract from the area. Most 

people I saw were river-bound. We camped 1 night at 

the launch and found it completely acceptable. 

Collection of a small fee should be initiated and used 

to maintain the area. We met a local rafter who 

complained about the area getting trashed. We picked 

up a few extra pieces of garbage that were not our 

own, but found the area fairly pristine. Organizing a 

clean up the river weekend annually might help. The 

USGS employee who gave us these surveys could 

have checked river runners for appropriate equipment 

including a firepan and waste disposal system. That's 

where the river trashing is concentrated. 

Comment: A place like Loma cannot be kept secret 

forever. Sad as it is to say, charging a fee may keep 

some "riff-raff" energy out. Most of us come to a 

place like Loma to appreciate the serenity and beauty, 

36
 

not to destroy, contaminate, or impose ugly energy 

on others. We would, naturally, consider any fee ($3­

15) as a fair exchange for a nice and safe experience. 

I would hope that others could/would too. 

<respondent name> 

Comment: <answer no to $5> BLM land should be 

free to the public 

Comment: I am a single mom, with an 8 yr old son 

who enjoys fishing. I work all week so my son and I 

can do things together on the weekends. Charging 

more money is ok for some, but why does it always 

have to come out of the low income families? I pay 

for a yearly fishing license for myself, my mother 

and my annual park pass, what's next? 

Comment: Continue to have BLM personal to check 

for goovers, fire pans, etc.––Minimize control – No 

fees 

Comment: BLM, USFS, USGS, etc. etc. Why so 

many agencies? It would be SO much more efficient 

if there was ONE agency for all of this. Pass this on, 

please. 

Comment: Don't double tax me! I already pay for this 

facility. Issuing permits and policing those permits 

would consume the lion's share of revenue generated. 

It's not broke--don't fix it. 

Comment: No motors on River. No extra large 

groups. Maximum number of people 25/group. 

Comment: I am 101% opposed to any other fee 

implementations. I can not see how Corn Lake or any 

other State Parks have enhanced my recreational 

opportunity. The staff is rude, slow, and obsessed 

with "rules". I know they are not BLM. Education 

and conservation should be the goals of public land 

use. I would willingly contribute every time to a box 

which was labeled "voluntary contribution". Thanks. 

Comment: You wouldn't have to charge to use the 

land if you didn't spend your money on mail and 

printing brochures. 

Comment: It's apparent to me that the Loma Boat 

Launch and camping areas downstream to Westwater 

are heavily used. I don't think motors on boats is a 

good idea on this section of the Colorado River. 

Comment: I think the FED should issue one pass, for 

a fee, to access all FEDERAL FACILITIES and 

LANDS. Golden Age, Golden Eagle, etc. Don't 

nickel and dime me to poverty with pilot program 

fees and different fee cards to carry around. (I.e. 

Yankee Boy Basin and Lower cataract Lake ) as far 

as discounts for low-income--I pay more than enough 

in taxes subsidizing others. 

Comment: would like restriction on jet skis, motor 

boats. 

Comment: I am opposed to paying additional fees to 

the government to maintain these public lands. I 

believe the taxes which are already collected from 

businesses and individuals should be sufficient to 

maintain public lands. 

Comment: The federal govt. should fund BGLM, 

Forest Service, National Park Service etc. well 

enough that they do not have to rely on all these extra 

fees. 

Comment: Send the Yuppies back where they came 

from. We don't need more restrictions, we need more 

things that will boost our area like the Domingues 

Project. 

Comment: Quit printing surveys to save trees--don't 

send any info or surveys or other mailings asking for 

money--save that money to build other recreational 

areas for motorboats and wave runners. 

Comment: The Loma boat ramp should be for boats 

to launch, not for rafters, canoes, and kayakers to 

camp. 

Comment: I did not even notice that there were other 

activities available besides the one we were there for: 

to launch our rafts and float to West water. However, 

I truly appreciated the available parking, clean 

<draws smiley face> bathrooms, excellent space for 

launching rafts, etc. We would all be willing to pay a 

SMALL fee to park our car while we raft and even a 

fee per group to launch our boats. We would NOT be 

willing to pay for other activities for which we would 

not be partaking, such as an annual all-inclusive type 

pass for other areas or other activities. We think some 

types of activities should remain free, such as 

hiking/running or picnicking, or sight-seeing/hanging 

out. More impactful activities should pay the most, 

such as horses, bikes, off-road vehicles, etc. Please, 

please, please do NOT go to a lottery-style permit 

system for river trips as this is one of the few left 

without it! 

Comment: <checked 1 and 2> I can't check these 

without some idea of how much the fee might be! If 

fees are high I would visit less often. If fees are low I 

would continue to use this place, we only come at 

once/yr. 

Comment: answer yes to $3? But that is the limit 

Comment: It is my belief that this survey is intended 

to determine if a fees should be charged to use the 

Loma Boat Launch Area –this is my first and only 

time here--it was O.K.--nothing special (the rafting 

trip was very nice though) this reminds me of fee 

37
 

demo programs that have been put in place around 

the country--"another form of taxation" as a U.S. 

citizen--we already own the land--why should we be 

taxed twice. I say no fees. Leave the area as a natural 

setting--w/ low impact maintenance. Let the people 

see nature as it is. 

Comment: My family and I have enjoyed this area 

for years. As time goes on, it continues to be used by 

more and more people. Finding a way to allow 

continued enjoyment of the area, while maintaining 

the "specialness" and protecting the environment is 

extremely important. 

Comment: 1) We understand the budget situation, so 

our feeling about fees is that we don't mind paying to 

visit a site or area as long as the resource is protected. 

2) We like the solitude of the river and prefer not to 

see or hear large numbers of motorized vehicles. 

Comment: I am against charging fees for use of 

public lands. Before implementing any such fees I 

would like to suggest trying a donation box, with 

wording that highly encourages people to pay what 

they can and based on their use. Then, provide only 

the services that you can afford to, based on 

donations. Start with toilet and trash cans, then 

maintain parking. 

Comment: <didn't answer> only if necessary to 

launch my boat. 

Comment: <answered no to $4> I would put in at 

Fruita or on private and use the river anyway. 

Comment: I've been to a number of meetings this is a 

waste of time. You will do what you want anyway. 

You will cater to rafters etc. more money coming into 

the valley to businesses. But they do the most amount 

of damage to the environment, human waste in large 

amounts of camping etc. also they are much more 

disruptive to the environment with large numbers on 

the river. Jet boats are few and usually are just day 

trips. This survey in the end will be useless but costly 

to taxpayers etc. most got. Ventures are. But they 

provide you with jobs paid by people like me. What a 

joke. 

Comment: The local public does not want fees 

Comment:<didn't answer, wrote across question> 

What's to keep people from launching in Fruita or 

anywhere on the river? 

Comment: <no answer, wrote Comments across 

table><in answer to a.> you have signs up already, 

materials create debris<b.>There are river tours 

already <c>These are in place <e.? You have this 

already <f.>state park highline Fruita <g.> signage is 

there <h.> its in law 

Comment: <no answers a.-d.> The state park is 4 

miles East, that's what Kokopelli is for. <answered e. 

very bad idea> this creates a huge problem with trash 

the theory--build it and "they" will come. 

Comment: <didn't answer, wrote "No Fees" in large 

letters across table> 

Comment: Enlarge parking area, provide picnic and 

camping areas, coordinate w. Colorado state parks 

boat launch, no motorized except for BLM and 

DOW. 

Comment: Loma boat launch is fine the way it is-­

just keep it clean! No motorized vehicles on or off 

the river. 

Comment: I prefer an undeveloped recreational area, 

however, I also think clean restrooms and trash pick 

up is important. We only use Loma boat launch as a 

launch. For the # of people on the river weekend of 

June 13th, I thought things were basically good. I 

don't know if volunteer groups are too difficult to 

organize, but perhaps volunteers for outdoor Colo. 

Could run Ruby Canyon and do a trash pick up 

occasionally. I prefer no motorized vehicles including 

boats and ski jets!! 

Comment: I am opposed to fee program as it creates 

an incentive for local offices to develop natural areas 

and draw in more people in order to have more 

friends for needed projects. Instead the BLM needs to 

get these funds to protect and maintain our public 

lands from the federal government. 

Comment: This entire questionnaire is bogus, you 

guys do what you want anyway--all this stuff is just 

so much pap for covering your squares re. Public 

input. All these alternatives are fairly disgusting-­

leave this waterway alone--you control almost 

everything else. 

Comment: The public has maintained the boat ramp 

and ruby Horsetheif campsites well-clean-we do not 

need a ranger or more bureaucracy. Please leave 

alone what is working well as is. 

Comment: <responded yes to $5> Because I would 

have no choice! Put in at Fruita State Park is also $5. 

Comment: How about an Honor System box for 

overnight camping only. $2.00 a head--no more. 

Comment: We use the boat launch to launch 

personally owned rafts. A shaded picnic area would 

be nice, but how would we unload gear and set up 

rafts around other picnickers? It would be too 

crowded. 

38
 

Comment: I think access to public lands should be 

free, but use of services (camping, ATV trails) should 

require a fee. 

Comment: I am against fees for access to public land, 

but I am willing to pay fees for services. This is an 

important distinction. 

Comment: This questionnaire does not seem targeted 

for Loma Boat Launch's most used reason for 

coming--launching on a river trip. I think attention 

needs to be given to the river section--less on the boat 

ramp. Example: many boaters are ignoring the sign 

up system you put in place--nice new sign and all. 

Troy (BLM) at the Loma Boat Launch suggested that 

sign up does not guarantee a site--hence, why bother? 

Comment: get the damn dogs under control. Dog 

fights on the boat ramp, dog poop on the ramp, dogs 

chasing wildlife in the canyon, barking dogs in camp­

-all out of control and detracts from experience. By 

the way, I have big retrievers--issue is too many and 

inappropriate behaviors. Ran into 3 BLM staff—all 

very positive and helpful. Fees are OK but should be 

used to provide a high quality experience--not 

amenities. Loma boat ramp is a portal from a nearly 

(or soon to be) urban area to a more primitive zone. 

Don't overdevelop this site. Consider placing limits 

on number of overnight river trips--people are 

pioneering new sites. 

Comment: The Loma Boat Launch turned out to be a 

bad experience for our group on 7/3/03. We unloaded 

all of our boating gear for 8 people, cooked dinner, 

and were promptly removed rather unceremoniously 

by the ranger who told us we couldn't camp anywhere 

in the vicinity. So, at 11:30 at night, our group had to 

disperse to Rabbit valley. Rangers the next morning 

seemed to have no problem with people staying with 

their gear at the launch. Comment: 1) Get rid of 

motor boats 2) Charge Extreme $$$ if motors must 

be allowed $40/day and $2 for non-motor visitor 3) 

facility is fine now. <included name and address> 

Comment: I am willing to be involved in planning or 

volunteer stewardship projects. <includes name, 

email, and phone 

Comment: No jet skis or motorized boats carrying 

rafts should be on the rivers with the kayaks, canoes 

and rafts, unless they were with the park ranger 

services. 

Comment: Non-motorized vehicles only this would 

the environmental and habitat no jet skis 

Comment: Fees collected for use of "public Lands" 

should not be allowed, except where someone is 

using that land to make money I.e. grazing of 

livestock, commercially guided tours land/river. Once 

fees are charged, a whole government industry of 

collection, accounting, law enforcement grows out of 

them. This "government industry" only grows in size 

and cost thus fees always rise they never go down. 

Also in this process policing, regulation increases and 

some of the values that brought people here in the 

first 

Kokopelli Loops 

Comment: I like what you've done so far to enhance 

the area. More camp ground with facilities would be 

fantastic. 

Comment: <answered yes to $3 fee> this would 

probably cut down on my frequency of visits. 

Comment: I have a problem paying additional money 

for public lands when taxes, that I pay, already go 

toward public lands. I am also against the BLM 

closing public lands to mountain biking, for wildlife 

and habitat reasons, when horses do just as much 

damage if not more to trails. My fear, also, is that 

once fees are put toward Kokopelli trail it will 

become more commercialized bringing more and 

more people to that area. 

Comment: <answered does not apply to c.> what's 

there is plenty <answered good/bad idea to wildlife 

and dino protection and good idea to rock art 

protection>there's a tendency to get too carried away 

with preservation. 

Comment: <crossed out law enforcement and wrote 

in rescue groups and answered good idea> 

Comment: <answered yes to $5> paying stinks, but 

we must protect the environment first! 

Comment: <answered good idea> Away from nonmotorized vehicles 

Comment: Perhaps have foot and/or bike camping on 

Koko trail (w/o car access). Should separate 

motorized (ATV, motorcycle, car) and non-motorized 

(bike, hike, horse) areas.. 

Comment: A great experience. I support keeping the 

area natural and free from development, including for 

motorized travel. An exception is development that 

works to limit impact in areas that are already heavily 

traveled. Fees are reasonable but it'd be best to have 

an easy method of payment (i.e. week-long or yearlong pass rather than having to carry cash on the 

trail). 

Comment: <answered yes to $5> If we arrived and 

heard there was a fee, we'd be more likely to pay, but 

39
 

if we knew prior to arriving, we'd probably go 

elsewhere. Don't our taxes pay for this stuff? 

Comment: Keep the trails as they are. Do not make 

them any easier or less technical. If you charge a fee, 

let the public campground (state park) fee be 

inclusive of the Kokopelli area. Keep things the way 

they are now. I have not gone to Moab due to the 

changes that happened there! Thanks for asking for 

input! <respondents name> 

Comment: I avoid fee areas, as do most people I 

know. We are tired of paying to use our land that we 

pay for already. Instead of spending 89 billion on 

Iraq, why not spend 1 Billion on Parks and get them 

the maintenance they need? All you are doing is 

keeping the poor out, which we all know is pathetic!! 

The parks were created for the poor--and everyone 

else. 

Comment: The Kokopelli trail system is one of my 

favorites in the state because of the scenery, the 

variety of trails, the location, and the limited number 

of riders I see on the trails. I wouldn't mind paying a 

daily fee, but unfortunately, a lot of the revenue goes 

towards enforcement and that defeats the purpose. 

Fee's that fund maps are good as well as trail 

expansion. An idea for additional services would be 

more trash cans in the parking lot and maybe drill 

and well with a hand pump for a potable water 

source. 

Comment: What happened to the Ruby canyon 

management plan that took 5 years and many hours 

of input to happen? I think BLM is trying to justify 

their jobs with more paper work. Mesa Co. takes care 

of the roads and service clubs take care of the trash 

pick-up and the trail maintenance and the signage 

was paid with contributed $ from community and 

town they Valley $ maps are printed with donated $ 

What's the problem with maintenance? 

Comment: <answered No to a fee of $5> It will cost 

more to collect and police this then it's worth! 

Comment: <didn't answer any questions, wrote "No 

Fees" in large letters across the table> 

Comment: Thank you for the free trails I consider 

myself very lucky to have them. If fees are needed to 

maintain these areas this is understandable. 

Comment: <answered very good idea> an 

easy/moderate single track between Loma and Moab 

along the N side of the hills. To provide loop 

opportunity other than boring road or strenuous 

Moore Fun/Mock Ridge routes. 

Comment: <answered yes to a $4 fee> free recreation 

opportunities seem to be disappearing. 

Comment <didn't answer> not in favor of fees on 

public lands 

Comment: Great trail, will become more and more 

crowded. Need more trails in the area to compete 

with Moab. Fees are a bad idea use tax money or 

lottery money. Develop campgrounds and after riding 

entertainment. Breakfast locations etc. This is as 

much about Fruita as it is about BLM land. 

Comment: I think Slickrock in Moab has come up 

with a very successful fee area. The fees don't seem 

to have reduced the usage and they are able to afford 

the maintenance for trails, campsites, etc.. 

Comment: Please do not open any of the Kokopelli 

or Bookcliffs area to motorcycles or ATVs. It would 

destroy the trail system that has been built. Right now 

you have a world class mtn. Biking experience that 

people travel from all over the world to experience. If 

opened to motorcycles you would lose that. It would 

be nice to have some public restrooms built at the end 

of 18 road. 

Comment: Improved signage indicating 

recommended direction of travel on loops would be a 

good idea. 

Comment: <didn't answer any questions, wrote 

"Don't Collect Fees!" in large letters over the table> 

Comment: One of the biggest reasons for moving 

back to GJ was to hike. As I said before, GJ is a very 

expensive place to live. I more than understand the 

need for funding. Perhaps passes like on #19g. 

Would work, but it can't bee too expensive like the 

state park is. Perhaps a semi-annual pass would be an 

option. I remember when state parks were free. I 

LOVE this area. Don't make it impossible to enjoy it. 

Families can't afford vacations as it is. 

Comment: Great Mountain biking management 

should be directed at the maintenance and keeping 

people on the trails. Fees would be ok, but would 

seem to discourage use of public lands. Too much 

management would ruin experience. Trash and toilets 

are important. Parking seems adequate. Additional 

camping areas with toilets would be useful. People 

that are uneducated about desert are trashing the 

place. 

Comment: <didn't answer a.> need more info. <didn't 

answer c.> 4 people who stay on trails, it shouldn't be 

an issue. 

Comment:<answered good idea and specified nonres 

as "of county and Colorado, reinforce locals"> 

40
 

Comment <answered good idea to c.> If you want to 

increase the number of people using trails <answered 

good idea to e.> if this is a crime problem. 

Comment: This was a top 10 weekend for me. I will 

definitely be back to experience the Kokopelli Trail 

system! 

Comment: <answered yes for fee of $5> all depends 

on what $ would be spent for and how much pass 

would cost. I love to travel and to see new things but 

if I had to pay for every entry into every experience, I 

would have to limit my experiences! 

Comment: The Kokopelli trailhead needs trash 

services. 

Comment: Kokopelli too primitive, dry, and small to 

allow camping. Adequate sites at Fruita State Park, 

RV, motels for pay sites etc. NEARBY. So many 

hikers and bicyclists so ask motorized use to drive 

farther out elsewhere. Separate motorized from nonmotorized use, please. $1–2/day for bicyclists OK for 

trail/loop maintenance, bathrooms, parking lot. Keep 

camping out of Book Cliffs, keep motorized use also 

Comment: The dirt road that goes down to the river 

from the troy built junction is not on the big map on 

Mary's Loop. That threw us off and we paid an 

unscheduled visit to the river. It will be a good idea 

to show this road on all maps. 

Comment: Please don't charge fees. We pay taxes 

and it is our right to recreate on public lands! We 

shouldn't have to pay more! We just want a soft trail 

to run on. 

Comment: Great Area. Don't Spoil it. 

Comment: <answered very bad idea> seems most 

people are bikers, not hikers 

Comment: Don't know. You didn't ask if we though a 

fee was a good idea at all?? 

Comment: I usually support fees as I am an avid 

supporter of protecting our resources. I understand 

that many users of a particular area will negatively 

impact the environment. However, it seems that 

everywhere that there are more users, a fee is 

initiated. I think that there are certainly places where 

we should leave well enough alone. The vast majority 

who use that area are mountain bikers--we don't need 

historical markers, fancy bathrooms, etc. Organize 

volunteer trail days for maintenance. Keep it lean and 

mean! <draws smiley 

Comment: answered Bad idea to c.> just do signage 

<answered bad idea to d. > seems there are a lot 

already Rabbit valley, etc. 

Comment: This is some beautiful terrain for mtn 

biking. Please do not ruin the experience by opening 

it up to motorized use. 

Comment: I'd recommend that you consider the cost 

of using the area (user's fee) in the context of the total 

expenses for the trip. In my case, I drove about 300 

miles, round trip, to ride here, and I know that a lot of 

people from Vail do the same. At $2–3 user fee 

doesn't amount to much when taken as a part of the 

total cost of the trip. But don't make it too much.. 

Comment: It seems that the area just North of the 

ridgeline and parallels the highway would be a great 

place for a campground as it is away from the 

sensitive / unique /aesthetic areas on the river side. 

I'm sure it would be well utilized as Highline fills 

quickly and is expensive. 

Comment: Don't make people pay for public lands. 

Don's close trails to mountain bikers. Rednecks with 

motor vehicles do much more damage than anybody. 

I have witnessed this. Open Pollacks Bench to 

mountain bikers. Closing this trail is B.S. ! I also hike 

and some of those people are assholes. They think the 

whole world should just hike and nothing else. The 

BLM should make the right decision. Spend time on 

the trail and do some research. Find out who needs 

education on the environment and warn them with 

signs at trailheads this is a great area, don't make 

long-term decisions without good 

Comment: I have many, many, many, years riding 

Fruita / G.J. you guys are right on it! Thanx! Way to 

go G.J. BLM! Yeah baby! Who loves ya baby! You 

ROCK! Way to go! Fees: yes please! A "suggested" 

fee--no enforcement required. We will pay. PLEASE 

BRING BACK PRIMITIVE CAMPING to the 

frontage road areas @CCNCA. It can work. P.S. 

Proactive is the only way! Thank you for 18 road. 

Truly one of the great experiences in the "free" world 

is camping on 18 road and riding from camp. Thank 

you so much--seriously!! 

Comment: Charge us!! Bikers will pay !! <draws 

smiley face> 

Comment: If you do charge people, locals or trail 

maintenance volunteers should not be charged. I can 

understand why you want to charge people. However, 

since your community does so much for the area, it 

should be free. Though I'd still visit. I might decide to 

skip Fruita sometimes on my way through. I can find 

free trails on the front range that are still great. 

Comment: Please do not allow motorized vehicles on 

any of the existing established mountain bike trails in 

the Fruita area. 

41
 

Comment: I give all my money for this to Congress, 

it is not my fault they abuse and misuse it! <answer 

to e. is good idea> $5 <answer to f. is very bad idea> 

they are free now! <answer to 20 is yes> but would 

not pay fee 

Comment: <answered very bad idea> already offered 

privately commercial 

Comment: Great Job. Keep up the good work !! 

<draws a smiley face> 

Comment: This is an incredible area. The trails are 

fabulous and well designed/maintained. I love to 

escape the Front Range when the weather's bad and 

visit here. I like the rough, unfinished nature of the 

area. I wouldn't like to see it become too developed 

with giant restrooms and elaborate parking. But of 

course, it's easy to say that NOW. As recreation 

visitors increase, they must be managed. I also don't 

want to see recreation restricted from where it is now. 

The area has been developed with recreation in mind, 

so I think the current trails should remain open. I can 

understand if no further trails are built to limit any 

further disruption to native animals and plants, and I 

support that. But I'm getting very weary of trails 

being closed to maintain bikes under the misguided 

idea that they are more destructive than hikers or 

horses. At least every ride I go on, I see hikers 

wandering off the trail, which to me seems much 

more impactful than mountain bikers, who at least 

stay on the trail--thanks for maintaining a wonderful 

place! P.S. If you organize trail maintenance days 

and contact (gives mtn. biking org name and phone 

number) 

Comment: All of the ideas seem reasonable, I expect 

recreation to require maintenance, and therefore cost 

money to users. 

Comment: We need to think of new ways to keep 

single track single w/out closing trails (i.e., Pollack 

bench) 

Comment: A group of 3–4 of us run Mary’s Loop / 

Rustlers Loop / Horsetheif Loop on a regular basis 

from November to June (about / time / week) I would 

not object to a fee but here are a couple of 

suggestions 1) use a pass for frequent visitors similar 

to the Colo. Nat'l Monument $10–15 for a seasonal 

pass is reasonable 2) Don't charge for the off season 

in the late fall-winter-early spring no one is out there 

anyway !! 

Comment: <didn't answer> Depends on how it 

developed. No paved trails--No more 4-wheel drive 

roads --picnic areas -- yes 

Comment: Most Impacts I see are from: 1) vehicles 

motorized (ATV's, Jeeps) 2) Grazing/Invasive 

Species Range Impacts 3) Horses. Please limit these 

impacts to along Frontage Road--N side of Ridge 

Area. IE--close Colorado River consider to Valuables 

and Livestock. 

Comment: I have been riding the trail for 8 years, 

usually from Moab to Loma over several days with a 

group of high school students. We do this to 

experie3nce physical activity in a primitive setting. I 

would not like to see development that would alter 

this experience but I also don't want to see the area 

ruined do to overuse. Try to keep this in balance. 

Comment: A small user fee would be well accepted 

if amenities are provided; namely, trash cans, pit 

toilets, potable water, picnic tables, shelters, etc. 

Most trails are now constructed w/volunteers and 

maintained. So fees should not be collected solely for 

trail use; rather, volunteerism should be fostered. The 

less amenities, the less the fee should be, but it 

should apply equally to all visitors (local, out of state, 

elderly, handicapped) and be changed at all times. 

Comment: I would like fees to be applied towards 

making the Kokopelli trail safe for bicycle trekking 

along the length of the trail most importantly, 

campgrounds with water supplies. 

Comment: This is such a difficult issue. I understand 

that shrinking budgets and increased usage forces 

change and/or further evaluation. I just don't know 

what the best answer is. I lived in Oregon for a while 

and the fee structure was $3 / visit and I think $25 for 

an annual pass. That seemed reasonable as it covered 

all state fee areas. However, there was a tremendous 

amount of controversy about this. I would welcome 

the opportunity to hear the various ideas people have. 

I am a regular user of BLM lands and am aware of 

multi-use issues, trail maintenance, over-use, etc. 

Hoe that helps.. 

Comment: <b. answered undecided> < on c. 

answered bad Idea that national monument already 

included in NM. Parks Pass> <answered to d. as 

undecided.> 

Comment: <didn't answer to $5 fee and provided 

own answer> Seems HIGH considering a user who 

comes for 3 days --that's 15 bucks!! 

Comment: <answered good idea> separate from 

biking trails. 

Comment: fees all the time <answered bad idea> 

Comment: What does "undeveloped" use 
 

mean?<didn't answer> 
 

42
 

Comment: I really enjoyed visiting and riding on the 

Kokopelli Trails. A $ charge per vehicle is 

reasonable. A small fee would not deter most people 

from visiting CCNCA. 

Comment: <answered all as very bad idea> FeeFree!! 

Comment: <answered now to a $5 fee> Don't make 

me (us) into a outlaw!! 

Comment: A lot of departments would (in the BLM) 

divide the funds up. The trails would a small 

percentage of the funding. I've been mountain bike 

riding for 21 years in Summit County and above 

9,000 thousand I've been involved with several 

organizations and volunteer duties. To rebuild and 

cut trails. Why can't we do that here with our trails, I 

would volunteer. But to pay and use, that’s not what 

our forefathers intended. I am very anti-pay and use 

lets keep out resources free of fees. Thank you 

<respondent's name>. 

Comment: Signage was excellent. Rope barriers to 

keep vehicles off fragile area was good. Add more 

signs reminding people to stay on trail. Use 

volunteers. Keep motorcycles separate from horses 

separate from biking. 

Comment: The rustic beauty of these trails makes me 

travel more than 1,500 miles as often as I can to 

enjoy them. Keeping the trails open and in good 

shape for all non-motorized users is important to me. 

Adding motorized users to these trails would increase 

the environmental impact to the point where animals 

and plants will be impacted. Trail fees are fine with 

me but there needs to be an allowance for very 

reasonable passes for local trail users. I like the 

"adopt a trail" system used at the18th Rd. (Book 

Cliffs) Area. Thank you for taking interest in 

maintaining and improving these trails. I like the new 

toilets and the shade canopy. 

Comment: <answered very bad idea to b.> Let that 

be Private <Answered Bad Idea to d.> Use 

volunteers. 

Comment: <answered very important> Escape not a 

slow activity. 

Comment: <Answered No> $2 or less is fair Why not 

ask for donations? 

Comment: Some question were vague and 

ambiguous. This area needs more trails, loops and 

connections for each user group. Many of these 

should be segregated by user group and difficulty 

level indicated. Directional travel on some trails 

should also be employed. A hiking route to the river 

could be established also, where people could Park a 

bike on the Rim and cool off in the river. Smart 

management, partnering and alternative funding 

should help the BLM avoid charging fees other than 

camping. Thanks for Asking. 

Comment: I think if you have to charge a fee to 

maintain the integrity of the land then that would be 

okay, but a very minimal fee. I.E. $2 day use fee on 

weekends. I am opposed to charging fees to build 

more man made features and make the area less 

primitive. 

Comment: Money should NOT be collected at all!! 

<and in answer to very good idea on law 

enforcement, specified that enforcement be 

"environmental"> 

Comment: <didn't answer> I bicycle and hike only 

and don't think I should be charged for exercise. I pay 

tones of money in taxes!! I would be angry. 

Comment: <answered yes> I rode there ON my 

bicycle 

Comment: No new fees for public lands!! 

Comment: This was my 1st time visiting the trail 

system at Fruita. Our group is made of avid mountain 

bikers and we normally head straight to Moab but 

decided to stop at Fruita for an afternoon of riding. It 

was a pleasant experience. We especially enjoyed the 

"More Fun" Trail. 

Comment: This was a very nice place to visit and 

ride. Extreme views on either side of an issue make 

the most noise, yet represent the fewest. Manage this 

facility for the general public that paid for this land. 

Not the extreme conservationist nor those who would 

exploit the natural beauty for profit. 

Comment: Like most surveys this one to is a con job 

and contrives in such a manner to make people feel 

like paying is a small past of these weekend. It would 

be very profitable for you to charge $5. I do not 

believe in user fees!!! If you must charge, and I'm 

sure you will I think $1 per vehicle would cover the 

cost of an outhouse!! And a cheap seasonal pass for 

locals. We don't need more signs, paved parking, law 

enforcement and all the bullshit national parks have. 

It is a great place. Just the way it is!! Volunteers built 

these trails with support from the BLM. Don't ruin 

it!! The people you are surveying on the weekend are 

weekend warriors. Save the Kokopelli and take your 

biased survey away. I will never pay to ride my 

mountain bike!! 

Comment: No Motorized Vehicles. Keep trails open 

to hikers, mtn. Bikes, horses. There is plenty of space 

elsewhere for motors. Fees for the BLM as a whole 

make sense, but no more than $25 annually or $5 / 

43
 

visit. Is it possible to do a pass for BLM Forest SVC, 

and national parks? 

Comment: I feel uncomfortable commenting on 

whether or not fees should be collected at these sites. 

However, as a former frequent user of Alabama State 

Parks, I am comfortable paying a $2 or $3 dollar 

daily use fee; provided the proceeds are used to 

maintain current facilities and not expand 

Comment: With regard to road and trail maintenance, 

I think it should be limited to ensuring that they are 

safe--that ledges haven't eroded back so that the trail 

is gone, or no dangerous holes have formed. Keep 

facilities to a minimum--bathrooms and parking at 

the trailhead. The more facilitates and recreation 

options constructed the less natural the environment 

Comment: I understand the need for management of 

public lands, I also understand the financial burden. 

Over management diminishes the overall experience. 

Campsites with one or two restrooms are enough. No 

need to go in and set up tables and maintained roads. 

The becomes harder to reclamate and or relocate. 

Other avenues to help maintain trails. In which you 

have used extensively as well as local mtn bike club. 

Get other user groups to help, runners, rafters, hikers, 

equestrians to help individual areas in need. Local 

business in also willing to help! Then apply for grant 

and state lottery funds. If every area takes pride in 

there own they will happily share with others work. 

Comment: Fees are a bad idea! <answered bad idea 

to a.> Waste—use internet/bike shops <answered d. 

3, Bad Idea> Volunteers!<answered Bad Idea to e.> 

For What? <answered Very Bad Idea to f. > Next to 

I-70? <Didn't answer the rest.> 

Comment: <didn't answer any demographic 

questions> How much did this survey cost? What 

existing problem could be alleviated using funds? 

Comment: <didn't answer a. developing more rec exp 

opp at Koko> too vague--like what? <didn't answer 

17 b. Not developing facilities> Too many people are 

coming for there to be no facilities. <didn't answer 17 

c. Adding day-use> Toilets only--Let it be !! 

Comment: I hope the BLM does not go the way of 

the forest service and park system. Super regulation 

does not necessarily guarantee a better outcome...and 

it is expensive. Users need to solve problems on their 

land with your assistance and resources. The govt's 

job is to lead the people toward a better existence. 

Many areas of Business are learning to collaborate to 

facilitate working to save money and increase 

ownership of ideas and resources. Recreation (Public) 

should be developed only the amount. That it does 

not degrade the land and experience beyond natural 

human scarring. 

Comment: I would like to see motorized 

ATV/motorcycles use prohibited in the chutes and 

ladders area of Fruita. They destroy single track. 

Mountain Bikers have very few areas of fantastic 

single track like that in Fruita and it would be terrible 

to lose it. 

Comment: I thought that BLM land was national if 

so.. <Answered 4, very bad idea> 

Comment: Development and promotion of an area 

only bring more people, which requires more 

development and more promotion to justify the 

development and it just goes on. I realize that the 

situation is difficult. However, I also think that BLM 

land should be left more primitive. Let the NPS 

create the Disney World's. Let local recreation group 

maintain the trails and leave BLM money for 

something else. Of course, local groups will want to 

promote the trails and there you have it. Good luck, 

you'll need it. 

Comment: t is becoming less natural but still very 

impressive 

Comment: minimal <didn't answer> 

Comment: This is a beautiful biking trail. I have been 

visiting here for over 5 years. I used to drive from 

Vail and had friends from Denver come as well. 

Great mountain biking for EVERY level, that is the 

appeal of this trail. 95% of the people I see are 

mountain bikers. Charging money to ride a trail 

would be a first for most people that visit and I 

personally would choose to ride other trails that my 

current tax $ support. Thanks. 

Comment:<did not answer any of the questions under 

question 18. Wrote "NO FEES" across the table> 

Comment: This survey asked how much I spent on 

this one visit. Past visits have included more 

expenditures, such as dining, purchase of guide 

books, patronization of local bike shop, etc. Also, 

while a $4 fee is reasonable, I am opposed to paying 

high rates--$10 / day --to the Gov't to use public 

lands unless that fee includes services like a national 

park, for instance. 

Comment: I'm quite concerned about fee usage in 

public lands. Low income people should never be 

restricted from using public lands. Hopefully 

alternative funding methods can be found. 

Comment: You must be making a lot of money doing 

this survey. Paying for using public lands is a BAD 

idea!!! I will never pay to ride my bike, hike etc.!!! 

44
 

Like most surveys this one is contrived so that no 

matter what, you will be charging to ride Kokopelli. 

Well I hope you choke on the $$. Hayduke lives!! 

<circled the Paperwork Reduction words at the 

bottom of the page and put exclamation marks> 

Comment: <answer yes> Unless you start charging 

Comment: <answer 6 does not apply> keep it that 

way 

Comment: This was my first recreational trip to 

Colorado. I was completely impressed and in awe 

with the beauty of the land. The people were so 

helpful and friendly. I really enjoyed the slower pace. 

The Kokopelli trail was great fun. Technical but not 

too technical. Better than Moab! 

Comment: <Answer Yes> $15 would be my limit. 

Comment: Beautiful area, great biking trails. I will 

be visiting again in the future. The day that I visited, 

they were giving away a map of the Kokopelli Trail 

area. I didn't get one, could you please mail me a 

map? <respondent name and address> Thanks, 

<respondent name>. 

Comment: I just think u guys r awesome! Thank 

You! 

Comment: I only use the Mary's Steve Horse Thieves 

area. I have no trouble paying a usage fee providing it 

was available as a seasons pass. 

Comment: It's great the way it is now. Fees could 

provoke more careless use of the land by visitors. 

People will thank since they paid to enter, they can 

trash it and someone else will pick it up. Public use 

land should be "free" -> taxes. 

Comment: I believe better management of the 

existing tax money is in order here. If trail damage is 

the main concern, limit off-road vehicles such as 

jeeps, 4-wheelers and other motorcycles as they 

mostly destroy trails. I know for a fact most mountain 

bikers will not continue to come here if fees are 

required. I for one will certainly not. 

Comment: Change a fee for mtn bike usage during 

peak seasonal times. If picnic or campsites are 

developed, charge for these activities year around. 

Add another mtn. Bike parking area west of Loma 

Boat Launch area 3–5 miles. 

Comment: The location of the Kokopelli to I-70 and 

the rocky terrain make it a local favorite. To 

publicize it more would be good for the BLM in the 

short run but have a devastating affect in the future. 

Its location makes it too accessible and to make it 

easier for motorized use would create conflict 

between Mountain Bikers and Motorists to develop 

areas is a good idea but some things should be left 

alone. 

Comment: I, like many, many people, would very 

much like to see OHV use decreased in areas like the 

Kokopelli Trail. It is so harmful on the environment 

and is so annoying!! It can't be good for wildlife, 

wildlife habitat, and the natural beauty of the area, 

which is the main reason people hike/mountain bike 

in 

Comment: Motorcycle/OHV riding and Hunting 

should be eliminated!! 

Comment: Free during weekdays? 

Comment: I don't think we should pay to camp on 

BLM. I will gladly pay to ride b/c of the impact on 

the land. This was my 1st mtn bike experience and 

Kokopelli was the PERFECT place. Thanks for 

giving your time to this cause. 

Comment: Rustic and undeveloped is good and 

becoming a rarity. I am concerned about the idea of 

adding a fee for use as it would limit equal access. I 

am more willing to live without the extras than add a 

fee. 

Comment: I do not want to be charged a fee but.. 

Comment: I do not want fee; but if... 

Comment: <Answer was NO> I say this because 

undeveloped is best and access should be fore all; not 

just those who can pay. 

Comment: Good Idea if the rec exp opp are 

developed for kayak river activities and hiking 

Comment: Keep Kokopelli wild. Provide only trash 

pickup and bathroom facilities. If necessary charge a 

minimal fee for camping. If you need to raise $ 

maybe sell H20 at the trailhead. 

Comment: <Answer does not apply> #17dmanagement of, or management for motorized use??? 

There are many areas of BLM open to motorized off 

Road (ATV, Jeep, Motorcycle) abuse already. You 

need to manage this area to save some non-motorized 

trails to quiet clean users! 

Comment: this was our 4th year out here for a 

weekend of biking. The number of people using the 

trails seems bigger every year. Unfortunately, not all 

users have the same level of respect for the area. 

Levels of trail etiquette vary as well. I think a bit 

more trail management (signs for areas that need 

protection, one-way arrows on parts of some trails) 

may be helpful 

Comment: I am completely in favor of a fee system. 

As long as the money stays at the area it was 

45
 

collected. I believe environmental impact should be 

the primary consideration when developing a usage 

plan for this area. For example, Hikers have very 

little environmental impact, so the largest area should 

be available to them. On the other hand, motorized 

vehicles have a very large impact on the 

environment, so their allotted areas should be small 

and 

Comment: Nice job on the trail system. I would like 

to see a similarly developed motorized trail system 

on the North side of I-70. Preferably with lots of 

single track motorcycling opportunities. 

Comment: Fruita has the potential to be a great 

mountain biking Mecca, but unless more trails are 

opened and the elitist attitude of the locals is 

tempered, I doubt this will happen. (of course, the 

aforementioned locals will be glad). 

Comment: <Answer Bad Idea to No fees charged on 

weekdays> Those on a limited income probably have 

a decreased opportunity to recreate on WEEKDAYS. 

Comment: Please preserve this incredible resource 

by minimally development. Please do not develop 

off-road trails for ATV--they are extremely 

destructive! Send them to the 

desert--with no populated areas near. Thank you, 

<name of 

Comment: <Answer to Toilets and parking, Good 

Idea> Already Exists Minimal 

Comment: No fees! 

Comment: No fees please! 

Comment: More single track! Go across the river. 

Comment: I think the terrain is very fragile and needs 

protecting. After the third day of the Fruita Fat Tire I 

thought the terrain had deteriorated on some of the 

trails. I loved being able to ride them but worry about 

the terrain being able to withstand extended high 

volume use. 

Comment: Great trails in the area! My 2nd fat tire 

festival in a row. 

Comment: If fees become necessary, it's important 

that they be used locally for maintenance and 

educational activities at the site they were collected. I 

would much rather see the environment and 

recreational activities given a higher priority in the 

national budget. Perhaps we could forgo invading 

some small, oil-rich country for a year or two to help 

fund these 

Devil’s Canyon 

Comment: I'm very wary of effects to get more 

people to visit the trail. As overuse will detract from 

the experience and damage the trails. Also please, 

please, please keep motorized vehicles off the trail. 

Comment: Terminate to Fee Demonstration Project. 

Petition Congress to Fund the USFS, BLM, NPS, and 

others at their full level so they do not rely on fees. I 

avoid "Fee Demo" areas and seek free public land 

recreation. 

Comment: No Fees at all 

Comment: this was a beautiful area--lots to see on 

mountain bikes. We could easily have ridden several 

days to see everything. We especially enjoyed it 

because the area is open, free, non-restrictive, varied 

terrain, friendly and not crowded—not 

commercialized. We'd love to see it remain as it is. 

However, I am sure that camping areas would be 

appreciated by many (but with that would cause more 

roads!) 

Comment: <Answer was 2, I would visit this location 

less often in the future> and use other biking trails in 

the area. $3.00 x 5 people = $15.00 / day for use. It 

all adds up. 

Comment: NO FEES PLEASE!! Keep public lands 

open and free, this is why I chose Devils Canyon 

instead of Co. Nat Monument I appreciate what 

you've done with the area, especially closure to motor 

vehicles and ATV's It's great just the way it is, don't 

need another national park type experience. 

Comment: I am getting sick and tired of government 

agencies trying to find new ways to tax me. I'm 

already paying sales taxes, state income tax, federal 

income, user taxes galore, etc. , etc. If the BLM is 

having difficulties staying afloat maybe they do like 

the civilian sector and start trimming the useless fat 

from within. The BLM keeps converting our best 

local usage areas into high-overhead, fee-based areas 

that require additional funding simply to advertise to 

other heavily populated areas (I.e. the Front Range 

and SLC areas). The end result is that I will 

eventually have to travel hundreds of miles to go on a 

trail run rather than be able to go out into our local 

PUBLIC lands. Oh yeah, I'll be happy to pick-up my 

dog's excrement when the BLM requires horse 

owners to do the same. At least my dog doesn't shit 

all over ‘th f'n trail’. I don't give a damn if horse shit 

is cleaner or not, I'm tired of the preference 

demonstrated toward horse owners. 

Comment: The purpose of our trip to Fruita and 

Moab was to mountain bike. It was disappointing to 

46
 

find access basically closed in the Devils Canyon. A 

person doing a survey informed me it was due to 

wildlife preservation, which I respect, but at the same 

time these trails are open to hikers and horses, which 

will effect wildlife as much as bicycle access. This 

makes me think the real reason is conflicting uses 

coupled with a closed mindset. I strongly support reopening these trails to bicycle access. 

Comment: I feel it is important to preserve the 

beautiful environment that we have at Devils 

Canyon. It would be a mistake to open this area to 

motorized vehicles / ATVs and/or camping. 

Comment: Hi Shana, I love those canyons so much. I 

started going there 15 yrs. Ago. No trails except the 

sheep trails. Got permission from the back. I would 

simple die if it wasn't there. . I saw the jeeps and all 

terrain vehicles tear it up so badly for years. So SAD! 

I think it is developed enough. The poor fish and 

frogs in the ponds what happened with that? Also, 

200 house all being built .What effect will that bring. 

My partner for 9 yrs and I are so concerned with the 

future of these great lands. When you build a parking 

lot for horse trailers--you need input from people 

with the big rigs--we use to park on the top of the hill 

and ride down into the road--not where the lot is now 

on top over looking the river anyway. The lot they 

put in there--on top--we can't park there too small / 

my trailer is 22 ft. 4-door truck. Is there some way to 

stop the 200 houses? I do care about these beautiful 

canyons. "Flume" is my favorite. So the rocks slide 

down wall one day. What a experience. I've walked 

and ridden every part from Kings view to "mee"-­

wow isn't "mee" something!! Thanks <respondent 

name and telephone number> 

Comment: I like that Devil's canyon is off limits to 

motorized vehicles. It is one of the few places you 

can ride horses and not have a motorcycle or ATV 

drive up next to you while you are enjoying the views 

and the wildlife. IT has a peaceful environment for 

the riders, horses, wildlife and hikers. 

Comment: Maps of trails, or approx. time to hike 

trails would have made our hike perfect! 

Comment: Trail maps or approx. hiking time would 

be helpful 

Comment: A very wonderful and beautiful area! 

Trails could be better marked (we got a little 

confused) camping would be awesome! One of my 

favorite areas! 

Comment: This is the first time I heard about the 

plan to charging a fee for Devils Canyon Area and it 

saddens me to think that there are people out there 

who seem to think that this area needs to be 

developed further. I'm sorry to think that there are 

dollar signs in people’s minds and not common 

sense! I am in devils canyon a great deal. It is never 

overcrowded, almost no litter, most no ecological 

destruction, it does not need any trail improvements 

and ultimately does not need to be managed in any 

way. 

Comment: The recent addition to Devils Canyon of 

"doggie bags" would not be irritating to me if I didn't 

have to constantly move off trail because I've 

encountered a large pile of horse droppings directly 

in my path. Are there plans for horse users to have to 

pick up their animals excrement? This would only 

seem fair, I don't see how the impact of horses is any 

less. Also PLEASE zero ATV use; conservation 

includes the QUIET experience of hiking as well. 

Comment: <a. bad idea> restrict camping/0camping 

<e. very bad idea> 0 camping please <g. no answer> 

I do not go to the National Parks because of pet 

restrictions; only use BLM areas in the valley 

Comment: Annual Pass is applicable 

Comment: <d. very good idea>if pass is useable on 

weekends 

Comment: <a. bad idea> people will litter them! 

Comment: I LOVE the fact that I can run these trails 

w/ my lab, Abbey. It gives me and her such joy to 

exercise in the splendor of these canyons. I often pick 

up trash in the parking lot while I cool down after a 

run. Please maintain the low profile nature of the 

area--that is so much of its chain and allure. 

Comment: <No for $2> I have trouble paying to just 

go trail running--I'll run on the monument trails 

instead 

Comment: <d. now answer> No unless the pass from 

item "c" does not exclude weekends. 

Comment: We love being able to take our dog for 

long hikes but we were glad to see signs asking 

people to clean up after their dogs! 

Comment: I had a great day at Devil's Canyon and 

would like to return to do additional day hikes. I 

would NOT like to see motorized vehicles allowed. I 

also liked the fact that most of the hiking trails did 

not allow mountain bikers--it's sometimes scary to 

share the trail with high-speed bikers. I do think there 

SHOULD be bike trails in the area. Though. It would 

be nice to someday have a brochure of the area with a 

trail map to take along on the hike--maybe charge a 

small fee for the maps. I think a fee of $5 or less is 

fine. I think more would discourage people from 

coming. But if fees are changed, there should be an 

47
 

annual pass so locals / people who use area a lot don't 

have to pay so much. 

Comment: <didn't answer, but wrote in big letters 

across the table, "No FEES"> 

Comment: *With the exception of the rapidly 

growing elderly day-hiker population, judging by the 

Comments at the Pollock Bench Log Book. I am sick 

and tired of the inept, wasteful and biased 

mismanagement of public lands within the control of 

the BLM. Forest and foremost, quit classifying 

mountain bikes as "motorized vehicles". The closest 

classification would be to pair mountain biking with 

horseback riding. I have yet to witness one 

circumstance where an altercation has taken place. 

Everyone appears to get along on the trails*. 

Secondly, I am sick and tired of constant trial 

closures to mountain bikers (and presumably soon to 

come, runners) when the BLM consistently suckers 

IMBA and COPMOBA members to come out to help 

with trail maintenance and then close the trails off to 

them. I have yet to see ANY members of other 

special interest groups (I.e. ATV, 4x4s, horse 

owners) volunteer or self-police the trails, yet most 

existing areas remain open to their groups. Stop 

catering to big-business (gas and oil interests) and 

ranchers. I am tired of subsidizing their businesses. 

There are plenty of remote areas to "manage" Leave 

the local accessible areas alone. BLM apparently 

wants to make the Devils canyon area a tourist 

attraction at the expense of the locals who have used 

it for years. It will become another god-damned 

Mary's Look fiasco. For the most part, the locals now 

avoid that trail system since it was "developed" for 

the front range population. 

Comment: This survey SAYS Devils Canyon, but 

questions are more toward CO Cyns total area. 

Camping would be OK, but near the road only. I 

would like to be able to backpack. I think it is fair to 

collect fees from those using the areas, so long as 

fees are used in those areas. Thanks for seeking out 

the 

Comment: You ask that you pick up after pets!! 

There is horse poop everywhere!! What's up with 

that--the horses make the biggest impact--they are 

there every day--charge them--if you own a horse 

you have $$$! 

Comment: It is frustrating to have to pay for every 

visit to State, National and now BLM land. I would 

volunteer to clean trails or other activities. I would 

like to see it undeveloped as possible. I like the 

condition of the trails in Devils Canyon--just right for 

day hiking. I also like to hike with my dog and this is 

a great place for us to go. I do clean up after my dog 

and keep him close to me. All other horse and dog 

people I've met have been 

Comment: Please leave Devil's Canyon as it is. I 

actually liked it BEFORE you came and restricted 

travel and put signs up. It just increases the number 

of visitors. Leave it alone! 

Comment: I believe the Federal Government should 

put more of my tax dollars to work for Parks and 

Recreation, including land acquisition, maintenance, 

supervision, repair and restoration and interpretation. 

I do mind paying an annual fee for my personal use 

of these lands on top of my taxes. I do not want to 

have to pay with each day use. The cost of acquiring 

and administrating public lands should be shared by 

all taxpayers. Those who actually use the lands can 

pay and user fee as well, but that money should go 

towards maintenance and restriction from use. 

Comment: Only saw a little of the area. Was taken 

there by a resident to see it briefly. Didn't have time 

to stay long but did enjoy the national setting and 

would hope you could keep it that way as much as 

possible. We already have too many beautiful places 

ruined with recreational use in excess. 

Comment: No every piece of BLM land needs to be a 

fee area. Don't advertise it. Let people find it and use 

it as is without "improving" it. 

Comment: BLM is public land - - for all the public -­

young and old--rich or poor. I donate all my "free" 

volunteer time for the good of the public. My talents, 

skills, knowledge, energy and interests are extensive­

-as is my desire to give back to the country, people, 

and community I love. My financial resources are 

now extremely limited. At this moment I feel 

defeated and cheated, if public lands are only for 

those who can afford it. I am sorry it has come to 

this--I always wanted to be a paleontologist. 

<respondent name> 

Comment: Many people are willing to donate their 

time to help maintain trails, close unnecessary trails, 

etc. in this community. The BLM needs to do a better 

job of reaching out to these people to get them to 

participate in helping to maintain high-use areas. This 

could eliminate the need for more funds being needed 

through a fee program. I am extremely opposed to 

any type of user fees for low impact use such as 

hiking. 

Comment: We live in Colorado and have since I was 

2 yrs old, we should not have to pay to go for a hike. 

Our taxes are high enough! The wilderness should 

stay the wilderness go to a recreational area, to be 

paid for: "Wake up and smell the wild roses! Without 

paying for them" 

48
 

Comment: <no answer, writing across table in large 

letters, "Leave it as is, no change"> 

Comment: <no answers but large writing across the 

table, "Leave it as it is, no changes"> 

Comment: Please don't regulate BLM property as 

heavily as National Monuments. I enjoy staying to 

paths. I enjoy the SAFETY of having my canine 

friend accompanying me on my runs. I've been 

running the cabin trail for six years. Although the 

numbers of people have increased, I've not noticed 

negative changes to the environment. More water 

holes would be appreciated by both domestic and 

wildlife. Remove the unsightly port-a-potty. BLM is 

doing an excellent job of maintaining this remote 

area! 

Comment: <answer yes to $2> probably, more than 

likely I would be one of those pay and is hoping not 

to get a ticket. 

Comment: I enjoy running on the trails at Devils 

Canyon. I enjoy not being run over by mountain 

bikes. We like to bring our puppy for walks. I DO 

NOT agree with charging a fee! I will not come back 

to Devil's Canyon if there is a fee. I enjoy having a 

beautiful / peaceful place to go, so close to home! 

Comment: I would like to see drastic changes happen 

to this area. Keep it a "natural beauty". 

Comment: Beautiful area--we need to protect it!! 

Comment: <answer no to $5> maybe not, there are 

lots of other places nearby 

Comment: Please protect this beautiful area from 

ranching. ATV's / off-road vehicles and overdevelopment. 

Comment: Spent 8 nights and 7 days in the area. I 

was impressed by the cleanliness of the area and I 

hiked and rode horse in. There was very little litter. 

Unfortunately at the beginning of the hiking trail 

there was a great deal of dog waste. However, If 

money is extremely tight it wouldn't be worth it to 

patrol the area. Once we were on the trail a ways the 

problem 

Comment: Make the arches area in Horsetheif canyon 

more accessible. Put mileage for trails on signs and 

brochures; describe type of trail and scenery (easymoderate - difficult, elevation climb, etc.) 

Comment: There is no advertising about Devils 

Canyon on I70 at all. It just happens there are a lot of 

"Colorado Hot spots" where people should not be 

allowed to camp. And only "picnic" undesignated 

areas. Devil’s Canyon is a great "Colorado Secret"! 

Comment: <didn't answer for $3> I would prefer an 

annual pass. At $3 per visit, I'd have to look for other 

places to walk. Maybe that would be good for the 

area, though! 

Dinosaur Hill 

Comment: I loved the wilderness and isolation of 

Dinosaur Hill. I hope you don't spoil it with too much 

regulation. 

Comment: Your USGS Rep. On site was very polite. 

Most of the trails were well kept. 

Comment: I am dismayed by the increased use of 

recreational lands but recognize a need to develop 

them in a planned manner. 

Comment: Question #3 is confusing. There isn't an 

opportunity to participate in choices: 1, 3–11, 13,14 

at this location 

Comment: I would like to see the signage worked on 

at dinosaur hill. The brochure was good, but not all # 

ed signs were still standing. 

Comment: More signs for directions and a cleaner 

map would be appreciated Thank you. Good luck. 

Comment: Trash bins, allow pets or leash 

Comment: A lot of people like us, use the hill as a 

workout location on weekends. I would not mind 

paying an annual fee, but I would hate to see any 

more development at this area. It's natural charm is 

GREAT. Guided tours on weekends twice a day 

might be good for visitors in the summer. Allow 

locals who want to work out, to use the hill as early 

as 7am and in the evenings until 8 or 9 pm in the 

summer when the sun sets later. Toilets would be 

OK. Parking is OK now. 

Comment: The old rule applies: If you develop 

something in nature people will come and they will 

run it: protect the hill; don't develop. Provide 

excellent maps and interpretation: keep it natural. 

Example, the Hill map is terrible. Legibility, 

interpretation, printing, Look! At the trail map, can't 

you read 

Rabbit Valley 

Comment: The biggest problems I see at R.V. are, 

#1, Dirt bikers making their own trails at will. 

They've trashed countless acres of public and private 

land. Add to that no visible enforcement of the rules, 

49
 

and the problem continues to worsen. #2, camping in 

no 

Comment: No fees. 

Comment: Only charge non-residents. 

Comment: Do not open single track trails to ATV's. 

Comment: I love how you are getting people 

involved to help make Rabbit Valley a better place 

and thanks so much for helping to fix up the camping 

spot where NATRC met for the ride. The grave 

limited a lot of the dust. Thanks a ton again. 

Comment: I don't know that Rabbit Valley needs law 

enforcement in general. I did see the BLM had to 

remove a discarded camper while we were there. 

That's unfortunate. I would hope that one user group 

isn't singled out for misuse of the land. I'm a 

motorcycle 

Comment: I hate the noise & destruction of trail 

bikes-just being on their own trails help. There 

should be areas without noise from these bikes. IEKronks Overlooks Campground. Restricting vehicles 

and RV to designated trails has helped the area a 

great deal a 

Comment: Rabbit Valley is a great area. One reason 

it is so great is that it is free. I see no reason to charge 

people to use public lands. Perhaps the 

groups(Equine, ATV, etc.)that use the area could 

help with improvements, trail marking, maintenance 

or clean. 

Comment: The restroom needs cleaning, repair and 

maintenance. Develop separate trail system for 

motorized vs non-motorized, road needs grading. 

Keep separate. 

Comment: Thank you for asking my opinion. I love 

visiting the area & enjoy every moment. Good luck. 

Comment: The park attendants did a great job on site 

areas and pit toilets. The marked trails were easy to 

read. Easy to stay on and off appropriate trails. 

Comment: The large camping lot (NATRC ride) is 

horrid! The Rock is helping, but need lots more, 

please. 

Comment: It is a lovely area but I do not see it as a 

high use area that would warrant employees, rules, 

fees etc. 

Comment: Our group (NATRC), both regionally and 

nationally, has approved trail funds to be spent 

improving the camp site we use for our once-yearly 

trail ride in coordination with BLM. We hope this 

will benefit other groups as well. If individuals would 

have to p 

Comment: Would like to see the BLM use local 

clubs instead of fees. belong to two of them and we 

never hear from the BLM unless we are doing 

something they do not like. There are also grants 

available for this kind of stuff. Co HVC, parks etc. 

No 

Comment: Only problem I ever find @ areas like this 

are that approx 1 in 10?–do not clean up their camp 

areas. I p/u over ten bags of trash every time. How to 

regulate? Too many rules ruin the exp. Like very 

regulate NP campgrounds(ugh) So I guess the other 9 

Comment: No fees at all 

Comment: The ATV/motorbike traffic is noisy & 

dusty-so I would like some hiking areas far from the 

noise & dust. Thanks. 

Comment: I like the idea of a fee for use area if the 

fees are used directly for the area they are collected. 

Have a day users fee as well as an annual pass that is 

affordable and feasible. I believe if the visitor sees 

improvements in infrastructures then the f 

Comment: The only Comment: I have is a general 

one regarding the land use on BLM lands. It is 

hypocrisy to talk about (sp) crytopsychotic soil and 

limiting movement on it while allowing cows to walk 

all over it and crap everywhere. Get cows off these 

BLM lands. 

Comment: There is a real need for maps of the area 

that can be taken along the trail. We had a real 

challenge finding the trailhead and almost gave up. 

Glad we didn't–Ruby Canyon is 

Comment: I only come for the ride. There is a lot of 

dust in some places that is a turn off. It is a great 

place to do trail rides because it is big and beautiful. I 

love what you are doing to help the competitive trail 

rides. The gravel helped a lot-than 

Comment: If you don't know where the "Stinking 

Desert" is, you should not be doing this survey. It is a 

large area whose history is parallel to that of what's 

happening in Rabbit Valley: over-use, planning with 

little study of the consequences, failure of man 

Comment: Many people cannot afford to pay to use 

these lands. How about a voluntary donation & 

specify what it is to be used for? Need to work on 

roads. 

Comment: I would like to see BLM outlaw the use of 

dirt bikes and ATV's at Rabbit Valley. So many times 

I have seen them, or see their traces off the trails. 

They are loud, they pollute the air, and they have no 

regard for the wildlife and nature. 

50
 

Comment: Develop campgrounds w/campsite 

accessible for car camping(not just 4-wheel drive 

access)or R.V. vehicles 

Comment: One of the great options of BLM land is 

that it's free. But I understand to maintain its 

cleanliness, its accessibility & its natural beauty, 

money is necessary. I hope that if Rabbit Valley does 

decide to implement a fee, that they do so with 

prudence 

Comment: Rather than having "police" charging 

money everywhere that is nice-try to use general 

taxpayer funds to manage the lands. This is a benefit 

of being a citizen of the USA. Extractive activities 

such as oil & gas could also subsidize recreational 

mgt. 

Comment: Nice place to stop & rest when traveling 

E. & W. on I-70 

Comment: No fees. 

Comment: The motorized vehicle use(dirt bikes & 

ATV's are ruining the Rabbit Valley experience with 

noise & and destruction of landscape & trails. It is 

blatantly obvious, many pictures have been taken for 

proof. Why can't we change this? It will soon be for 

mot 

Comment: No fees ever 

Comment: I don't have any ideas about the fees. Just 

don't start charging if you don't have to . Please keep 

what a good thing you have there. 

Comment: No fees at all. Seems to me as soon as an 

area becomes popular, fees get levied!! 

Comment: If you pay taxes no fee. If you don't pay 

taxes, stay off my land, we are supporting you 

already 

Comment: Have scholarships for people--they would 

be based on merit, knowledge of good practices-­

outdoors, use of bikes, etc. 

Comment: No fees at all. 

Comment: No fees period...I less Smart Bomb 

would do it... 

Comment: Keep the fees low. Perhaps lower rates for 

60years and over and/or for families. Those who are 

willing and able could donate higher amounts. 

Comment: Think that the area should remain as it 

is—mostly undeveloped and no fee 

Comment: $4 a day isn't too much to charge to make 

sure the place isn't torn up by dirt bikes, people won't 

just trash the place (like Lavender Canyon in Utah) 

Comment: 55 cents older fee
 

Comment: A fee is fine, but only if used to preserve 
 

the place. Natural-not commercial. 
 

Comment: Get a job! 
 

Comment: Charge a small fee every day 
 

Comment: No fees at all, use your budget! 
 

Comment: Maybe fees for camping only 
 

Comment: Bring a copy of the latest state or federal 
 

income tax form. If below certain limit entry is free. 
 

Comment: Please do not make this area a monument
 

or wilderness. Thank you. 
 

Comment: donations 
 

Comment: please do not collect fees 
 

Comment: As long as weekday-free days were open 
 

to all 
 

Comment: Maybe offer services with profit margins-
 

like no day-use fees, but have camping and shower
 

fees and maybe sell water or snacks, etc. 
 

Comment: under 18 years of age 
 

Comment: Have an optional fee box with a suggested
 

amount perhaps based on how much you enjoyed the 
 

time spent. Let people's conscience decide. 
 

Comment: I enjoy Ravit Valley as it is. It is a
 

beautiful place and part of that beauty is the fact that 
 

it is natural setting, no
 

Comment: People that can pay for a car, and the gas 

to get them there can pay $3. Busloads of welfare 

recipients can go in free. 

Comment: No Fees! 
 


Comment: No fees period 
 


Comment: No Fees 
 


Comment: Disabled and senior citizens free access 
 


Comment: No fees would ever be charged! 
 


Comment: High fee to hunters. Family fee good for a 
 


week. Low fee–(car) 
 


Comment: No opinion
 


Comment: The great attraction is its pure natural feel. 
 


Open space-do not make the place a tourist trap or 

RV tour attraction. It's rawness makes it special, plus 

keeps most people away-the less adventurous crowd. 

Comment: We usually ride motorcycles and camp 

when we come down. Try to come more in winter of 

course. We come for the trail systems and have spent 

51
 

time at the rock art and the fossil trail. A few more 

bathrooms are a out the only "improvements" needed 

really. 

Comment: I go to parks to ride and play all over 

Colorado and they all have their special appeal. 

Rabbit Valley is special because of the set up they 

have with no gates at the part and you can come and 

go as you please. I can afford fees and would pay if I 

had t 

Comment: I enjoyed my visit and plan on doing it 

again. Pleas don't try to fix what isn't broken. It 

seems like a wonderful place just as it is. 

Comment: I like seeing it used. I need an area to hike 

without the noise of motor sports please. 

Comment: I think developing car-camping spots with 

tire grates and shared toilets is the best thing that can 

be done. They should be pay sights to help cover 

costs. When people are required to pay even a 

minimal user fee the stewardship mentality increases 

Comment: I am opposed to fees simply for the fact I 

participate in the OHV program and have since it 

began. The monies from the program are supposed to 

pay for maintenance and other expenses to keep trails 

and recreational areas open, so far all my experience 

has 

Comment: It still ought to be a pay-to-use area. 

Comment: $2.00 is not too much for organized rec. 

use. 

Comment: No fees for youth groups No fees off 

season 

Comment: Why not just leave things alone?-no fees 

at all! 

Comment: No fees charged ever. We already pay 

fees to the BLM in the form of taxes to the Federal 

Government. 

Comment: Push congress/president to fully fund our 

federal land management agencies. Not good to 

concentrate use merely because you're poor. 

Comment: I greatly appreciate being allowed to ride 

my motorcycle on the trails at Rabbit Valley. I hope 

the trails will remain designated as single-track; 

OHV's should be restricted to the designated twotracks. My experiences with the other users; 

Comment: If planning to camp-don't charge an 

entrance fee! Make camping fee reasonable!-charge 

an entrance fee if not camping! 

Comment: Accept National Park Pass and CO State 

Park Pass. 

Comment: No fees at all 
 


Comment: No fees 
 


Comment: Charge non residents 
 


Comment: The season pass should alleviate this
 


Comment: When you don't charge consistently it's 
 


hard for the public to understand 
 


Comment: Find a way with the resources you have
 


Comment: A moderate fee 
 


Comment: Senior pass? 
 


Comment: Most people @ L.I. Do work, so not chg 
 


during week wouldn't help them. 
 


Comment: Senior passes (yearly or life time)
 


Comment: Don't promote R.V. as a destination site. 
 


Hide it. Soft impact use only. Drought, overgrazing 

and over use by wheeled vehicles & fire & wind has 

changed it dramatically in just a quarter century. Like 

the "Stinking Desert," it may never recover. 

Comment: Have a "free day" or days to have the 

opportunity to serve lower income users & take the 

time to inform & educate 

Comment: Our family strongly supports fee 

collection and road maintenance. We could not 

access McDonald Canyon with our vehicle. 

Comment: Keep the fee affordable for anyone. 

Comment: No fees! It is not a popular stop. I do not 

see it like a RMNP or other high use area. 

Comment: I fully support management of our public 

lands for multiple beneficial use but strongly oppose 

additional user fees particularly considering the 

disproportionate amount of tax I currently pay as an 

employer and business owner. 

Comment: Fees volunteered as donations rather than 

collected 

Comment: Donation or volunteer fee 

Comment: $2.00 isn't enough to keep anyone out-if 

you can afford to drive out here you can afford $2.00 

to enjoy the amenities. 

Comment: Charge high impact users i.e. motorized 

users 

Comment: How would making these 2 options help 

people with limited income? How are you to 

determine who are limited income people? 

Comment: One fee/one week stay 
 

Comment: One day a week is free. 
 

52
 

Comment: $2 dollars a day 

Comment: Like an easy way to collect the money-or 

just collect it from all taxpayers-then we don't have to 

spend resources checking permits & writing tickets 

Comment: I appreciate very much the use of BLM 

land, however it is the motorized ATV & motor cross 

that cause the damage to the environment more than 

the hikers and mountain bikers. Thank you. 

Comment: Rabbit Valley is a beautiful area. It was a 

pleasant surprise to see an area with no fees. I am 

content with Rabbit Valley staying the way it is. On 

busy weekends it may need more camping sites 

though. 

Comment: It would be great if you had motorized 

trails separate from mechanical or hiking trails! Like 

the idea of hiking & horse trails together! Improve 

the road in spots! I noticed improvement in the 

drainage! You should charge a reasonable price 

because of 

Comment: I think a fee would be a slow thing to do 

besides if you charge a person then you would have 

to police. Fraud flat would drive your costs over what 

it costs don't be stupid. 

Comment: Volunteers 

Comment: No fees at all 

Comment: Charge fees for motorized vehicles ie. 

Motocross, and camping overnight. 

Comment: Charging fees to use Rabbit Valley and 

etc. is a very bad and unworkable idea. It is 

counterproductive and simply creates animosity 

between the public and the federal agency. The 

Forest Service found it did not work at Yankee Boy 

Basin in the San Juan’s 

Comment: There should be less roads and small 

parking areas. One or two big ones with a variety of 

trails suited for different activities leaving the parking 

areas would greatly improve the overall experience. 

Also, whole sections should be restricted to nonmotor 

Comment: I have only experienced positive, 

respectful trail etiquette and yielding from my fellow 

trail users(I.e. mtn bike, ATV, motocross, 

cars/trucks) Please don't pave a thing! 

Comment: Stagger fees based on their impact on 

environment(I.e. motorized pay more than mtn. 

Bikes, mtn bikes pay more than hikers) 

Comment: Give them a pass which would allow 

them to forgo charge. 

Comment: Free fees on some holiday weekends. 

Comment: It's important to strike a balance between 

conservation and recreation. Collecting fees is ok to 

have additional resources to find this balance. 

Comment: No fees period. 

Comment: Low income pass (based on tax returns) 

Comment: No fee for 1 day use. Fee for camping, 

rafting other special use fee for maps etc ok Big fee 

for stuck vehicles!! 

Comment: Charge commercial users-extractive 

industries & guide/outfitter services-particularly 

commercial rafting 

Comment: Charge 3 or 4 dollars every day 

Comment: Part of the beauty of the area is lack of 

people therefore if a fee keep them away as well as 

underdevelopment then keep it that way please! 

Comment: No fees. My tax should pay for all public 

land use. 

53
 

Appendix C 

Attentive Public Survey – Question Summaries 

54 
In this section of the report are the findings and summary statistics for each question that 

appeared in the survey. Data used in these analyses were collected from the 203 returned, mail 

back surveys. 

1. The BLM would like to know where you spend you time when you visit Colorado Canyons NCA. (Please choose the ONE area 

where you spent the most time this year. This location will be used to respond to the rest of the questions in this survey.) 

Colorado Canyons NCA Location (n=203) N 

Rabbit Valley 

Kokopelli’s Loops/Mack Ridge 

Colorado River/Loma Boat Launch 

Devil’s Canyon 

Dinosaur Hill 

Pollock Bench 

Other 

No Answer 

72 

27 

33 

27 

7 

15 

12 

10 

Percent (%) 

35 

13 

16 

13 

3 

7 

6 

5 

2. Is this your first time visiting this location? (n = 198) 

9% YES 
 

86% NO 
 

5% No Answer 
 

3. How would you rate your overall experience? (n = 198) 

48% Excellent 
 


40% Good 
 


6% Fair 
 


1% Poor 
 


5% No Answer 

4. Please circle all of the activities you participated in at this location within the past year. 

73% Day hiking 29% Kayaking/rafting/canoeing 

21% Walking/running 7% Fishing 

21% Picnicking 7% Sunbathing/swimming 

25% Mountain bike riding 33% Viewing fossils or rock art 

9% Motorcycle or OHV riding 50% Wildlife watching 

16% Backpacking/Backcountry 64% Scenery 

% 45% Photography 

11% Camping near vehicle 4% Motor-boating 

10% Horseback riding 4% Hunting camp 

Other activities: 

55 

4a. From the list above please rank in order of importance your three main activities at this location within the past year. 

Order of importance (%) 

1st 2nd 3rd 

31 21 9 Day hiking 

2 5 3 Walking/running 

1 2 1 Picnicking 

13 4 3 Mountain bike riding 

7 1 2 Motorcycle or OHV riding 

3 4 - Backpacking/Backcountry 

- 3 - Camping near vehicle 

8 2 1 Horseback riding 

11 4 3 Kayaking/rafting/canoeing 

- 2 1 Fishing 

- 1 1 Sunbathing/swimming 

4 3 8 Viewing fossils or rock art 

2 8 12 Wildlife watching 

3 23 21 Scenery 

2 4 12 Photography 

2 1 1 Motor-boating 

1 - 2 Hunting camp 

4 9 15 No answer 

5. Please tell us more about your visitation experience by indicating how important each item was to that experience at this 

location. 

Experiences at this location 

Not at all importantNot tooimportantSomewhatimportantImportantVery importantDoes not applyNo Answer 

This experience helped me to better understand the 

environment and the history of the area. 2 5 25 36 20 6 4 

This experience helped me slow down and relax for a while. 3 7 12 34 37 4 3 

I did something here that I have never done before. 18 10 11 7 5 42 6 

I was able to share this experience with my family. 9 4 10 36 19 18 4 

This time allowed me to enjoy a range of physical challenges. 7 8 25 29 23 3 5 

reading about it. 

I was able to be in an active and dynamic setting instead of 4 6 8 34 37 5 6 

It was intellectually stimulating 6 12 23 24 15 13 7 

I was able to enjoy physical exercise in a natural environment. 1 3 14 27 49 1 5 

This time allowed me to get away from a developed setting to 

a natural setting. 1 3 8 26 56 2 4 

56
 

6. Do you plan to return to this location? (n = 202) 

95% YES 

4% NO 

1% No Answer 

7. How many visits have you made to this area in the last 12 months 12.2 (Mean # of visits). 

8. How did you learn about this area? 

Friends 47% 
 


Recreation Group (OHV club, hiking group, etc.) 17% 
 


BLM Staff 17% 
 


Visitor Brochure 8% 
 


Family 7% 
 


Travel Guidebook 6% 
 


Local Tourism Information Center 4% 
 


BLM Web site 3% 
 


Highway signs 3% 
 


Hotel Staff .5% 
 


Other web site 
 


Magazines 
 


Other 


 I live in this area, I grew up here, Other media sources, Personal knowledge 

9. What was your one-way travel time form your home to this area; long does it generally take for you to get here? (n = 200) 

0 to 2 hours 3 to 5 hours 6 to 8 hours 9 to 12 hours More than 12 hours 

49.2% 24.6% 10.4% 8.8% 7.3% 

10. Including yourself, what was the number of people in your group who traveled with you on this most recent visit to this 

location? (n = 198) 

1–5 people 6–10 people 11–20 people More than 20 people No answer 

73% 10% 8 % 6% 3% 

11. What was the amount of time you spent at this location? (n = 198) 

1 day More than No 2 days 3 days 4 days 5–10 days or less 10 days answer 

6% 13% 6% 2% 2% .5% 71% 

57 

12. Listed below are a few management questions for this location. Please indicate what you think about the following 

management options? (n=203) 

Very good idea

Very bad idea

Does not apply

Good idea

No answer

Bad idea

Management options 

Developing more recreational experience opportunities at this 13% 17% 30% 30% 2% 8% location 

Not developing any facilities, and manage the area for 43% 16% 16% 13% 5% 7% undeveloped use only. 


Restricting recreation at this location to limit impact on rare 
 27% 31% 17% 11% 6% 8% plants and wildlife species. 


Developing a series of motorized off-road vehicles trail loop, 
 12% 10% 17% 54% 2% 5% managing for all terrain vehicles and motorcycle use. 

Adding day use areas such as picnic areas, etc. 8% 36% 23% 22% 3% 9% 

13. If fees were collected at the Colorado Canyons NCA, the money could be used in a number of ways. Please ind icate the 

response that best represents what you think. (n=203) 

Money collected from fees at this location should be spent on 

Very good idea

Good idea

Bad idea

es not apply

No answer 

Educational and interpretive materials such as maps and 

brochures 20% 49% 10% 

Very bad idea

8% 

Do

.5% 12% 

Guided tours of the area 3% 21% 27% 33% 5% 12% 

Toilets and parking 17% 48% 16% 7% 2% 10% 

Roads and trails 18% 43% 12% 12% 2% 13% 

Law enforcement 26% 41% 8% 11% 3% 10% 

Camping areas 10% 31% 27% 16% 3% 12% 

Wildlife/habitat protection 47% 27% 5% 1% 6% 11% 

Protection of dinosaur fossil locations 48% 25% 6% 2% 4% 14% 

58
 

14. To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following fee-permitting options for the Colorado Canyons NCA. (For each 

statement, please circle the number that best represents your level of agreement.) (n=203) 

Different fees for different lengths of recreational stay (for 

example, a week versus a day) 

Very good idea 

19% 

Good idea 

42% 

Bad idea 

9% 

Very bad idea 

13% 

No answer 

17% 

Different fees for residents versus non-residents 13% 10% 37% 26% 14% 

An annual pass that includes the Colorado National Monument 

and the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area 26% 42% 7% 12% 12% 

weekends. 

An entrance fee for high-use periods such as holidays and 12% 28% 24% 20% 16% 

A fee for specific recreation use, such as the use of camping sites 19% 43% 13% 8% 16% 

An annual pass that would allow you to visit all BLM locations as 

often as you would like 31% 34% 10% 12% 14% 

An annual pass for all the areas within the region managed by 

different federal agencies (e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 32% 28% 11% 13% 15% 

National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the BLM). 

15. If the BLM were to charge an entrance fee at the Colorado Canyons NCA, would you have still made this visit today? (n=203) 

Entrance fee amount N No Yes 

$1 36 16% 22% 

$2 28 4% 22% 

$3 52 24% 23% 

$4 52 28% 23% 

$5 35 28% 9% 

16. If NO, why not 

6% I would pay but not this much 


2% I cannot afford to pay this amount of money 


3% It is unfair to expect me to pay for better management of these lands 


17% I am opposed to paying for the use of public lands for recreational purposes 


3% I am opposed to paying the government for the maintenance of these public lands 


2% I come here now because it is free 


12% Other 


17. If the BLM collected a recreation fee (refer to your location in question 1) at this location, how likely would the fee affect your 

visits to this location in the future? 

43% I would continue to use this location just as frequently in the future
 


27% I would visit this location less often in the future 
 


1% I would do some other activity at this location 
 


20% I would do the same activity I did today, but at a different location 
 


2% I would do a different activity at a different location 
 


5% No Answer 
 


59
 
18. If a fee were collected at this location, people with limited income may stop visiting this location. The BLM would like to know 

which fee option would allow people with a limited income to continue to visit this location. To what extent would you agree or 

disagree with the following fee permitting options for people with limited income. (n=203) Very good idea

Good ideaBad ideaVery bad ideaNo answer 

No fees would be charged on weekdays 21% 26% 23% 9% 21% 

An annual pass would be available at a reduced rate that is 17% 30% 20% 14% 19% reserved for people with a limited income 

Other 17% 3% 1% 3% 76% 

Summary of socio demographic questions. 

Socio demographic variables Frequency Percent Mean 

Gender (n=196) 

Male 145 73 

Female 52 27 

Age 53.5 

Education (n=196) 

 High School/GED 11 6 

Some College/ Associate Degree 41 21 

College Graduate 63 32 

 Post Graduate degree 81 41 

Income (n=154) 

Less than $10,000 – 24,999 12 7 

$25,000 – 49,999 31 20 

$50,000–74,999 58 38 

$75,000–99,999 38 25 

More than $100,000 15 10 

Occupational Status (n=195) 

Retired 62 32 

 Not Retired 133 68 

Place of Residency (n=191) 

Mesa County Resident 143 75 

Non-Resident 48 25 

60 
 
Total household income (n=154) 

$10,000–14,999 

$15,000–24,999 

$25,000–34,999 

$35,000–49,000 

$50,000–74,999 

$75,000–99,999 

$100,000–149,000 

over $150,00 

Frequency Percent 

2 1.0 


10 6 


10 

21 

58 

6 


14 


38 


15 

30 

8 

10 


19 


5 


61
 

Appendix D 

Attentive Public Survey – Respondent Comments 

62
 

This section of the survey was reserved for openended comments. In most cases these responses 

have been edited for spelling and formatting only. 

Comments: The BLM is a crucial and very important 

entity in the preservation and protection of our 

natural lands. It is our increasing perception that the 

emphasis of the BLM and many lands in Colorado is 

a bias to development and more intensive and 

inappropriate uses and activities on these lands. It 

seems the needs for short term exploitation or 

inappropriate uses such as off-road vehicles is taking 

precedent over the need for long term balanced 

preservation and appropriate human activities on 

these lands. We are active users of recreational low 

impact visitation to these lands and it seems most of 

the citizens of this state would agree with this. Often 

more local and intrusive users are given too much 

influence over these decisions. These lands belong to 

all not just those whom by reason of geography or 

location may be closer to these areas. 

Comments: We see a lot of private parties who do 

not know "leave no trace" environmental principles 

or choose to ignore them. We go with a commercial 

outfitter who teaches us all "leave no trace" camping 

etc. Oftentimes we end up picking up after private 

parties. We'd like to see more enforcement (an 

possibly pre-enforcement) to ensure private parties 

know the rules and come prepared with necessary 

equipment for protecting the environment. We'd also 

like to see the public have the ability to report 

offenders we see on the river (e.g. DOW operation 

game thief where hunters can turn in fellow hunters 

disobeying the law). We strongly do not want 

motorized vehicles such as jet skis or motorboats on 

our canyon rivers where we come to get away from 

the noise. Restrict these motorized vehicles to lake 

reservoirs rather than our rivers 

Comments: You know that you are going to charge 

to breathe in this area so why the survey! If people 

want to make a donation let that be – I'd rather give 

that way. BLM id becoming the National Park 

Gestapo clones. Let people pack in and out and keep 

pristine. When you closed Pollock Canyon to 10 

years of mountain bike history – that was a clear 

example! Still irks me. 

Comments: People with "limited Income" probably 

won't pay a lot of taxes to ask me for a user fee would 

be "double dipping" 

Comments: There has been a tremendous growth in 

the number of official vehicles being used for 

recreation. There is a need for adequate recreation 

facilities to provide for recreation (motorized 

recreation). Now is the time to step up. Please do so. 

Comments: I fundamentally dislike fees for most 

public land use. They (the fees) tend to inhibit 

spontaneous and short duration uses of the area. They 

seem to me to generate associated expensive 

bureaucracies. I feel like this questionnaire is 

structured to administratively justify the institution of 

fees whether or not he respondent is for or against 

them – I hope that I am wrong 

Comments: I wouldn't mind a combination "park 

pass' if I were sure monies stayed in the district and 

not go to Washington DC! With improved signage, 

roadside kiosks, vault toilets, enforcement (we the 

public) need to either pay up or help out. It seem 

most recreationists don't have (haven't learned) 

ethics. Some remote small scale (4–5 sites) camp 

spots with vault toilets and fire grids seem proper. 

Also requiring approved portable toilets (like PETT) 

would be a good idea in areas of high impact 

camping. More enforcement of errant (quad OHV) 

operators. 

Comments: I have been actively mountain biking and 

hiking in this area for the past 25 years. I pay 

excessively high taxes and feel strongly that the 

monies I contribute to the government should cover 

any and all cost towards using our public lands. The 

Kokopelli’s trail system is a gem but should not cost 

the public to use it. The decision to close Pollock 

Bench trail to mountain biking was in my mind one 

of the worse decisions made regarding the use of our 

lands in this area . I rode that trail for years, never 

disturbing any wildlife. I am sure that the number of 

visitors to the area has decreased. There clearly is a 

balance between government (BLM, FS) can provide 

with the resources they are given, but I feel lands in 

our area do not need high tech infrastructures and 

should remain open to the public without charge. 

Pollock really needs to be re-opened to mountain 

biking – you can ride a horse on the trail and not a 

bike? 

Comments: I am a hiker – using many of the 

locations mentioned to hike. Of late I hike most often 

on the K-trail, segments of the Loma area. To me I 

have no quarrel with the way things are now. 

However, I do not use these trails on the weekend as 

I am retired. I have not yet had a conflict with bikers 

63
 

(I am also a biker). I usually hike with a hiking group 

of 20–30 people 

Comments: This area was set up to allow all existing 

users. So don't start restricting activities. At the same 

time be careful how accessible you make it. Now that 

it is being promoted you will probably overwhelm 

the whole area. 

Comments: I think that the Pollock Bench Trail 

system should be re-opened for use by the mountain 

biking community. I could not believe it when 

Pollock Bench closed to mountain biking – it was one 

of my most favorite places to ride my mountain bike 

– because I could ride my bike from my Fruita home 

and back, and have a wonderful riding experience. 

Comments: In general I dislike the idea of paying of 

my typical use of public lands – hiking, photography 

and studying rocks. That said, I don't strongly object 

to paying something extra for the protection of 

special plans like the National Parks and Monuments. 

What I object to is someone sitting at Rabbit Valley 

wanting my money every time I want to see what's 

going on at the quarry. I doubt if such an effort pays 

for stuff. If the money collected stays with the NCA, 

I would be O.K. with an annual pass, but if it goes 

back to Washington – I'd say forget it. 

Comments: I think fees for public lands are a bad 

idea in general. Our society should encourage 

outdoor recreation by keeping it free for all, however, 

if you insist on fees that should apply equally to all. 

Creating division creates cheating and ill will among 

users 

Comments: Obviously, I am against fees for the mere 

use of public lands. I am not against paying for a 

campground, river launch, etc. But to merely enter an 

area – that is wrong. I already pay for it in my federal 

income taxes. The land is MINE. Not the BLM’s or 

USFS. You are on the caretakers. Off-road motor 

vehicles mist be limited and confined. They are 

ruining the backcountry. This nemesis is worse than 

cattle! 

Comments: Overall I am ambivalent about applying 

the fee demo program to the CCNCA at this time. If 

we have a fee requirement, the most import provision 

will be to provide frequent users with the opportunity 

to have a pass for unlimited use for a year. The pass 

shouldn't cost more than $50, which is what Colorado 

State parks charge for an annual pass. A single use 

pass should be less than $5 and be good for 2 days. 

Comments: I really miss the way this area was 10–15 

years ago with fewer people and fewer regulations 

Comments: On Rabbit Valley – open a few of the 

trails that you closed. Stop with the Carsonite Forest, 

spend the money on something useful. Maybe have 

the people or person taking care of Rabbit Valley be 

more polite or social. Open more camping areas use 

the money for this rather than the carsonites. 

Comments: Well it is obvious that this survey is 

about money. My problem is once you start 

collecting money we the people, who own the "public 

lands" lose our right to access public lands unless we 

give money. We have no way of commenting on 

increases once the user fee is established. However, I 

do believe the issue of motorized vs. non-motorized 

recreation is becoming big enough of an issue that the 

two groups need to be separated! Restricted travel 

should be established, no more free riding on public 

lands. Money spent for this purpose would be worth 

it. It is imperative for a quality backcountry 

experience – especially on the river corridor. The 

birds and animals asked me to tell you people this! 

They seem to have lost their right to exist in the white 

man's world. I also love my quiet time into his area. 

Hope we can still find it in the future 

Comments: Why are the river corridor and the Loma 

ramp included in this survey? Both are EXCLUDED 

from the Colorado Canyons NCA. The ramp is on 

DOW property. I strongly protest BLM including 

both as a part of the Colorado Canyons NCA 

questionnaire. 

Comments: It is most important to restore these areas 

for wildlife habitat. If recreation in any form 

adversely impacts nature species – it should be 

restricted. As the Grand Valley grows and these areas 

are visited more frequently, limiting the number of 

users is a good idea. The major problem on BLM 

lands is irresponsible motorized use! 

Comments: This is the most beautiful area of the 

country. We need to preserve and protect it 

Comments: Other than wilderness areas and paleo 

research areas. Locations should be open to rock 

collecting 

Comments: This survey appears to have a real bias. 

No opportunity was provided to oppose fees on BLM 

lands. While I understand that more revenue would 

provide more service – I cannot support fees simply 

to access public lands. If you like go ahead and make 

the toilets – "pay as you go." Just keep the fees 

directly related to the service not the access. 

64
 

Comments: Designate overnight campgrounds with 

fire pits and toilets. Fees for overnight only – use 

money to pay for campsite and rangers. Better boat 

ramp for motorboats 

Collection of user fees is a good idea, but residents 

who use the area year round should not have to pay a 

daily fee. Some type of annual pass would be a better 

idea. I think a daily fee at the Kokopelli’s trail head is 

a good idea for out of town visitors. Camping would 

be o.k. too if fees were collected. 

Comments: I like to have access to areas with signs 

so one can find the trailhead. Something is needed to 

keep people on the trail heads – nothing fancy – very 

basic things. Also accurate little maps (inexpensive) 

that provide up-to-date information are helpful. Sell 

these for a moderate price. 

Comments: This area is fantastic! I like the idea of 

different areas for different user groups (e.g. Mack 

Ridge for mt bikes; Rabbit Valley for motorized; 

Black Ridge W.A. for equestrians; Colo River for 

rafters (non-motorized) ). Keep horses off Mack 

Ridge. Keep mt bikes out of Black Ridge W.A. Keep 

jeeps out of Mack Ridge 

Comments: The only say from Glade Park to the 

Colorado Canyon is a rancher's (Gore). The private 

land-owner should also have a say. The fact is BLM 

wants an ass kisser. 

Comments: I enjoy participating in many outdoor 

activities. The main reason for this is to get out of 

town and enjoy nature. I am pleased with your efforts 

to allow different activities in this area. It is never a 

good thing when a trail is shut down for any purpose. 

Please continue to work on plans that share our 

public lands, will allow users (hikers, bicycles, 

motorcycles, rafters, kayakers, horses, etc) instead of 

closing lands to limited use by hikers only. I also 

know that your resources are limited, but charging 

fees fro use of public lands is ridiculous and adds 

unnecessary facilities to outdoor experiences. 

Comments: It is good that this splendid area is 

protected and that a range of activities from OHV 

use, bicycle use to back packing and hiking are 

available. How about getting behind the idea of an 

NCA including the Dominguez Canyon – Bangs 

Canyon area? We could develop different area there 

for similar uses. 

Comments: The local BLM's bias in favor of 

destructive forms of recreation is evident at every 

turn, but has been particularly evident throughout this 

RMP revision process. The local manager saw to that 

there was no committee participation by a member 

the environmental community (her 

"recommendations" as to committee membership was 

apparently "rubber stamped" at the State BLM level. 

It is difficult to imagine that the responses to this 

survey will have any impact on the BLMs 

management of any area within the Grand Junction 

BLM area's jurisdiction, since the management policy 

is predetermines by Ms. Robertson and her selection 

of only like-minded people 

Comments: Over the last 20 years, I have seen many 

changes made to protect the area (Devil's Canyon), 

particularly signage and trail designation. It is my 

assumption that this area is primarily as day-use area. 

Horses have somewhat dominated the use of the area 

at this point but it is still used by many for walking, 

running, and hiking. As it is quite accessible, it does 

seem important that the area be protected from 

misuse and vandals. If a fee would assist with this 

then you might get people like myself to "buy in." If 

you are going to continue to make improvements 

such as picnic areas, you will loose support from 

people like myself 

Comments: Do not expand the development. Much 

of the area encompassed by the NCA is pristine 

(Knowles Canyon). Encouraging visitation in these 

areas will ruin them. Fee for up keep of a campsite or 

a picnic area are acceptable, but overall fees to 

recreate on public lands are wrong until grazing, 

logging and mining pay sufficiently for their use. 

Remove all subsidies, then fees make sense. Guided 

tours and outfitters use of the NCA except of the 

river and hiking trails should be banned. The area s 

are too small and fragile for such use 

Comments: From my observations mountain biking 

is by far the greatest land impact. Establish a fee 

system to address this use. The rafting community 

has user fees, the OHV user has registration fees – so 

how difficult would it be to come up with an 

equitable fee system using a mix of existing systems 

to develop a fee structure that would address the 

impact created by bike use and leave the casual low 

impact users alone. I certainly think that a program 

along those lines would be much easier to "sell" than 

trying to implement a blanket fee program. 

Comments: I enjoy the rugged wilderness qualities 

that the NCA offers. My family and I prefer nonmotorized recreation and value areas where we can 

experience our public lands without the noise and 

disturbance that OHV use produces. Please consider 

limiting areas with OHVs are permitted and just as 

importantly, set up buffers between OHV areas and 

quiet use areas. I strongly support quiet use concept 65 
in management of the Rabbit Valley and the Mack 

Ridge areas. I strongly support limiting OHV to 

existing trails only 

Comments: I am a former RAC member, I am very 

interested in public lands for now and the future. 

People are confused about what to expect. Keep 

management simple (KIS). Rules and discounts for 

seniors are difficult to understand. Keep things 

simple and be truthful with the public. 

Comments: I feel that the demographics of the 

Colorado Canyons NCA user base is reasonably 

affluent and that the vast majority of users access 

CCNCA areas by private vehicles. Since the CCNCA 

is located within convenient and short driving 

distance to well established recreational user 

infrastructure and improvements in the SH 340/Fruita 

area I would not be a supported of many overnight 

oriented infrastructure improvements (e.g. camping 

adjacent to trailhead access points or within close 

proximity to them). I believe that adequate 

opportunities exist for private capital to provide 

needed infrastructure close by to existing settlement 

roads using tax revenues or user-fee generated 

monies to make improvement on existing public 

lands located within the NCA will be both a poor use 

of public money and impact the ability of private 

capital and property located in properly planned 

zoned areas to be developed to serve this group and, 

possibly of the greatest impact, degrade the quality of 

this conservation area. 

Comments: I oppose any access fee for public lands 

Comments: Please prohibit jet skis in the river 

corridor! Cattle grazing within wilderness needs to be 

better monitored and allotments reduced if the land 

cannot sustain the use 

Comments: Fee collection is a very bad idea! These 

are public lands 

Comments: Would have been easier to complete the 

survey if a map of the NCA had been provided. I 

know exactly what areas are inside the boundaries. 

Comments: I am the director of the Canyonlands 

field institute. We hold BLM permits to conduct river 

trips Loma – WW. Mostly we work with school 

groups and other educational groups. Crowding and 

congestion is BAD at Loma and in Ruby Horsetheif 

on weekends. Please assign/coordinate campsites and 

require/limit private boating trips at least on 

weekends (May through August) 

Comments: I live in daily awe of our state. Anything 

you can do to stem the tides of over use, over 

development, preservation and conservation will 

serve us all, who live here now and the many who 

will come after us. 

Comments: Pursue wild and scenic rivers status for 

Ruby/ Horsetheif Canyons. Prohibit motorized craft 

and vehicles with in earshot of the river. 

Comments: Priority needs to be given to wildlife, 

plant life and habitat protection. If we as a society 

should fail in this area recreational uses, whether they 

are simple walking or more complex modes of 

recreation will be so greatly diminished the 

conservation areas will be less likely to be visited and 

supported. Please preserve the natural beauty by 

encouraging the balance of nature. So many 

generations beyond our life-time can enjoy them as 

we have. BLM needs to be the leader in stewardship 

on our lands. 

Comments: My job is that of habitat management – 

ranch lands for 20 years. The proposed fees are 

absurd. We must remember that the American people 

have basically told congress that we do not want to 

continue to increase spending by the Forest Service 

and BLM – for land management. This is why we 

created user fees for areas like Maroon Bell's ext it is 

government's way\ay to circumvent the wishes of the 

people and continue to increase their funding for 

development of this area. We would like to see things 

manage in these areas as they were 20 years ago. 

Also if you put in a fee all you do is transfer usage 

times to others. 

Comments: Bush and Cheney's push to open scenic 

and relatively pristine areas stinks. No 

oil/gas/mining. Keep areas low key, minimal road 

maintenance away from freeway. "Less is more." 

BLM needs to act like Forest Service with a mission 

to preserve, not develop. 

Comments: I am interested in your process of 

selecting wilderness areas. I understand there are 

many special interest groups who participate in your 

meeting, bikers, OHVs, backpackers, etc. Do you 

have a voice for seniors and young families. Our 

families have enjoyed spring picnics in Main Canyon 

for several years. The grand children enjoy the 

streams, tad poles, wildflowers, rocks and wild 

horses. It is close to the population centers and has 

been open for years. My concerns is for those who 

are locking up these areas 

Comments: Please don't open he NCA to off-road 

vehicle use 

Comments: Please keep oil/gas exploration out of the 

NCA. Manage the unit for its wildlife, natural 

cultural and archeological values as outlined in the 

66 
proclamation/congressional legislation. Preserve the 

pristine quality of unit. Keep abusive ORV to 

existing trails. Hire more FTEs to help with visitor 

safety, information, and monitoring 

Comments: Require kitchen tarps of river users. 

Comments: I grew up using this area. As more time 

goes by the area is getting more restrictive – I Don't 

LIKE IT! Instead of building more interpretive trails, 

put the funds toward a law enforcement officer to 

monitor what is currently out there. Leave the area 

alone – no more trails. Open Pollocks back up to Mt 

biking. Final thought – NO FEES! 

Comments: Restrict the number of motorized 

conveniences. While mountain bikes are mechanized 

they are quiet. Put the yahoos either 4-wheelers out at 

the Go-Kart track east of GJ. Don't let Rabbit Valley 

be the Yellowstone of ATVs! 

Comments: At this area and at all areas, need to 

examine that is driving up the cost of maintaining the 

resource. 1) Are there options to the major funding of 

pot surveillance in Sequoia? 2) are we spending $2.4 

million to monitor Yellowstone snowmobiles? 3) 

Does the resulting delayed maintenance cost twice as 

much? 4) How many energetic and successful BLM 

employees are told NOT to get things done? 5) 

Colorado State Parks receive annual fees for off-road 

machines. New trails are developed with much of this 

funding. Does State Parks receive regular reports re: 

damaged trails or illegal trails with requests to be 

reimbursed? 

Comments: Improve access to Rattlesnake Arches by 

remaining unpaved. Create OHV trails in other parts 

of the NCA. Create hiking trails (loops) if less 

distance than current trails. 

Comments: I have lived in the Grand Junction area 

for over 30 years and I am very concerned about the 

use of our public lands in this area. They are in far 

worse condition now that when we moved here – 

Rabbit Valley in particular. There are 2 main 

problems: too many people use and abuse them and 

most of the abuse is due to wheeled vehicle use. I am 

very much in favor of a plan that closes of or greatly 

limits use of areas for long periods of time to allow 

the land to recover on its own. This would also help 

break habits of people that caused the destruction of 

the land. I've seen how well this works in BLM land 

just behind Kingsview Estates and would like to see 

it implemented elsewhere, including Rabbit Valley. 

5–10 year periods are not unreasonable and then 

reopen the areas. The only expense would be fencing 

and maybe seeding. 

Comments: Don't let this area be destroyed by users 

who do not obey the rules. 

Comments: Instituting fees is a bad idea! If fees are 

deemed necessary to provide better management and 

limit use, let regular mountain bikers trade volunteer 

services (we do it already) for annual passes. Please 

do no do anything to improve access to the Black 

Ridge Wilderness Area. 

Comments: Many of my answers were based on past 

experience, some of them 15–20 years ago. I am now 

almost 80 years old, but have children and 

grandchildren who enjoy some areas of the Colorado 

Canyons NCA. I am pleased that the area will have 

some sort of management and I think that a modest 

fee is appropriate. I would be opposed to turning over 

management to a private company 

Comments: Absolutely essential in Mack Ridge area 

to limit motorized access to BLM management needs 

and one road access (besides frontage road) probably 

west on end of Mack Ridge. Grazing permits should 

be "traded out" or otherwise reduced so area could 

"come back" biologically. Definitely not transferred 

or renewed past life-time of current holding. "Local 

Pass" or Pass exchange for say 2 days a year of 

working with bonafide trail maintained efforts or 

trash pick up days. For Mack/Loma/ Fruita and 

Redlands residents this is part of your backyard. 3–5 

remote hike-in only overnight camp spots on a prereserved (extra fee to anyone using) basis for full 

moons, holiday weekend, etc. 

Comments: Jet skis should be banned – they spoil the 

experience for those of us who appreciate the natural 

quiet. The Ruby/Horsetheif Canyon Section should 

be designated Wild and Scenic River to help protect 

natural values and development in the view shed. 

Group sizes should be limited and campsites spread 

out to reduce trampling. 

Comments: Rabbit Valley used to be fun, with many 

trails for ALL people. Stop micro-managing! 

Comments: I am a geezer now and limited by 

emphysema. I hike with oxygen so I am not going 

very far. We often hear the argument that use must 

have access for the old, the halt and the lame, that's 

nonsense. There is a world of stuff by the side of the 

road all over the west. I saw it when I was young, 

now I am willing to sit back and give someone else a 

chance. But let them rough it. Realistically, I suppose 

we should develop the parks to concentrate people as 

much as possible and keep them out of the boonies. 

Comments: I am extremely opposed to the collection 

of fees at public land areas. The management of his 

67
 

area can be achieved by community volunteer 

stewardship and in fact those programs are what have 

developed the recreational opportunities here and are 

what continue to provide free recreational 

management services 

Comments: I strongly believe that the BLM should 

not be required to attempt to collect fees as a 

substitution for tax based funding for the basic 

management of public lands. Stewardship of these 

lands and resources is the responsibility of all of the 

citizens and should continue to be funded through the 

managing agency budget process– BLM should 

cooperate with other Federal and State agencies to set 

up management units where fees can be collected to 

operate and maintain facilities across administrative 

boundaries. This is especially recommended where 

the land ownership pattern is fragmented. BLM 

should obtain similar agreements with private owners 

and should seek enabling legislation as necessary. 

Comments: I use BLM and USFS for extensive types 

of recreation. I do not feel user fees are appropriate 

for extensive use areas. Each year I pay $60 for a 

NPS Pass and $50 for a Colorado State Parks Pass for 

the use of their facilities – generally more intensive in 

nature (i.e. lakes, parking area, visitor center, toilets, 

etc.) I would not object to one fee pass for all federal 

– NPS, USFS, BLM, BOR, etc. but I don't think it is 

appropriate to be "nickel and dimed" at each location 

and I don't think it is right for BLM (or other federal 

land management agencies) to contract out work and 

use that as an excuse for charging user fees as well as 

taxes for public land management 

Comments: Do not allow off road motorized vehicles 

– Do not allow ATVs 

Comments: I have motorcycled in Rabbit Valley 

since I-70 opened taking many photographs in the 

whole area, in east Utah also, and thoroughly 

enjoying it 

Comments: Why should I be free because I retired 

here from Broomfield, CO, but would have to pay if I 

had not moved here or was a working person whose 

only time to come to come would be on the 

weekend? 

Comments: Since becoming an NCA I understand 

that I cannot pick a rock up?! As a longtime (rock 

hound) mid 60's in N. Eng. I find this to be absurd. I 

have it in BLM print that I can pick up (even dig) up 

a rock or mineral in a WSA. This is a new burden on 

the local Grand Junction Gem and Mineral Club – of 

which I have been field trip chairperson for many 

years. Totally unnecessary, and if correct, this is one 

requirement of the statute that needs to be removed. 

Perhaps no digging would be more appropriate. 

68
 

69
 


As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our 

nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This responsibility includes fostering the sound use of our lands 

and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural 

values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 

The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a 

major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities.