Wyofile shared this headline:

“Trump Proposal Could Unleash ATV’s across Wyoming’s National Forests”

in the uniquely hyperbolic style of headlines nowadays.  It was only Monday that we read in the NY Times:

Towering woodlands in the West are being permanently replaced by tracts of spiky shrubs. “

It reminds me a bit of the fable “the boy who cried wolf.”

Anyway, as a person who thought the TMR was too complicated to learn about (and that’s from someone who worked on Planning and Roadless Rules!), my first thought was that the processes could probably be improved, given the period of time that has elapsed (2005) and changes in mapping, climate change, additional recreation pressure (in some places), wildfire management, technologies and case law may have raised other opportunities for clarification and improvement.

Declaring that Forest Service regulations “for too long … have stood in the way of public recreation access,” the Trump administration seeks to open some 6.2 million acres of public forest land in Wyoming to virtually unbridled motorized access, prompting widespread criticism from conservationists.

What does “virtually unbridled” mean?

This is interesting..

The plan would strengthen rural economies, maintain safe and sustainable transportation systems, and support working lands, the USDA said in the announcement. A new “uniform national policy” would presume that all “existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points on National Forest System lands are open to appropriate public use.”

Areas and routes that would be closed must be “supported by specific, documented and justifiable reasons based on science-based resource conditions, public safety, conflicts among uses, or maintenance and administrative capacity.” National forest supervisors and their staffers would enact the new plan and seek input on what areas might be closed to engine-powered access, the announcement suggests.

Don’t they already do that? Or do forest staff close roads willy-nilly and supported by their own druthers? I do know Patrick has questions about how decisions were made on one forest, including the process.

Apparently, based on the story there is a “spectrum of conservation organizations” but the quotes are from one, the Wyoming Wilderness Association.  I resist lumping WWA with all “conservationists” and I wait to see what our hook and bullet friends have to say, especially about game retrieval.  Or maybe folks at Wyofile have redefined “conservation” to a specific group?

It seems like an article would have quotes from, say, OHV groups to get both sides of the story. But maybe not. Here’s the other group the reporter contacted:

WyoFile sought reaction from Wyoming’s State Parks, Historic Sites and Trails agency, which operates a trails permit system and publishes off-road vehicle maps of trails on state and federal land, but officials did not immediately respond.

Back to dePasquale:

“The threat of changing the paradigm from closed-unless-designated-open to open-unless-designated-closed comes with the risk of widespread expansion of user-created motorized routes and a fear of significant damage to important habitat such as streams and wetlands,” dePasquale said.

I don’t actually see that in the proposal. There are routes, and there is off-route. Conceivably opening more trails is not the same as opening off-trail travel? Are these two different concepts?

In the comments earlier, Anonymous said that motorized people were hard to deal with because they were stuck on “no net loss.”  Sure there is a risk of widespread expansion, but I’m curious about when do we trust local officials to make decisions and when not? I always thought the difficulty with the TMR was that it had different parts which were unevenly completed.  After this time, again, like Roadless, with the mapping we have and our additional knowledge of critters and wildfire, as well as the increased demand for mountain biking and hiking trails (and conflicts) why not take another look?

Once again, beware of unquestioned elision of two different things…

“When people are able to go wherever they want, it’s not always malicious,” she said. But, user-created two-tracks and single-track motorized trails, “can create a large impact that is irreparable in a short amount of time.

That’s certainly true but is that what the Federal Register notice says? It’s only two paragraphs.

Travel management regulations, 36 CFR part 212. The proposed action would establish a uniform national policy favoring increased access while simplifying regulatory requirements and preserving local decision-making. The proposed access rule would establish a national policy with a presumption that existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points on National Forest System lands are open to appropriate public use unless closure or restriction is required by applicable law, valid existing rights, or another governing instrument, or supported by specific, documented and justifiable reasons based on science-based resource conditions, public safety, conflicts among uses, or maintenance and administrative capacity. Commonly available public data sets, including aerial imagery, may be used as evidence that a physical route or airfield exists or existed at a time relevant under the definition adopted in the proposed rule, but would not by themselves establish that the feature is part of the forest transportation system, that the Forest Service has jurisdiction or sufficient legal access, or that it is open to a particular public use. The proposed access rule would require annual review of all trails, roads, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points that are closed or highly restricted. The proposed access rule would establish processes and conditions for limited off-route motor vehicle use and other motorized equipment for, among other things, downed big-game retrieval, firewood collection and dispersed camping, and for designating areas for over-snow and other motorized recreation.

The presumption embodied in the national policy would guide future decisions and would not itself change the legal status of any road, trail, airfield, trailhead, area, or other access route or point. Any change in lawful use resulting from a vehicle- or use-specific exemption would be limited to the scope and conditions expressly provided in the revised regulations. Existing motor vehicle use designations and maps would remain in effect until revised under the amended regulations. The environmental impact statement will evaluate the impacts of the proposed rule revisions and study alternatives for managing public access, including the motorized and other forms of access addressed by the proposed rule, on National Forest System lands in the context of multiple-use resource management. USDA invites written comments on alternatives, effects, and relevant information, studies, or analyses related to the proposal.

I read it as “existing roads, trails, etc.” not “areas” except they would (again) have processes and conditions for the usual suspect issues (big game retrieval and so on).  I see a couple of questions arising.. would this include user-created trails in the analysis? That might be something to comment on so that it’s clarified.

Finally, there are areas already for over-snow and other motorized recreation. So there must have been a process to create them? Or not? And of course, we know that creating any new ones would likely be controversial, and likely litigated.

For me, I think the whole thing will be more interesting when they have a proposal on the table, although I already think the idea of an annual review is too frequent.

If it were me, I would have said “the FS has posted an NOI that they will do a rulemaking, including a proposed rule and an EIS.  What do you think is important to keep about the current regulatory situation? What needs to be changed?

These processes take time, so we, unlike Wyofile, apparently have time to get different views.

 

Rec.gov is like the weather, everyone complains about it, but no one does anything about it.

Thankfully, it has aroused the attention of at least one Senator. OTOH, he may be missing several boats… like the FS is only one user of Rec.gov.

I know Senate staff are very smart people and can use search engines, so it’s a bit puzzling.

Maybe Heinrich could work with the Chair on a bipartisan set of hearings to get at some of the issues? Congress could ask to take a look at the Booz-Allen books and maybe ask the Admin to get a team to look at other options, including moving it in-house to the USG.  So many possibilities!  But asking Chief Schultz to work on bots for a system the FS is one (probably unwilling) client of? Come on.

************

WASHINGTON – Last week, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Chief Schultz demanding that the agency take action to address issues on the Recreation.gov permit and reservation system that threaten equitable access to public lands. Addressing these issues is particularly important as families across the country plan summer vacations and holiday trips to our nation’s public lands.

In the letter, Heinrich raises concern over reports of automated bot activity on the Recreation.gov website preventing individuals from obtaining permits and reservations to USFS sites.

“I write to request that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) take direct and immediate action to address the publicly reported issues surrounding the Recreation.gov permit and reservation system, where bots appear to be rapidly securing permits and reservations at release times, shutting out the public and leaving campsites and river launches unused despite appearing fully booked,” the Senator began.

The Senator continued, “These reports raise serious concerns about the integrity, fairness, and oversight of a system that is supposed to ensure equitable access to public lands.”

Challenges surrounding the USFS permit and reservation system make it so only individuals with the resources or expertise to develop technical workarounds can gain access to recreational sites, undermining Congressional direction to increase fair and equal access to public lands.

The Senator concluded the letter by calling on Chief Shultz and USFS to establish oversight policy prohibiting automated bots to procure permits and reservations on Recreation.gov, prioritizing transparency, accountability, and equitable access to public lands for all Americans.

Read the full letter here and below:

Dear Chief Schultz:

I write to request that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) take direct and immediate action to address the publicly reported issues surrounding the Recreation.gov permit and reservation system, where bots appear to be rapidly securing permits and reservations at release times, shutting out the public and leaving campsites and river launches unused despite appearing fully booked. These reports raise serious concerns about the integrity, fairness, and oversight of a system that is supposed to ensure equitable access to public lands.

As reported, individuals with the resources or expertise to develop technical workarounds can disproportionately secure access to limited permits and reservations on Recreation.gov. This dynamic undermines the intent of Congressional direction to increase recreation access on public lands. The current system, created and operated by contractors at Booz Allen Hamilton, appears to reward the most technologically advantaged with access to the most sought-after recreational sites and leaves many Americans without fair access to public lands.

In light of these ongoing challenges, I request that the USFS establish a clear policy prohibiting the use of automated systems, bots, or similar tools to procure permits or reservations on Recreation.gov. I stand ready to work with my colleagues in Congress to provide any additional statutory authority necessary to implement or enforce such a policy.

At a time when the outdoor recreation economy generates $351 million every day from activities on our public lands and waters, it is critical that the USFS prioritize addressing these systemic issues. The public deserves transparency, accountability, and a reservation system that allows them to spend their spare time on public lands connecting with the places that bring peace, joy, and solace.

I look forward to your timely response on this important matter.

***************

Here’s what the Rec.gov website says about bots:

A: The Recreation.gov platform does experience attempted bot activity; it is impossible not to given ever-evolving technology and advancements in AI. However, Recreation.gov has multiple defenses in place to detect, prevent, and mitigate the variety of bots that attempt to take advantage of the system. The primary targets of bot mitigation efforts are large-scale bot attacks on the stability of the site or bots seeking to capture multiple reservations. There is no evidence or examples of widespread abuse by bots across the platform impacting system stability, bots securing dozens of reservations, or bots securing reservations before they are released. While there are some individual reservations where basic user-written programs or more sophisticated bots may be helping a visitor secure a single reservation, this is not happening at a large scale and we are continually assessing and implementing new countermeasures and defenses to mitigate these bots when they are detected. Recreation.gov, and the program’s technology partner Booz Allen Hamilton, strive to implement industry-leading solutions and best practices for preventing bot activity while aiming to strike a balance between providing a frictionless user experience and deploying security measures to ensure access to all users.

Visit this Help Center article Are Bots Reserving all the Popular Locations? for more details.

This story from the Denver Post is interesting because it talks about trail disagreements and compromises without the federal lands-specific kinds of issues and the question of how to enforce restrictions.

“We have been encouraging land managers that are managing trail systems to institute three basic principles of trail management: Designated use, directional controls and separation by speed,” Moore said. “Designated use is a trail built just for biking or just for hiking or a trail built for equestrian use. You’re going to have the best experience on a trail that is built for the way you want to enjoy it, whether you are a hiker, a biker, an equestrian.”

A solution is building more single-use trails. Perhaps that would run into environmental objections on federal land, but not so much on county land?

**************

When the Boulder County commissioners initiated a study to determine whether mountain bikes should be prohibited on select days and specific trails at two open space parks, the county’s legion of trailriders was aghast.

The county’s so-called alternating trail use pilot proposal, under study by Boulder County Parks & Open Space staff since April, stemmed from concerns that some hikers are uncomfortable sharing trails with mountain bikes. Alternating use would mean specific activities being allowed only on designated days or times on the same trail.

“It really felt like the mountain bike community was being targeted, explicitly and unnecessarily,” said Tim Stelzer, an avid mountain biker whose children participate in mountain bike teams. “We’re already dealing with such a scarcity of trail access in Boulder, so the idea of restricting even further was really kind of shocking.”

“We have deep concerns over this project because there is no bike-only trail in the entire county of Boulder,” added Wendy Sweet, executive director of the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance. “We don’t think the answer is alternating days on trails. We think the answer is building more trails, especially directional trails and bike-only trails.”

But the concept of shared trails isn’t new. For more than 20 years, Boulder County has imposed restrictions on mountain bikers at Betasso Preserve, located in the foothills west of Boulder. They are allowed five days a week but are prohibited on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Hikers, who have access seven days a week, like that arrangement.

“For folks like myself who are hiking, it’s much more pleasant on those days because we don’t have to step aside every five minutes for a bunch of bikes to come through. We don’t have to jump out of the way when a bike comes screaming around a corner unexpectedly,” said hiker Jeff Pistana. “I have a hard time sympathizing with bicyclists who complain about the policy there, because they get five days of unlimited riding and they only have to give up two.”

Sharing trails isn’t new in other parts of the state either. Over the past 10 years, open space managers in neighboring counties have worked to balance the competing interests of hikers and mountain bikers. Their solutions include the designation of biker-only trails and one-way directional trails on select shared-use trails. Some have also implemented alternating schedules for hikers and bikers. And in most cases, public officials say it has been working.

A decision regarding the Boulder County proposal to impose hiker-only days at the two open space areas, Heil Ranch and Hall Ranch, may be coming soon. After conducting surveys and public forums to gauge community sentiment, open space staff will present its findings to the commission on Tuesday.

“Our team is going through the data, balancing it with some of the direct feedback we hear from people, and trying to propose a couple of ideas and alternatives,” said open space director Jason Seuc. “We’re going to speak on a few different matters before the county commissioners. They may make a decision on the path forward.”

Mountain biking is on a roll

Boulder County has been an international mecca for endurance athletes, including elite distance runners, triathletes and cyclists, since the 1970s, and mountain bikers there have developed strong support networks and connections.

But other towns, cities and counties throughout the state know that attracting mountain bikers is good for their economies.

Steamboat Springs, Breckenridge, Crested Butte, the Grand Junction region and Durango are major magnets for the sport, while Idaho Springs, in partnership with the Colorado Mountain Bike Association, is developing a mountain park on a steep slope in Virginia Canyon, adjacent to the new Mighty Argo Cable Car gondola, with free trail access for mountain bikers and hikers.

Winter Park Resort transforms itself into a mountain biking playground each summer, attracting throngs who ride up the mountain with their bikes on the gondola or chairlifts, then take the plunge downhill on expensive bikes with full suspension shock absorption. Clear Creek County built a mountain bike park at Floyd Hill. The city of Blackhawk built one at Maryland Mountain.

Mountain biking is so important in Lyons, which is in Boulder County, that the board of trustees passed a resolution opposing the county’s alternating trail use proposal. Heil Ranch and Hall Ranch are located just south of town.

So it’s not surprising that 55% of the respondents in a survey conducted by Boulder County Open Space said mountain biking was their primary open space activity, as compared to 27% identifying as hikers or walkers. Overall, 75% of the respondents said they oppose or strongly oppose alternating trail use, while 8% support it and 10% strongly support it.

“The less opportunity we find for mountain bikers, people don’t say, ‘Aw, shucks, I’m going to take up pickleball now,’” the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance’s Sweet said. “They’re still going to ride.”

But Boulder County Commissioner Claire Levy said she has heard complaints from hikers since mountain bikers have come to dominate trail usage at Heil Park.

“Many hikers have said to me that it is not pleasant to hike on the narrow trails at Heil when you have to constantly be on the lookout for a fast-moving mountain bike coming towards you or gaining on you from behind,” Levy said. “The purpose of the project is to explore options for welcoming hikers back to the trails at Heil Valley Ranch.”

Traffic separation

Open space managers in Jefferson and Larimer counties have taken steps to address issues between hikers and mountain bikers on shared trails, mostly because trailriders move at significantly higher speeds, especially on downhills.

The mountain bike community lauds Jefferson County Open Space for leading the search for solutions.

“When it comes to managing conflict on trails created by heavy multi-use, we have seen quite a bit of that in the Denver metro, most famously Jefferson County Open Space,” said Gary Moore, executive director of the Colorado Mountain Bike Association.

Jeffco instituted an alternating-day system for trailriders and hikers more than a decade ago at Centennial Cone Park, 10 miles west of Golden in Clear Creek Canyon. Since then, it has designated biker-only trails at Matthews/Winters Park and White Ranch Park while instituting an alternating-use system at Apex Park.

More than 100 people turned out at a community meeting called by Jeffco Open Space in 2020 to explain the plan for Apex.

“A lot of them were cyclists, saying, ‘You’re taking this away from us on odd days?’” said Jeffco Open Space spokesman Matt Robbins. “This was met with a lot of caution when we first rolled it out. After a year’s time, we had no evidence that said this wasn’t going to work.”

Two years ago, Jeffco built a new biker-only trail on a steep, wooded, technical slope at Lair o’ the Bear Park near Evergreen.

“It’s been extremely popular,” COMBA’s Moore said of the Rutabaga Ride at Lair o’ the Bear. “The county heard more from hikers thanking them than they did from bikers, because their experience was so improved by having this separation of speed.”

Larimer County has taken a somewhat similar approach. It built a new trail for mountain bikers at Devil’s Backbone Park in 2016 to separate user groups in what had been a congested area near the trailhead. Four years later, a survey commissioned by the county found that 99% of the park’s visitors rated their experiences as good or excellent.

Clear Creek County designed the Floyd Hill Open Space with designated biking and hiking trails. The city of Blackhawk did the same at Maryland Mountain.

At the Virginia Canyon in Idaho Springs, a joint project between the city and COMBA, there is a four-mile climbing trail open to trailriders and hikers that rises 1,300 feet from base to summit.

“It is designed for the hiking experience, bi-directional, and for bikes, it’s uphill only,” COMBA’s Moore said. “Bikes and hikers go up together, but the bikes come down on (other) trails that are purpose-built, designated-use, directional-travel for bikes only.”

Compromise makes sense

Boulder County mountain bikers see what other open space managers are doing and wonder why it’s not happening there.

According to an analysis by the Boulder Mountainbike Alliance, there are 152 miles of mountain trails between Boulder County Parks & Space and the city of Boulder’s Open Space & Mountain Parks department. Only 67 miles, Sweet said, are open to bikes.

“We know from other areas that everybody has a better time on the trails when the trails are set up for good experiences,” Sweet said. “That includes things like (one-way) directional loops. And, when bikes are coming downhill, it’s more fun for everyone if they are not on the same trail (as hikers).”

COMBA has been pursuing solutions and advising open space planners in several counties for years.

“We have been encouraging land managers that are managing trail systems to institute three basic principles of trail management: Designated use, directional controls and separation by speed,” Moore said. “Designated use is a trail built just for biking or just for hiking or a trail built for equestrian use. You’re going to have the best experience on a trail that is built for the way you want to enjoy it, whether you are a hiker, a biker, an equestrian.”

For instance, he points out that at Apex Park near Golden, designated trails are open for bikes only on even-numbered calendar days, while hikers and equestrians are only allowed on odd-numbered days. On weekends at Centennial Cone, trailriders have access on even-number days, hikers and equestrians on odd-number days.

“I think that compromise, alternating days, has been a decent balance,” said Robbins, the open space spokesman. “We’re not anywhere close to where we want to be. We want to have more.”

Seuc has been the director of Boulder County Open Space since April 6, arriving shortly before the county commissioners announced their alternating trail use proposal. In his previous job, he was a diplomat based in Nepal as part of the U.S. Agency for International Development. He lost that job when the Trump Administration shut down USAID last year.

His diplomacy skills may well come in handy as Boulder County wrestles with its mountain bike issue. He understands the trail-riding community.

“I’m a mountain biker myself, and when I want to go down the trail, it would be great to go with some obstacles, some rocky sections with some fun chunky bits,” he said, using a trailrider term for highly technical sections filled with rocks, roots and ledges, “and not have in the back of my mind, ‘Gosh, I hope I don’t run into somebody.’”

He also understands the anxiety hikers can feel when sharing single-track trails with faster-moving mountain bikes.

“There are a lot that are really comfortable on the trails, but we then hear from members of the community who aren’t so comfortable,” Seuc said. “So it’s our job to try to figure out what that balance is.”

Many thanks to Teri Cleeland for this post!

*****************

Sharon asked me to share more thoughts on the Recreation Fee program, so I pulled this possibly too-long remembrance together. This is a little bit about my experience with Recreation Fee Demonstration in those smoke-filled DC rooms from 2001-3.

I’ll lead with the famous Margaret Mead quote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” I couldn’t say it at the time, but Kitty Benzar and Robert Funkhouser and the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, among others in opposition to recreation fees, made a meaningful impact on how FLREA developed. The Forest Service at the national level was listening, and so was Congress. I also want to thank Jim and Vladimir for their observations from the ground. I’m so glad they worked things out together.

In 2001 I went to DC from a ranger district in AZ to see how the sausage was made, and it nearly wrecked me!

Imagine arriving in DC in the 5th year of a grand experiment authorized by Congress to try out different kinds of recreation fees, with no objective goals other than to reduce deferred maintenance and improve the recreation experience.

I don’t have time to recount my whole experience, so I’m just going to cut and paste some parts of an oral history interview I did on my larger career for the National Museum of Forest History in 2023. Rec Fees were a small part of that interview.

In late 2000, I was working as a rec/lands/etc. staff officer on 3 consolidated ranger districts on the Kaibab National Forest. Here’s my introduction to recreation fees: “…it was kind of like the Wild West: experiment and see what works. And for us, we were south of Grand Canyon National Park, and it was a twenty-five-dollar entrance fee back then to get into the National Park. And we had this visitor center that we had created in Williams, and we started charging passes for the park, and we got to retain eighty percent of the park pass that we were selling as a convenience to people at our visitor center as they were heading up to the Grand Canyon. And then we got to keep all the money from our campgrounds too. And so, it was like, “Hey, this is a great deal and it’s not controversial. So, how hard could it be?” Right. [this was my reasoning for taking the job in DC]”

…” So, I took the Recreation Fee Demonstration [job], and I found out very quickly how incredibly controversial it was. And part of the reason for that controversy is that the Forest Service never set up a measure of how would we know it was successful? What would be some measures of our success? We just said, “Go out there and try a whole bunch of different things.” And every National Forest had their own ideas on how to charge for recreation. …All of the Southern California National Forests banded together and decided we’re going to have a de facto entrance fee. You cannot be on the National Forest without paying for a pass to be on the forest. And other places like Sedona, it would be certain trailheads that were just overrun, and they wanted to charge people at a trailhead….”

“…And it was very inconsistent. The public was running into signs saying, “You can’t park here without paying,” but there was no way to pay. And I just inherited kind of a nightmare. It was very much hated by almost all of the public. And the National Forests were like, “You can’t take my fees away. This is working for me. My measure of success is that I’m taking all of these receipts in, even if the public hates me, I’m getting finally money to keep the toilets clean or to put toilets in.” And I mean, I could do an entire interview about the mess that I inherited. And the first thing that I saw was that the agency itself was going to have to come to some kind of consistency on where and how we charge fees and make them fairer for the public. I always had a marketing perspective from the end user because I was one, out in the woods, and the hardest part was convincing our own agency leaders [I’m referring to Forest Supervisors and Regional Foresters here] to maybe give up on some of these ideas that they thought were successful in order to save the program.”

“…The very first thing that I did was have a trip out west to meet with all of the regional managers of the program to talk about the state of where we were. And I just had to find out how hard is this going to be? And I discovered very quickly that it was going to be really difficult for us to change into a more nationally consistent program. I had this “Locally Flexible, Nationally Consistent” mantra because the people who were making all the money on this recreation site weren’t seeing what was happening nationally and how it was not consistent. Like they weren’t accepting, at the time, there was a Golden Eagle Pass that the Park Service had, and we didn’t have a national pass, and that was something. So, there was consistency within the agency, but then there was consistency among the four agencies that were part of this program nationally.”

“…It was really the Forest Service that all the press was negative about our fee program. And there was a feeling that we were dragging down the Interior agencies and they badly wanted permanent authority. So, again, it was every year in the appropriations bill that they reauthorized us to do this. So, every single year we were involved in the appropriation process to try to get this authorizing language carried over, and then they’d want to keep adding little bits to it. And right when I got there, the purpose of my job was to work with Interior to develop permanent fee legislation. And so, we had to get our agency act together before we could work with the Interior agencies to bring a bill up to the Hill. And I don’t know how I got through those first couple years. It was very challenging, but I think I pulled it off in the end because we ended up getting permanent legislation.” [I’ll interject here that DOI’s Lynn Scarlett was very supportive of keeping the FS in the program.]

“… And part of that was starting with this—we came up with a blueprint, what we called “the blueprint” for rec fees in my first year there. And a lot of that was a result of working with Congress. There was a couple of Republican congressmen, one from Colorado [Scott McInnis and his staffer Josh Penry], … he was instrumental. He and his staffers, they said, “Look, this is what we’ve seen in this experiment. These are the principles that we think might make it acceptable.” So, they helped me. They were kind of the bad guys [to my FS folks]. They said, “Look, we’re not going to authorize this unless you meet these criteria: consistency, value for the visitor. You can’t charge people just to park on a National Forest. You can’t charge entrance fees to enter a National Forest.” So, there were some principles that they had outlined that I had to bring to the agency and say, “Look, this is reality, guys. Legislation is the art of the possible, and it is not going to be possible to get legislation with what you guys are doing out here.” That helped me a lot….”

I want to say here that Representative McInnis (and staffer Josh Penry) showed real leadership in grabbing this thorny issue and developing what seemed to be reasonable principles that the FS had to adhere to in order to get fee authority. It ended up with some rather unwieldy legislative language, including the very exacting list of amenities required at fee sites. This reflected a lack of trust in the FS, and in my opinion, it was well founded. We also missed out on the ability to charge fees for larger areas that had a cluster of recreation sites, like the Coronado’s Mount Lemmon Highway into the Catalinas, which had a single controlled access point like an entrance station. My interview continued after I went into a diversion about the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, with this story about the new national pass…

“… It was maybe later that fall or that winter (2002)—the Interior and Agriculture agencies and our attorneys were literally writing the legislation for new recreation fees. We were going to do away with the old Golden Eagle Pass, because that was only good for the Park Service. So, there had to be a new interagency public lands pass that you could use on National Forests, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Park Service. And we were like, “Okay, it’s going to be called the ‘Federal Lands Recreation Pass,’ but that’s too wordy. Can’t be ‘The Golden Eagle,’ that’s no longer authorized.” It was going to replace the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. So, this was a pretty big deal, authorizing all of the recreation fees that could be charged on public lands. So, somebody said, I don’t know who it was—I could lie and say it was me—but somebody said, “Well, how about the ‘America the Beautiful Pass?’” And that’s why your pass today is the America the Beautiful Pass—that got written into legislation. So, it was as a result of 9/11 and that moment of national unity” [because everyone was singing that song at the time]….

“… We didn’t get into the nitpicky details [of how to divvy up the funds] at the national level. With the National Forest or Park, you could get into those little nitpicky things. We were like, “No, it’s wherever it’s sold”. And then we started being able to sell them by mail, like virtually. But no, we didn’t get into that. [Apologies to the folks on the ground, but you did figure out income distribution, and this was part of the “local flexibility” that seemed to work.]

“… I was always trying to think of, “How can I simplify this?” And I came up with “The ABCs of Recreation Fees.” “A” was accountability: that we were to be accountable to the public on how and where we spent their money. So, there would always be information on where their extra fee went to. “B” was benefits: that you would see the benefit of your extra money that you paid. You would see that it got me security at the trailhead, or it got me a new restroom or a better trail. And “C” was convenience: that it would be convenient to buy these. And it was that convenience part that we really had to work on because I wanted that pass to be accepted in as many places as possible. And what happened was we had these concessionaires that we had contracts with that predated this, and people were taking their passes and expecting them to be good at these day use areas that were under contract with third parties. And part of the contract was, “No, we don’t accept these passes.” [and that’s still the case].”

To wrap up all these memories, as I’m explaining all of this, the interviewer, Dr. James Wall, who might be in his forties said:

“Wall: “This is blowing my mind. I’m sorry. So, until 1996, you never paid a fee to go onto the National Forest. You would pay to camp probably.

Teri Cleeland: I love this. I love that you’re saying that [laughs] because that means that we were successful in our transition toward having some visitor fees.

James Wall: I’ve never known any other reality and they do a lot of good things now with the passes and stuff. I always have a pass every year. The America the Beautiful Pass.”

End of interview excerpts.

When I became eligible for the senior discount America the Beautiful Pass, I made sure to buy it from that little Kaibab NF ranger district office that I left to go to DC. They deserved the 80 percent!

In 2003, I followed the siren call of promotion to the Legislative Affairs staff, where I stayed until 2009. I got to celebrate the passage of the first 10-year authorization of FLREA. It was quite an accomplishment. But I much more enjoyed working on other legislation: lands, wilderness, partnerships, heritage, tribal relations. We got a lot of good work done in those days when we had a functional Congress.

It’s interesting to see the program from afar, and as a consumer, I’m pretty pleased with how it’s turned out. The funds have brought meaningful improvements to a lot of places. Of course, there are still problems everywhere and some things like the RACs that didn’t work out. That whole thing was a political compromise that seemed unwieldy from the start. I experienced that as a deputy forest supervisor when I had my own RAC for some pretty minor rec fee sites in Florida. We certainly weren’t raking in the dough on our OHV trails and other day use areas. We always had to subsidize fee sites with appropriated dollars.

Thanks for the link to the annual report. It looks to me like the revenues for the Forest Service are still a small portion of the recreation budget. Twenty years ago it was around 10% of the budget or somewhere around 30 million, now it’s 85 million. For lots of reasons, it costs a lot of money to provide quality recreation amenities. And the FS has a really hard time closing recreation sites. There was a concerted effort in Region 8 to assess low performing sites with high deferred maintenance. But when it came time to close some, there was always a constituency group calling their congressperson. We also got into real trouble building multiple visitor centers on Mount St. Helens. All the congressionals want to be at the ribbon cutting but not fund operations.

Rec Fees came about as a result of the loss of the big timber program, which subsidized a lot of other programs. Road maintenance, for example, was no longer paid for by timber receipts. Then fire rose after the big fires that started with climate change around 2000, and because of the 10-year average the fire budget kept creeping up to a larger and larger share of the overall budget squeezing out recreation and other programs. The recreation program was running just to stand still. Some couldn’t even handle volunteers or grants because we just couldn’t keep up with the field work. Toilets don’t clean themselves!

The National Forests have been overrun again in the Covid and post Covid era, and then DOGE came along and just decimated the recreation staffing. Now with reorganization and ever-consuming fire seasons, there isn’t much attention being given to the recreation resource. I’m hopeful that some good will come with downsizing the overhead above the Forest level, but it will take some time for that to settle out. I’m on the NASFR recreation committee and we’re in hiatus now. There was some internal effort in the waning days of the Biden administration to refocus on recreation, but they didn’t get past listening sessions before the DOGE shock came.

Rec Fees play a crucial role in helping to close the funding gap, but as we predicted back when, they will never supplant appropriated funds. I wish that Congress and the Administration valued public lands recreation as much as I do. But they just don’t and never will. I believe that the worst fears of the opponents have not been realized, nor the greatest hopes of the proponents.

I only hope that American’s love for their public lands will prevail and that these lands will continue to be a place of joy and wonder for generations to come.

Dale wrote the below as a comment, and I think it’s worthy of more engagement.  This is how it appears to some folks.  The FS hasn’t tried very hard to implement FLREA in some places, and does so in others.  And if folks are going to be charged, why not have the FS get the bucks rather than concessionaires or other private and public entities? One good reason would be that the FS can’t do the work as cheaply as other entities, probably due to rules regarding hiring, contracting and so on. FLREA requires certain improvements for the FS and other agencies to be able to charge. Perhaps our friends in the outdoor recreation industry, who benefit from federal lands, might donate these improvements so that the FS could start to charge? That would be the gift that would keep on giving…

Here’s what Dale wrote:

The comments from Kitty above are incorrect with regards to FLREA authorizing the FS to charge a fee at developed trailheads. That actually was the point of the law by Congress to allow the FS to generate some revenues from trail and trailhead users to help fund management of that recreation activity. In Colorado, the FS Is the only agency that generally is not charging trailhead fees, except for a limited number of trails. State parks, counties, and even CO Parks and Wildlife are charging to help fund maintenance or improvements of trails and trailhead facilities, and they charge significantly more than usual FS fees to date. The public has not rejected such user fees at FS trailheads where they are implemented. Only Western Slope No Fee Coalition has attempted to reject them, but the fee application has been upheld by courts when the FS properly provides required amenities.

Under the law, Something like 80% of the revenue is supposed to stay at the local FS units and be used for trail maintenance or other related improvements. These monies can and do fund trail crews where they are collected and where they are properly applied in good faith under the law. If the FS collected on a more widespread basis, many seasonal and permanent trail crew folks could be hired. Coincidentally, I drove by the Herman Gulch trailhead today west of Denver along I-70 on the Arapaho-Roosevelt NF and there were probably 400 cars parked (maybe more, hard to tell driving by on the interstate), but the ARNF largely does not charge any trailhead user fees. They do charge ‘entry fees’ at a few special areas. And concessionaires charge entry fees at the very popular Brainard Lake area on the ARNF but that is a different matter. That is THEIR fee that they have been authorized to collect in their concessionaire contract with the ARNF.

It is important to point out that the FS can choose what trailheads to charge at; they don’t have to charge at every trailhead. And in R6 forests, many trailheads have no fee, for example. Also, the Interagency America the Beautiful pass is accepted for the fee. As I noted above R6 forests have been charging for 30 years, as well as limited other locations that I am aware of. Under the law, they simply need to provide required amenities, such as vault toilet, info kiosk/sign board, trash collection, picnic table I believe in order to impose the fee.

The FS did abuse the law in a few places by attempting to charge fees for people simply parking along roads not near a trailhead within what they termed a “high use area”, but where they had not provided the required amenities. They lost in court over this at least once as they should have.

On high use forests such as the ARNF, collection of trail fees at most of the high-use trailheads ( this may be almost everywhere on Clear Creek and Boulder Districts for example) could likely generate very substantial monies to fund a lot of trail crews and maybe replace a vault toilet or improve or expand a trailhead parking area. But, the FS largely has not been utilizing this authorized funding mechanism for some reason. As noted in the WyoFile Op Ed above, I would also say I am dumb founded as to why they have not in a broader way across the FS. The trails and trailheads could be in much better condition.

***************************

I decided to look at FS Recreation RACs.   I’m not going to criticize anyone because of the FS website hassles of last year. I’ll just point out the Regions 2, 8 and 9 links on the RecRac site went to information about RecRacs. I’ve heard that there are troubles with these, getting people to apply? Getting FACA members appointed (that’s always an issue)? I don’t know but hopefully folks out there know more. I wonder if there will continue to be Regional RACs without Regions?

Last fall, the CRS did a piece on FLREA and relevant issues.

Fee Sites. The most recent FLREA report (p.8; hereinafter 2024 Report) shows that in 2023, the agencies charged FLREA fees at then-existing sites as follows: Of FS’s nearly 30,000 recreation sites, 3,936 collected fees. Of BLM’s 3,400 developed recreation sites, 402 charged fees. Of 568 FWS refuges, 131 sites charged fees. Of 429 NPS units, 157 charged a fee. Of BOR’s more than 245 sites with developed recreation, 4 charged a fee.

So, maybe, it would appear that other federal agencies are not charging fees on as many areas as possible under FLREA either. Here’s something Lynn Scarlett, then Assistant Interior Secretary, wrote in 2005. I am a newbie to all this so forgive me if I got something wrong, but is this currently the right list for being able to charge?

Standard amenity recreation fee
Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service, but only at the following:
(1)A National Conservation Area.
(2)A National Volcanic Monument.
(3)A destination visitor or interpretive center that provides a broad range of interpretive services, programs, and media.
(4)An area—
(A)that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(B)that has substantial Federal investments;
(C)where fees can be efficiently collected; and
(D)that contains all of the following amenities:
(i)Designated developed parking.
(ii)A permanent toilet facility.
(iii)A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv)Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v)Picnic tables.
(vi)Security services.

Requiring all of those amenities seems a little much,  IMHO. Security services? Many of the county places I hike have excellent well-maintained handicapped sized port a potties inside a shelter. The concessionaire-run FS sites often have a trash can within their vault toilet. Is a sign with a map the same as “interpretive”? It just seems like kind of an potpourri of different things, especially since it must have “ALL of the following” if I understand correctly. It could be that technologies have changed, as well as many more people out there, and so maybe Congress should take another look should be taken at all this, and how well it has worked in the last 20 years.  But perhaps our academic friends have done some studies? Or perhaps the recreation industry? Or even have collection kiosks at sites for voluntary contributions? Right now if I felt like contributing, I wouldn’t know where to send it.

Let’s go back in time.. to this testimony from Lynn Scarlett, then Assistant Interior Secretary. Whatp

The Fee Council, whose members include key officials of both Departments, was created in 2002 to facilitate coordination and consistency among agencies on recreation fee policies. Our Implementation Plan includes the creation of a Steering Committee to oversee day-to-day implementation, as well as several technical working groups for each of the key areas. The Fee Council created the following technical working groups:

National Pass Working Group
Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure Working Group
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RAC)/Public Participation Working Group
Communications Working Group
The Implementation Plan, a dynamic working document, sets forth preliminary implementation timelines by identifying short-term, medium-term, and long-term tasks and designates staff with the lead responsibility to accomplish those tasks. The working groups are drafting guidance, developing detailed action plans, and discussing key issues to ensure compliance with the new law. One of the short-term tasks of the Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure Working Group is to ensure that all sites that charge recreation fees conform to the infrastructure and other requirements of the new law. Although this review continues, the following are examples of sites that have made changes to their fees under FLREA:\

Gavin Point National Fish Hatchery (FWS) no longer charges an entrance fee.
Arapaho National Recreation Area (Forest Service) no longer charges an entrance fee for the entire area, but may charge a standard amenity recreation fee at localized developed sites.
At Imperial Sand Dunes (BLM), recreation fees for two overlooks and a trailhead were eliminated.
Quaker Lake Visitor Center and Lewis and Clark Visitor Center (Forest Service) no longer charge for children under 16 years of age.

******************************

---

We’ve discussed this before many times, but I thought I’d bring it up again because I wondered if some of this (different kinds of passes) were regional choices, and, if so, how those differences might fare under a “no Region” reorganization.

“This” being, what FS units charge for what, recreationally speaking?  I think everyone charges for campgrounds, but trailheads? And there are probably other uses. IMHO, this would be a good thing to try to achieve some national consistency about.. otherwise people will continue to wonder and potentially ascribe Forest employees with “apathy” toward “regulation”.

Dale made this comment on the chainsaws in Wilderness post:

How about finally charging trailhead parking fees FS-wide or at least in a much more expanded way than currently in the FS trail system that could fund trail crews (e.g., $5/day or $30 for annual pass as they have in Region 6 forests for 30 years now and at some trailheads on the Medicine Bow-Routt NF)? This is a funding source that has been available to the FS since the initial 1995 Congressionally-approved Recreation Enhancement Act, yet the FS as a whole has hardly utilized it, with limited exceptions noted above that I am aware of.

Fortunately for us, Kitty Benzar usually follows this, and I hope that she gives her perspective.

Today, Wyofile published this op-ed (picked up by an alert TSW reader):

WyoFile published an article in July indicating that Lonesome Lake has the worst contamination level of any of 981 lakes that were investigated. Car counts at the Big Sandy Trailhead in mid-August have exceeded 300. It is not uncommon to see toilet paper, defecation or refuse at Island, Lonesome or Big Sandy lakes.

The Big Sandy and Elkhart Park trailheads remain two of the fullest parking lots in the West from the middle of July through early September.  While the popular Big Sandy Trailhead sits on the Bridger-Teton National Forest side, the Cirque of the Towers —one of Wyoming’s and the West’s most spectacular places— sits in the Shoshone National Forest’s Popo Agie Wilderness.

Frequently, Bridger-Teton forest officials will cite costs as a reason for a lack of regulation. Yet, closer to the Bridger Wilderness, entering the Ashley National Forest’s High Uintas Wilderness from the Mirror Lake Scenic Byway requires a parking pass.  Fees for these passes are $6 daily or $12 per week. An annual pass is only $45.

I believe most backpackers entering the Wind Rivers from either Big Sandy or Elkhart Park trailheads would gladly pay the fee for better trail maintenance that could alleviate some of the now-common litter that suddenly appears in either Titcomb Basin, Island Lake, Big Sandy Lake or at the Cirque of the Towers —the last places in the world that should have litter.

 

Of course, we know that the National Parks are under a different legal structure, so this is not applicable..

 

Additional permit guidance comes from our national parks. Grand Teton National Park utilizes a combination of an advancereservation system through Recreation.gov and a walk-up permit, which can be obtained from the Jenny Lake Ranger Station at a cost of $35.In terms of scenery, the most comparable spots to the Wind Rivers, where permit opponents often cite the range’s size as an excuse for lack of regulation, are in the Sierras and are often visited via a hike along the John Muir Trail, which stretches over 200 miles through Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks. This hike also requires a permit, which often must be applied for 168 days in advance. Even then, the success rate for these permits hovers around 40% at the most popular times of year.

I thought it was interesting, though, that the author he would throw in that comparison.

Anyway, what is your experience with FLREA and various forms of charging individuals for recreation? Does it vary by Region, or Forest, or District???? Or perhaps there’s quite a bit of hassle and potential litigation that is off-putting given the many other challenges the FS faces?

While Don write this with OHV enthusiasts in mind, many of us drive forest roads to get to our favorite spots (and park)..

********************

OHV wildfire prevention mascot encourages riders to do their part during National OHV Safety Week

As summer temperatures rise across the West and fire danger increases on public lands, Donsquatch is reminding riders that protecting forests, trails, and riding opportunities starts with individual responsibility.

Donsquatch, the official OHV wildfire prevention and post-fire recovery mascot for Quiet Warrior Racing LLC, is helping spread awareness as part of the 2026 National OHV Safety Week, which runs June 13-21.

Wildfires are no longer isolated seasonal events. Across California and the Pacific Northwest, repeated megafires have damaged trail systems, destroyed recreation infrastructure, impacted wildlife habitat, and stretched the capacity of firefighters and land managers to keep up with recovery efforts. The good news, according to the campaign, is that the OHV community can play an important role in preventing human-caused fires and helping keep public lands open for future generations.

One of the most important wildfire prevention tools for OHV users is ensuring motorcycles, ATVs, UTVs, Jeeps, and 4×4 vehicles are equipped with properly functioning spark arrestors. The USDA Forest Service requires spark arrestors that meet Forest Service standards for OHV operations in fire-prone environments because hot carbon particles expelled from exhaust systems can ignite dry vegetation under the right conditions.

The Forest Service Wildland Fire OHV Standard identifies spark arrestors as mandatory safety equipment for wildfire operations and public land vehicle use.

Donsquatch also encourages riders to inspect vehicles before every ride. Dry grass and pine needles can accumulate near exhaust systems, skid plates, brakes, and engine compartments where heat can create ignition risks. Carrying a small fire extinguisher, shovel, and basic emergency gear is becoming increasingly important during peak fire season.

Riders are also urged to avoid parking vehicles in tall dry grass and should never idle vehicles unnecessarily during extreme heat events.

Responsible riding behavior remains another important component of wildfire prevention. Riders are encouraged to stay on designated routes, obey seasonal closures, and respect emergency fire restrictions. Land managers often implement temporary closures not to punish recreation users, but to reduce ignition risks and allow firefighters safe access during critical fire conditions.

Ignoring closures or driving around barriers not only damages natural resources but can jeopardize future access for everyone.

Another growing concern involves overloaded or improperly modified OHVs operating in rugged terrain during extreme summer conditions. Forest Service OHV safety guidance emphasizes the importance of proper vehicle maintenance, safe modifications, adequate cooling systems, and compliance with manufacturer recommendations to reduce breakdowns and operational hazards in wildfire environments.

Many riders take pride in customizing their vehicles, but safety and reliability should always come first when operating on public lands during fire season.

Donsquatch also encourages the OHV community to support local volunteer trail crews, post-fire recovery projects, and stewardship partnerships with agencies and nonprofits. Across the West, volunteers and recreation groups are helping reopen trails, repair damaged infrastructure, remove hazard trees, restore watersheds, and educate the public about sustainable recreation.

Those partnerships are becoming increasingly important as agencies continue to face staffing shortages, deferred maintenance, and the growing pace and scale of wildfire impacts.

The message from Donsquatch is straightforward: every rider has a role to play in protecting the lands they enjoy. Responsible OHV use, proper equipment, wildfire awareness, and good stewardship are no longer optional—they are essential to keeping trails open and helping forests recover.

As Donsquatch likes to say, “We Ride. We Care. We Restore.”

**************

Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over 30 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, and collaborative land management and former Chair of the CA State Parks OHMVR Commission.