A great appreciation for everyone that completed a survey!!! This gives us all a better understanding of the interests of the community regarding Recreational Use of the Watershed. Below are the Charted Results and Individual Commentary.
Methodology
Following the surprise and concerns that were voiced at the March Town Hall Meeting, the Ratepayer-Taxpayer Interest Group thought that valuable information would be gained by formally surveying the community about their interest. A 9 questions survey was developed, tested with 12 community members and refined. The final survey was posted on the archcapeforestconversations.com web site. An email was sent to 263 email addresses for Arch Cape Community members (registered voters, rate payers and tax payers), inviting them to complete the survey (none of the email addresses were returned as not being received). Letters were also sent to every registered voter in the Arch Cape Water District.
189 survey were completed. For the completed survey to be valid, the responses had to contain a person’s name, an address or identifying lot number in the Arch Cape Water District and additional information than just demographics. 44 response did not meet this criteria and were excluded. 145 response remained. The result below reflect those response.
Charted Results
1. There was very strong agreement (91%) that recreational use of the watershed should NOT be promoted in any way.
2. Almost 2/3 of respondents want the watershed either closed or only open to members of the Arch Cape community and their guests.
3. It appears that common agreement, practicality and legal use can be achieved by managing the Watershed “AS IT CURRENTLY IS”, i.e., Access by All , No Promotion of Recreational Use and No additional development. (61%)
This result is a combination of the responses to two different questions – “What types of development should be done to support recreation?” and “Should recreational use of the watershed be promoted?” The result reflects the level of alignment of all respondents without regard to the question of who should have access to the watershed for recreational use.
Commentary on the result
Pragmatically, it is likely to be impossible to enforce access restrictions by different populations of people. However, it appears that these access concerns/ differences could be mitigated by not promoting recreation and by no further development of any recreational infrastructure, e.g., trailheads, parking lots, bathrooms, etc. Lack of awareness of the watershed and lack of recreational infrastructure provide passive deterrents to access. Survey results suggest that managing the watershed “as it currently is” has the support of at least 61% of respondents. (This assessment is validated by the Individual Commentary below).
Furthermore, since the District would not be applying any resources to recreational use, this common agreement of at least 61% of respondents is also likely to be consistent with what the District is allowed to do under state statute ORS 264 – Domestic Water Supply District (the statute under which the district has been formed). Unfortunately, the Board has not yet done their due diligence to get a legal opinion as to whether a Domestic Water Supply District can legally apply resources to recreational use. It is questionable whether the District can provider recreation since it was not formed under statute 266 – Parks and Recreation District. And even a Parks and Recreation District can only apply resources to recreational use by “inhabitants” of the District (not the general public).
If it turns out that the district can legally apply resources to recreational use, the common agreement could be expanded to 73% by developing and maintaining more trails.
3a. Over and above developing additional trails, the level of interest in the development of other infrastructure is relatively low.
4. Broad base interest in types of recreation to be allowed falls off after hiking and foraging.
5. To the extent that specific recommendations about recreational use are required, only 8% want that responsibility in the hands of Water District Board members and/or their designees.
Individual Commentary
“I think it is greatly important for the future integrity of arch cape, that recreation decisions be decided upon by the community NOT an outside agency or groups”
“No recreation & no logging. Preserve this forest!”
“What is the purpose of promoting the use of this forest to anyone other than the property owners?”
“One of the things that makes this area unique and so lovely is the quietness and naturalness. Creating promoted recreational areas would ruin this aspect of the area. Enjoying the forest in it’s natural state and in limited numbers would seem the best way to preserve it.”
“I have serious concerns that damage may be done to the forest by visitors.”
“No bathrooms, no camping facilities, no parking lots, no developed recreation that will draw the public. Keep land access much as it has been for decades. Do not turn this into something that will attract more people. Residents can walk in as they do now. Do not move the land toward a park-like area. The water district should receive input from local residents. Do not pull Oregon State Parks into this. Do not make this a State Park or park-like area.”
“The forest should be preserved from development. Recreational use would only encourage further tourism in our community without any benefit to local residents. Developing the forest for recreation makes no sense, who will be responsible for paying and maintaining such development?”
“I just don’t want to see the forest turn into a madhouse like all the other state parks in the area. I don’t want droves of tourists in cars clogging up our quiet community.”
“My opinion is that not much actually needs to change except for updating the signage on the logging road gates. Public access is/has been allowed with some stipulations (no fires, no camping, etc.). The main difference is who owns the land, and possibly access points. There is currently access via Shingle Mill rd. That seems like the best entry to me. If you add much signage and new parking you risk crowds overflowing residential areas.”
“I do not think the Arch Cape Water District Board has the resources necessary to manage a forest.”
“I am okay with recreational use for Arch Cape residents but I do not want to see signage, parking lots, or promotion of camping because that is a very slippery slope to an Oswald West or Hug Point type situation where the number of visitors and parked cars are out of control.”
“Please continue with transparency that you have created for us all and encouraging the public to be the decision makers going forward.”
“No logging roads and no logging! The forest is healthy now and doesn’t need thinning or logging.”
“Any decisions made should represent the majority of all Arch Cape property owners, both resident and non-resident. Should not be the decision of the Water District Board”
“Look at all the state parks around and ask if you want that in your backyard. If you build it they will come. The biggest thing this community has going for it is a lack of parking, I would not add a way for more people to access these areas it will be over run like everywhere else in the summers.”
“Prefer to leave forest in as natural state as possible with minimal human interaction.”
A.C. Water District Board (Go to Home Page) 
2 responses to “#10 – Recreational Use Survey: What the Community Said!”
I agree as it would be perfect if let be and let arch cape residents in quiet.
So many other areas to enjoy but so much overcrowding and chaos in state parks.
It should be up to the community.
I’m a 1/8 owner of a residence 81111 pacific Ave
Victoria Lord, Pete Szambelan home, as his immediate family has most ownership.
I’ve vacationed at my uncles home since the 60s.
LikeLike
What is the need to rush into any decision related to recreation; who is really driving this issue, and why?
LikeLike