Covid-Enhanced Recreation Overwhelm Search and Rescue Volunteers: NY Times

h/t TTSAR – Assisting Fremont County Search and Rescue
Covid seems to have enhanced two existing trends in the Western US, through what we might call “Covid-Enhanced Recreation” and “Covid- Enhanced Migration”. The two trends are certainly related, as in-migrants often move for better access to outdoor recreation opportunities.

This NY Times article focuses on the Search and Rescue folks dealing with CER.

It is exactly the sort of place to which locked-down Americans have flocked during the coronavirus pandemic. In a trend reflective of wilderness areas across the West, out-of-staters have pushed deep into remote areas like Sublette County and the Winds, searching for a chance to get outside their homes while still social distancing. With offices embracing remote work, treks to remote areas seem more viable.

The influx has accelerated a trend that search-and-rescue professionals say was already underway in places like the Winds. Garmin inReach devices — satellite-powered beacons that can ping emergency dispatchers in the event of problems — have grown popular, and have given many aspiring hikers false senses of security. And social media posts and location tags have made remote areas of the backcountry appear easy to reach.

“They think, ‘All I’ve got to do is hit this button and help is going to be there immediately,’” said Milford Lockwood, a Tip Top volunteer who helps lead helicopter rescues. “They see too many television shows that glamorize it, that’s like, ‘Oh yeah, we’ll be there in a minute.’”

If you’d like details of some of the rescues, there’s a local piece here.

The evidence of inexperience is there, in ways big and small: Discarded trash that out-of-town hikers do not pack out; emergency beacons pressed accidentally; piles of human excrement along trails, improperly buried. Kari Hull, a resident of the area and an avid hiker, said she had to constantly watch her young children on the trails to ensure they do not stumble on used toilet paper or other waste.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” she said, acknowledging that the crowds have made it safer to hike alone. But, she added, “I don’t want to feel like I’m in a Target toy aisle in December.”

The 2020 ‘Blowdown’
It was 11:47 p.m. on Labor Day last year when the calls started coming in to Tip Top, first a trickle, then dozens. The holiday weekend had sent throngs of newcomers into the Winds to camp — and around midnight, a spectacular wind storm swept across the range, downing a staggering number of trees and sending temperatures plummeting.

Over the course of the week, Tip Top went on eight separate missions to help 23 people, Ms. Tanner said. The calls came in one after another: lost hikers, injured hikers, hikers unsure how to find the trail, hikers without cold weather gear. It would be the busiest week in the group’s history.

Tip Top volunteers say it is a miracle that no one was killed during the incident that has come to be referred to as “The Blowdown.” Volunteers visited trailhead parking lots every morning to record license plates and find out who had not yet returned from the backcountry; it took nearly a week before every hiker had been accounted for.

The storm is spoken of in Sublette County with a sort of reverence. It underscored just how wild and unpredictable the Winds can be, and how serious inexperience can become.

“If people are going to do this, then they’ve got to prepare themselves and we’ve got to do more public education to try to prepare these people,” Ms. Tanner said.

No one expects the eventual end of the pandemic to stem the flood of newcomers to the Winds, which people grudgingly admit have been discovered. Property values continue to soar in Sublette County, and even this winter, locals say out-of-state plates were more common than Wyoming plates in trailhead parking lots.

“You can’t stop it,” said Chris Hayes, who works at an outdoor retailer in Pinedale and also runs a fishing guide service. “There’s no secret place anymore. They’re all gone.”

Covid Recreation and Forest Service Impacts: Interview with Scott Fitzwilliams

In 2020, cars lined the road to Brainard Lake in Boulder County, CO, on the Arapaho-Roosevelt NF. Photo by the FS

This story is from January in the Colorado Springs Gazette, a Seth Boster piece on the impacts of Covid recreation. It features an interview with Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor of the White River National Forest. If you have a similar story in your local media, please share the link in the comments. There’s also some good photos. Apparently there has also been an increase in people moving to Colorado due to Covid, which adds another crowding factor. What I like about this issue is that there are no “bad groups” to stereotype and moralize about, and there’s no partisan angle. The only bad folks are individual recreationists who.. behave badly.

It’s well worth reading in its entirety, and quotes a number of people, but I just excerpted the part on “management scenarios.”

Which begs the question: Could crowd control strategies tried in the summer of COVID-19 be here to stay?

At the Hessie trailhead, for example, the ranger district partnered with sheriff’s deputies. “They were turning people around by the hundreds on busy weekends after parking was full,” Armstrong says.

North of there, at Brainard Lake, a timed entry system was tried. Arapaho National Forest’s most famous destination, Mount Evans Scenic Byway, remained closed, as public health guidelines made opening tricky, Armstrong says. “We’re beginning to have conversations on what to do next year.”

Such conversations are ongoing well beyond that summit.

Reservations continue to be enforced at the Manitou Incline, the iconic trail in Manitou Springs that local leaders closed in March under an emergency order. Similarly, in an announced effort to prevent the coronavirus spread, Rocky Mountain National Park enacted a booking system over the summer that some onlookers see as the future for other overrun national parks in the West.

Another reservation system was born this summer at another Colorado natural treasure: the Maroon Bells. Beyond that scenic area, in the Maroon-Snowmass Wilderness, reservations and permits could soon be required, says Fitzwilliams, who oversaw reservations rolled out in 2019 for Hanging Lake near Glenwood Springs.

And he expects more talks regarding more “management scenarios” at other sites under siege, mentioning spots near Vail and Summit County in particular. Above Breckenridge, at the base of Quandary Peak, 14,000-foot summit fever once again led to overflow on the adjacent highway, the lines of cars on either side of the road and jammed parking lot causing hazards for emergency vehicles.

“If things keep growing the way they are, it’s inevitable that some of these areas are going to have to have some management scenarios, either permits or reservations or some sort of those types of tools,” Fitzwilliams says.

“It’s just the way it is. The old days aren’t here anymore.”

In the old days, there were more staff and resources, Fitzwilliams says. Since he started at White River National Forest 11 years ago, the budget he oversees has plunged 45%, he says. The busiest national forest serves as a microcosm for broader cuts to the U.S. Forest Service over recent years.

“We’re hitting a point where we can’t keep going down while the use (of lands) and output keeps going up,” Fitzwilliams says.

What’s Going On in Your Area?: Federal Land Recreation and Covid-19 Impacts

Crowded sites like this during the coronavirus pandemic have National Forest managers concerned. (U.S. Forest Service)

Forest Service retirees in Region 2 recently received a note from Acting Regional Forester Jennifer Eberlien that said:

This year has certainly brought on more challenges to our public lands as we are seeing unprecedented numbers of forest visitors across the forests and grasslands. While this means more members of the public are learning about and enjoying our public lands, it also means that every program area across the Region is feeling the increased pressures in our jobs.

Our Regional Leadership Team is discussing these issues at length and actively seeking additional support for employees, both for personal well-being and physical, psychological, and social safety, as well as for the protection and conservation of our natural and cultural resources that we hold so dear. Though we may not immediately have big and swift options for change, we can certainly work together and incrementally continue to raise awareness of conditions across our lands and the effects it is having on our employees, our users, and our resources.

So this is an opportunity to collect info from various parts of the country. Have you seen any news stories, or have you observed yourself/spoken with people involved?

1. Has your area seen increases in people and camping on National Forests/BLM due to Covid-19?

2. Earlier in the year, outfitters I spoke with said that out of state bookings were down (planned vacations from out of state/country, as opposed to day or weekend trips). They were encouraging Front Range types to come and fill in some of the gaps. How does this look in your part of the country in terms of locals/nearby metros (if any)/out of state/country visits?

3. In the Colorado Springs area, we’ve also had what seems to be cases of local communities closing off places where people traditionally accessed National Forests due to some combination of avoiding Covid-19/too many people/too many people not behaving well. Have you seen any of this?

4. Based on observing previous years, there may be more people recreating on the National Forests around here during the week.. possibly due to more work from home and more flexible work schedules, and perhaps the need to get the kids outdoors and socially distanced. What have you experienced or read about?

5. What about recreation businesses? Here’s an example of a story on increases in RV sales. Here’s an example of a story on outdoor recreation businesses being hard hit by Covid. Maybe people are going to more individual and less guided recreation? Or perhaps the far-away people are staying away? Or perhaps in the Rockies, there are more people from neighboring States with no mountains and lotsa heat? What about other regions?

What’s Going on in Your Neck of the Woods? Dispersed Camping and Covid Campground Closures

Dispersed campsite near Twin Lakes, CO

 

In the interest of crowdsourcing information on National Forest activities, I’m wondering how things are opening up in your neck of the woods.  Coming back through a city last Friday, I noticed almost as many campers and trailers heading for the hills as in a non-Covid year.

Governor Polis of Colorado asked travelers to be sensitive to host communities and try to avoid stopping in them. In Colorado, State Parks have been open for hiking throughout the pandemic and recently opened to camping.  National Forest campgrounds have been shut down, but dispersed camping on National Forests and BLM is very popular.

Many people  prefer dispersed camping to campgrounds. Though part of their argument is that it’s free, and I don’t think that’s fair. I wish people who do dispersed camping would pay a voluntary $70 ish fee per year (I’ve given up on fees for now), about the same as a State Park pass, that goes into costs of the program.  As part of the package, they could get discounts from nearby businesses, education on how to reduce impacts and be good neighbors, plus a link to a website to report areas that need attention by the land management agency (like this Recreation Monitoring System, currently only in Colorado). Yes,  there is a problem that there currently is no such not-for-profit set up to channel the donations, but that wouldn’t be difficult to accomplish.

What continues to amaze to me is that the massive weekend migration to the woods, not managed by anyone, works as well as it does.  Or perhaps no one is monitoring the Law Enforcement Officer reports for potential news stories.

I did notice that the Pike San Isabel Travel Management EIS (2-26) described an alternative not analyzed in detail:

“Designated Dispersed Camping Alternative
This alternative is focused on resolving confusion with short, dead end spur routes that currently provide for dispersed motorized camping.
Key ideas are as follows:
•Limit closure of short, dead end spurs currently open to dispersed camping, to limit the shift of impacts elsewhere
•Convert these routes to parking locations only if on-site vehicle camping is permitted and clearly marked to avoid impacts
•Change the current strategy on the PSI of having dispersed motorized camping forest-wide to designated dispersed motorized camping, where all locations are inventoried and clearly marked

It seems to me that many forests near me allow dispersed camping, with signage when it is not allowed in specific places (I guess open unless closed). But I don’t think that’s the case everywhere. Is it by the Region, by how urbanized the area is or some historical factor or ???? Are there groups that want to reduce dispersed (vehicle) camping on its own, or is reduction of dispersed camping just a by-product of the desire to close roads?

Please share:

(1) How about your neighboring Forests? What are their policies on dispersed camping?

(2) What did it look like out there (on the National Forest) last weekend in terms of numbers?

WGA Webinar Today on Covid-19 Impacts to Natural Resource Management

Sounds interesting.. would anyone like to watch and share highlights/your thoughts? If so, please add in the comments below.

The Western Governors’ Association will host the webinar, COVID-19 Impacts to Natural Resource Management, from 10-11 a.m. MT on May 22.

The webinar will examine emerging challenges facing natural resource management professionals as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Panelists will discuss impacts to wildfire mitigation and suppression, invasive species management, wildlife management and more. Beyond immediate challenges, panelists will discuss potential long-term implications of COVID-19 to cross-boundary natural resource management.

This webinar is part of a series produced under the WGA Working Lands Roundtable. The Roundtable continues implementation of WGA’s natural resource-focused initiatives and serves as vehicle for discussion on cross-boundary working lands management.

Moderator: Kristen Averyt, Climate Policy Coordinator, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Panelists: Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife; Grant Beebe, Assistant Director, BLM Fire and Aviation; Lloyd B. Knight, Administrator, Division of Plant Industries, Idaho State Department of Agriculture.

Register for webinar

Virus driving forest fire policy

It looks like the pandemic is taking the Forest Service back to the old days of fire suppression, when the goal was to have them all out by 10:00 am.  It will be interesting to see (if it’s possible) what actual difference that makes in the coming fire season (which is predicted to generally be normal or slightly worse).  Of course changes in operations from social-distancing may also be a factor.  And this all has be squared with the Chief’s pronouncement (quoted there):  “Forest Service resources will be used “only when there is a reasonable expectation of success in protecting life and critical property and infrastructure.”

Prior to this year’s COVID-19 complications, the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies have increasingly looked to low-intensity, managed fires on wildlands to improve ecosystem health and reduce undergrowth that can lead to intense, out-of-control fires. This fire strategy has meant allowing unintentional fires and prescribed burns to reduce excessive undergrowth when conditions are favorable.

“We want to try to limit the amount of fire that is out on the landscape this year, which is in contrast to what we’ve been trying to do around here. We’ve been trying to get fire out on the landscape. But for obvious reasons, for the health of our  firefighters and the public in general, we need to limit those as best we can,” said James Pettit, fire staff officer for Coconino National Forest.

Another benefit of the quick suppres­sion strategy this year, according to Pettit and Russ Shumate, a district manager for the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management, is reducing the need to bring large numbers of fire fighters and support staff together for long operations. Shumate noted that managing a large fire can involve fire camps with 500 people. Controlling spread in these conditions might be challenging.

Shumate said quick suppression will also allow the state fire agency to manage fires with fewer resources, something he is expecting this year.

“In the previous days of the Forest Service they had what they called a ‘10 o’clock rule’ — the goal was to suppress all fires before 10 o’clock the next morning. We’re not going to state it as that aggressive, but it’s a real similar strategy [this year]” Pettit said.

The USFS instituted the “10 a.m. policy” in 1935. It was officially replaced in 1977 with a policy that expanded fire fighting strategies to include managed burns.

A similar message is coming from the Bitterroot National Forest (with more about “fewer resources” from the Job Corps):

Wilson said the objective will be to keep all fires on the national forest — including wilderness — small and limit the amount of smoke that’s produced.

 

Science Friday: Coronavirus and How Best to Yard Up and Use Scientific Info

Criteria for determining best available scientific information (BASI). Source: Forest Service Handbook 1909.12.07.12
We started with an introduction to PNS or post normal science a few weeks ago, here, when we were talking about climate science and different ways of developing and using scientific expertise. Coronavirus, though, has caused an upwelling of scientific activity by different disciplines, combined with a vast array across the world of real-time policy decisions at all spatial and temporal scales. So it’s interesting to compare and contrast these problems and solutions with how we use science in our own humble and much-less-urgent world (forests). The image above is on best available scientific information (BASI) as in the Handbook for the development of Forest Plans.

Here’s an article from the Guardian.

Experts have voiced growing frustration over the UK government’s claim that it is “following the science”, saying the refrain is being used to abdicate responsibility for political decisions. They also raised concerns that the views of public health experts were being overlooked, with disproportionate weight given to the views of modellers. “As a scientist, I hope I never again hear the phrase ‘based on the best science and evidence’ spoken by a politician,” Prof Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian. “This phrase has become basically meaningless and used to explain anything and everything.”

Hmm. Different disciplines disagree on what is “best” (most relevant).. but in addition, there are even disagreements within disciplines (in their case, different modeling centers). Sounds like us, although those are seldom covered in the press.

However, Sridhar and others argued that scientific views on these topics could be wide-ranging and dependent on a scientist’s field of expertise. The diversity of scientific views was apparent in March when case numbers were rising rapidly but the government chose not to ban mass gatherings or introduce wide-reaching physical distancing. World Health Organization advice, and what we’ve learned from lots of previous outbreaks in low- and middle-income countries, is that the faster you move at the start, the better, because it’s exponential growth,” Sridhar said. “In public health, a test, trace and isolate campaign would’ve been where your mind first went.” Instead, she said, the government appeared to be basing policy on the presumption of a binary choice between two scenarios, played out in computer models, of either eradicating the virus or it becoming endemic.

“What we’re not talking about in the same formal, quantitative way are the economic costs, the social costs, the psychological costs of being under lockdown,” he said. “I understand that the government is being advised by economists, psychiatrists and others, but we’re not seeing what that science is telling them. I find that very puzzling.” Woolhouse said that while it was understandable that saving lives was the top priority, the idea of doing this at any cost was naive. “With any disease there is a trade-off. Public health is largely about that trade-off. What’s happening here is that both sides of the equation are so enormous and so damaging that the routine public health challenge of balancing costs and benefits is thrown into incredibly stark relief. Yet that balance has to be found.”

Balancing trade-offs..sounds like us, in fact it sounds a bit like NEPA Section 2. “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.” But also at this level, which discipline and tool you pick or leave out has ramifications. Is this an entirely scientific judgment? Or is there a different meta-science discussion of “what scientific tools should we use”? Otherwise, policy-makers get what’s on offer, which seems kind of random for important decisions.

Others expressed concern about the lack of transparency around the evidence affecting decision-making. “We don’t know who sits on Sage [the government’s scientific advisory group for emergencies], we see very little of the papers that go to Sage,” said Prof Sheila Bird, the former programme leader of the Medical Research Council’s biostatistics unit at the University of Cambridge. “That scientific underpinning is not evident.”

Sridhar said the failure to fully consider the perspectives of experts beyond epidemiology may have contributed to misguided decisions. Models appear not to have factored in the role of hospital staff shortages, which may have diverted attention from the urgent need for adequate personal protective equipment, she said.
The concept of shielding the most vulnerable “looks beautiful” in models, she said, but in reality care homes are facing major outbreaks and multigenerational households are struggling to isolate the vulnerable. “You can’t take these people out of the system and isolate them as if they were a data point on a graph,” she said.
“There’s a real problem if you have a collection of people from the same background, the same field, the same institutions; that can lead to blindspots and groupthink,” Sridhar added. “Diversity is clearly important for better decision-making.”

Our business is generally not urgent, nor life and death. So we have time to “do it right”. And there are things that practitioners know (hospital staff shortages?) that may not be obvious to scientists doing research at universities. So here we have it. How best to put it all together for decisionmakers?

What is your favorite example of a decision in which you felt that all the relevant scientific disciplines and practitioners were brought to bear on a policy or management issue in an open and transparent way? It doesn’t matter for these purposes if the decision at the end was made with a political or even partisan political lens, I’m interested in the actual process of developing shared information and open dialogue, between disciplines and between scientists, natural resource professional/practitioners, knowledgeable local folks, and other stakeholders.

Also, FYI Stephanie Lepp of Infinite Lunchbox sent a link to this video, which is an introduction to PNS and Coronavirus.

Here are a few quotes from an article in Issues in Science and Technology, called “How not to lose the COVID-19 Communications War”:

Accurate scientific information is key for meaningful public debate and decision-making. And correctives to misinformation provide instant gratification during an otherwise unpredictable and potentially long-term crisis that so far has not provided scientists and policy-makers with a lot of success stories. Organizations such as the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and the World Health Organization can quickly implement myth-busting and rumor-control websites with the reasonable hope of staving off a more widespread problem down the road.
However, as the COVID-19 “infodemic,” as WHO calls it, escalates, those communicating scientific information are at risk not only of oversimplifying the misinformation problem itself but also of failing to recognize and address other factors that complicate efforts to communicate effectively about COVID-19. In particular, the seductively simple directive to be “accurate,” which lies at the heart of science communication, obscures the reality that accuracy is a tenuous notion during a crisis such as this, in which uncertainty reigns. Science that was considered correct at the outset will likely turn out to be incorrect or incomplete, making it difficult to draw a bright line between misinformation and science that is legitimately contested. Further, just as the public health questions that arise during a pandemic go far beyond numbers such as death rates to include matters of social inequity and ailing health care infrastructure, the communication issues that complicate an infodemic are much broader than the mere existence of falsehood.

and

In the midst of this accelerated crisis, it is virtually impossible to determine which sets of “facts” are most relevant for making trade-offs required for effective action. Focusing narrowly on “accuracy” in COVID-19 communications can thus obscure the reality that many of the possible choices are rightfully guided not by utilitarian calculus but by values and relationships whose importance is independent of science altogether. In the scope of COVID-19, policy choices require myriad decisions likely to create both harms and benefits that are themselves unevenly distributed. For example, as society increasingly allows automated and intrusive surveillance measures to enforce social distancing protocol, how will it be determined whether such efforts have been “worth it”? Prevention by surveillance will cost a great deal in terms of civil liberties, but by acting in haste, society may overestimate its value or fail to ensure clear exit strategies after the pandemic

Two Coronavirus Stories: Changes to Fire Management: R-2 Regional Forester on Current Recreation and Fire Safety Precautions

This photo is of Florida Forest Service (not the feds) training on March 8.
Here’s an AP story about wildfire suppression folks and what they’re doing. It covers several different topics so it’s worth it to read the whole thing, but here’s a sample excerpt:

Wildfires have already broken out in Texas and Florida, and agencies are scrambling to finish plans for a new approach. They are considering waivers for some training requirements to previously-certified crew members, and moving some training online.

Other proposals include limiting fire engines to a driver and one passenger, requiring other crew members to ride in additional vehicles. They may scrap the normal campsite catering tents in favor of military-issue MREs, or “Meals Ready to Eat” to reduce touching serving utensils.

Federal resources for firefighting efforts may be more scarce, leaving states to deal with more fires.

In light of the “unprecedented challenge” of the pandemic, Forest Service resources will be used “only when there is a reasonable expectation of success in protecting life and critical property and infrastructure,” says Forest Service Chief Victoria Christiansen.

Meanwhile, here’s a link to a current press release by Region 2 that involves both recreation and fire safety (I just quoted the recreation safety, but here is a link to the entire press release).

“While we know that going outside provides forest and grassland visitors needed space, exercise and satisfaction, we are taking the risks presented by COVID-19 seriously,” said Eberlien. “We are providing some recreation opportunities where we can while protecting and keeping employees, the public and our communities safe from the virus, as well as protecting and keeping communities and natural and cultural resources safe from unwanted human-caused wildfires.”
Recreation Closures
Developed recreation sites are temporarily closed while dispersed camping, hiking and river uses are allowed, although discouraged. Closed developed recreation sites include campgrounds, day-use areas, picnic areas, and any other constructed facility amenities – such as potable water stations, fire rings/grills, picnic tables, restroom facilities with flush or vaulted toilets, and trashcans and trash collection services. Parking facilities, trails and trailheads remain open. Dispersed camping includes camping on a national forest or grassland where recreation facilities or services are not provided.
Forest and grassland visitors camping in dispersed recreation sites, hiking or embarking on river activities are
encouraged to adhere to the following safety and responsibility guidelines.
• Stay close to home to keep other communities safe.
• Stay 6 feet apart from others.
• Avoid crowding in parking lots, trails, scenic overlooks and other areas.
• Take CDC precautions to prevent illnesses like COVID-19.
• Prepare for limited or no services, such as restroom facilities and garbage collection.
• Prepare to pack out trash and human waste.

I wonder whether all Regions are taking the same approach? FWIW, the people I observed last week at an uncrowded Forest Service trail (all ten or so we saw in four hours) appeared to be following the precautions.

Western Governors Ask Forest Service and BLM for Covid Help/ A Look at Prep for Pandemic Response

From E&E news:

The Western Governors’ Association, in a letter sent today to Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Pete Gaynor, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, raised concerns that the spread of the virus could overwhelm rural communities that have “limited staff capacity.”

But the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have “thousands of federal civil servants with relevant experience to assist with emergency response,” according to the letter signed by North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), WGA’s chairman, and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D), the vice chairwoman.

Many of these thousands of employees “are Incident Command System qualified and have experience rapidly responding to forest fires, mobilizing critical resources, and managing information flow in times of crisis,” they wrote.

“Likewise, Federal Emergency Management Agency personnel are fully qualified to support local communities with organizational and logistical needs during an emergency,” they added. “Collectively, your personnel are an enormous asset that could be of invaluable assistance to local communities in this time of great need.”

The request for Gaynor to coordinate with Bernhardt and Perdue to mobilize BLM and Forest Service officials mirrors a letter sent last month to all three Cabinet members from a group of 24 senators (E&E Daily, March 18).

That bipartisan letter, organized by Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D), requested assistance from BLM and the Forest Service to help rural communities that are “working to set up local emergency operation centers to help manage their response” to the coronavirus.

For people familiar with organizing wildfire suppression efforts, I thought it would be interesting to post this news story from the Colorado Sun on preparations for pandemics. The writer, John Ingold, looks at the Crimson Contagion exercise from last October, and what was found in the after-action review. You get the feeling that the public health community was doing its best, but it is as if there were fires once every decade or so..it would be exceedingly difficult to organize across state, federal and local levels. In addition, you might have trained up for wildfire and found out at the last minute that it wasn’t the kind of fire you had been trained for. Here’s an excerpt, but the whole article gives a glimpse into the difficulties.

The nationwide Crimson Contagion exercise this past summer was the kind of regular training that used to provide reassurance the nation would be ready should a pandemic ever hit our shores. The training pulled together 19 federal departments and agencies, 12 states including Colorado, 74 local health departments, 15 tribal nations and 87 hospitals. And it gave each of those entities an early — and eerily prescient — chance to practice how to respond to the situation they all now face.

But, in retrospect, the training also revealed the flawed assumptions that informed state and national preparedness for decades and have now made the United States a global epicenter for the coronavirus pandemic. The country was not prepared to scale up testing fast enough for a new virus. Its national stockpile of medical supplies wasn’t equipped to handle large requests from many states at the same time.

Colorado health leaders are now speaking more bluntly about how the nation’s pandemic planning did not anticipate the challenges of the coronavirus.
“None of this is built around the fact that we’re all going to get hit at once and there is no federal support,” said Scott Bookman, CDPHE’s incident commander for the response to COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. “The federal system has failed us here.”
There is another reason that the state and federal governments developed blind spots in pandemic planning, a simple theme that ties together many of the problems that have hindered response to the coronavirus: We were preparing for the wrong virus.

Feds and States and Parks and Forests and Visitors and Coronavirus.. Oh My!

March 31, 2020 Colorado’s Mueller State Park
I’ve been trying to piece together coverage of the challenge to “get outside” but “stay at home,” including the specifics about the reasoning behind different State/Federal management of outdoor activities..

It’s hard to pick apart. There have been a variety of stories about why the National Parks should all be closed. Basically the story seems to be that the Interior Secretary should close them all, whereas the current policy appears to be decided locally (with some exceptions: for example, Rocky Mountain was closed early based on local concerns, Grand Canyon just a few days ago, despite the Secretary having been asked earlier).

Bill Gabbert in Wildfire Today had an explanation for why they should be closed:

Most of the NPS visitor centers are closed, but parks that are still open while entrance fees are suspended can still attract visitors to trails and viewpoints. Unless a park is physically closed by gates, park law enforcement officers still have to patrol in order to avoid the mayhem that occurred when employees were prevented from working during the government shutdown last year.

There has been much pushback to making Parks free during this time, but it does seem that would limit contact (not collecting fees). I would tend to think that some parks tend to have visitor problems and others not. I haven’t seen a report (yet, though it may be out there) of a park by park estimate of damage due to the government shutdown. As I said then, we have millions of acres of federal lands without regular law enforcement patrols on trails -FS and BLM- and I still wonder what it is about people who go to which National Parks and why they behave badly. With appropriate social science studies at the time, we might have learned more about this.

Outside Magazine ran this piece (which adheres to the same thinking as during the government shutdown):

Writing about all of this now is eerily reminiscent of writing about the shutdown’s impact on national parks last year. Then, we had reports of overcrowding and damage, followed by calls from various lawmakers and conservation organizations for a total closure. And then people started dying. Now, we have reports of social distancing measures not being followed, confusion over which services may or may not be available, and everyone from staff within the parks to lawmakers calling for a closure. At least people haven’t started dying in the parks, yet.

I’m not confused over whether services might be available.. I just look on the Park or Monument’s website. Again, are people who go to Parks less able to use the internet?
They argue that all should be closed for the safety of employees and gateway communities. And many, but not all, are closed. And many are big “destination” parks or monuments, but many are not. And some are close to communities. Two examples in Colorado are Florissant Fossil Beds and Colorado National Monument. So we might think it’s OK for locals to walk around (as long as they obey distancing guidelines) but not those from afar. But how far afar? And how would that be enforced?

Here’s what Florissant Fossil Beds says..

Give Some Space to Keep Safe
The trails at Florissant Fossil Beds are currently open. The park continues to monitor the COVID-19 situation and maintains high standards related to the health and wellness of staff and visitors. There is a pit toilet located in the visitor center parking lot which is currently the only restroom facility. It is being cleaned once a day M – F.

There’s the crowding concern (people not keeping their distance), the toilet concern (someone, employee or contractor, is cleaning them; people are going into them) and the travel concern. I think the idea is that people shouldn’t be traveling certain distances for fear of spreading or acquiring the virus at gas stations, bathrooms or other sites they otherwise wouldn’t go to. But suppose you have an electric car and don’t use inside toilets? Here’s a thought piece in High Country News about the ethics of getting outside.

Meanwhile, our Colorado State Parks are open:

Park visitor centers and CPW Area Offices also remain closed to the public at this time.
All Colorado State Parks non-campground outdoor areas of parks, including trails, boat ramps, marinas and shorelines remain open.
Please use cpwshop.com or the park’s self-service stations to purchase passes for day use.

Restrooms remain open and are regularly cleaned at this time.
Please bring your own hand sanitizer. There may be no running water available.

Are Colorado State employees calling for park shutdowns, but it’s not being reported?
Are people visiting Colorado’s state parks more well-behaved than people who go to National Parks?
Is the worry employees cleaning toilets, visitors exchanging germs in toilets, employees doing law enforcement, people behaving badly vis a vis social distancing or ?. Most FS trails where I am are not crowded and don’t have toilets, so it seems reasonable to keep them open. Of course, there is the pragmatic problem of how you would “close” a Forest and whether sending people out to enforce it is more unhealthy for employees than letting visitors infect each other. There are certainly many considerations that managers have not had the opportunity to consider before, many unknowns, and I for one would feel uncomfortable second-guessing local folks making the decisions.