Recreation

Patrick mentioned this Dashboard, so I thought I would post for people who don’t read comments.

As part of that I’ve built a web app for OneVoice with a dashboard comparing open vs. closed roads in every forest and district to identify areas where there are lots of closed admin and ML1 roads that could be opened to the public.

I think that maybe this is a little overly-numeric, and that the locals probably have a good idea of which roads might make sense to open or make into a trail of some kind- what shape are they in now? Would they also be useful for potential fire suppression? How much maintenance would be required?.  I’m sure the proportion of open and closed probably has a lot to do with how many roads the Forest had in the first place.  Lots to think about and puzzle over, but I always prefer bottom-up exercises.. like maybe the FS could (or has?) put out maps where the public gets to express its opinion about what roads should be open (or closed) and include why they think so.

Thanks to Ted Z. for finding this NY Times piece.

According to the NY Times, there is an undated secretarial memorandum which they obtained (?). They could have linked to the memo, but did not, which always makes me curious.

The undated Agriculture Department secretarial memorandum, which was reviewed by The New York Times, directs the U.S. Forest Service to identify which closed “roads, trails, areas, airstrips and waterways” in each national forest might be considered for year-round recreation access.

The memo would also immediately allow off-road vehicles in areas that the Forest Service has recommended to Congress should be granted wilderness protections. Right now, ATVs are not allowed in many of those areas, which are treated as if they were protected already. That move alone affects about 5 million acres, primarily in Idaho and Montana.

I’m not sure that an “immediately allowing OHVs in areas” is legal. Perhaps the memo’s undated as it never made it to OGC for review.

If, as some TSW readers say, what exactly is allowed in recommended Wilderness varies by forest or region, then it seems like if you wanted to change it, you would have to amend forest plans, or travel management plans or something.. Note that the reporter carefully said that ATVs are not allowed in “many” of the areas, “which are treated as if they were protected already”.

It seems to me that identifying closed roads that could be opened is one thing- and perhaps not all that controversial, but “immediately allowing” something.. does not sound like the FS at all.

Also note that the memorandum says “roads, trails, areas, airstrips and waterways” but the headline is only about ATV’s. Conceivably also jeeps/SUVs and cars could use roads; hikers, bikers and horses could use trails, and it’s dubious that ATVs would be using airstrips and waterways at all.

Dan Hartinger, the senior policy director at the Wilderness Society, an environmental group, said ATVs, dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles could severely damage wilderness areas.

Maybe he’s talking about wilderness-y areas, not Wilderness, because that would be illegal. You have to read carefully to pick out that these are RWs and not W’s.  But I still don’t think you can just do that in 30 days, as plans would have to be amended.

“These are some of the wildest natural areas we have left in our forests,” Mr. Hartinger said. In particular, he argued, allowing off-road vehicles in areas the agency has recommended be protected “threatens our ability to ever protect them in the future if they’re irrevocably damaged.”

Some of the wildest, that is, that is not designated Wilderness already. This seems to call into question the popular (with some) idea of closing roads.  If they’re “irrevocably damaged” due to roads, what’s the point in closing them?  Maybe the damage is really somewhat revocable?

If I had been the reporter, I might have asked a lawyer about whether this memo contemplates doing things that are legal. But perhaps the story would have been “unsigned memo at USDA describes illegal actions.”

But perhaps this story is just pre-agitation to prepare us for the bigger event:

In the coming weeks, the Forest Service is expected to issue a proposal to rescind a Clinton-era regulation that prevents new road-building in nearly 60 million acres of undeveloped land.

But we know that the current proposal (unless it’s changed, which the Times didn’t say) leaves out Colorado and Idaho, which according to Trout Unlimited leaves 45 million acres. I didn’t look it up myself, but TU tends to follow roadless closely.

Anyway, perhaps a summer intern wrote the memo in question?

I’ve been reading about this new EO.. there are certainly readers out there who know more than I.

Here’s a link to the EO.

Here are two paragraphs of interest:

 I have determined that those statutory authorities, together with executive department and agency (agency) specific land management authorities, provide the appropriate framework for managing off-road vehicle use on Federal lands without retaining the additional specific designation criteria imposed by Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989.  I have further determined that technological, operational, and land-management developments since the issuance of Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 support replacing those specific criteria with a framework grounded in applicable statutory authorities.

Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 direct agencies to promulgate regulations providing that, where off-road vehicle use is permitted on Federal lands, roads, and trails, such use designations must be made in accordance with ill-defined criteria purportedly intended to minimize resource impacts and conflicts between different users of Federal land. These criteria, which are not required by statute, are difficult for agencies to operationalize due to vagueness, and include “minimiz[ing] harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats,” minimizing “conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses . . . taking into account noise and other factors,” and ensuring that off-road vehicle use in given locations will not “adversely affect [the location’s] natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.” These vague, subjective criteria often result in barriers to energy and timber production and utility maintenance, permit delays, and de facto bans on hiking and other forms of recreation that require accessing remote areas, all while doing little to benefit multiple use of Federal lands.

Yes, but does anyone actually look at those EO’s? Or are there ongoing regulations that somehow reflect the EO outside of statutes (travel management regs in the FS?). EO’s, be they Nixonian, Carterian or Trumpian, don’t have the authority of statutes or regulations.  So probably no one was looking at those EOs anyway.

As others have pointed out, I also don’t see barriers to timber production or energy development since those uses require more than OHV’s to do their thing.

Our friends at Center for Western Priorities headlined this as “Trump peals rules”, of course, in reality Admins can’t simply repeal rules.

“Rescinding guidance meant to reduce conflicts in the backcountry and protect wildlife habitat isn’t popular; that’s why Trump tried to bury it by putting this order out on a Friday evening,” Center for Western Priorities Communications Director Kate Groetzinger told the New York Times.

There are entire structures of regulations built since 1972 and 1977 that do have legal authority, such as the travel management rule.  Which would take a couple of years to redo, then there would be litigation, then each forest would have to do another planning exercise, which would be litigated..

Anyway, I don’t see much there of substance.  Perhaps closing, or opening, or building new trails owes more to the druthers of the employees on a unit than to any 1972 (or 1977) EO?

Another take was by Jonathan P. Thompson of the Land Desk Substack with the headline “Trump revokes OHV restrictions for public lands.” Hmm.

No, this does not mean unfettered swarms of ATVs will be kicking up dust on your favorite public lands next week. But it does bolster the off-road vehicle lobby’s effort to open up motorized access to federal lands, and takes away one of the long-term planning tools used by land management agencies to protect those places from off-road vehicle use and abuse.

An EO is not a “planning tool”..

I thought that this was interesting.. it’s kind of an “SUVs are OK but not OHVs on the same road” which I don’t think I’ve heard before.

In the nearer-term, Trump’s order could end or diminish the ban on OHVs in national parks, allowing the vehicles to travel backroads in, say, Capitol Reef National Park. This might not sound so bad: If a three-ton SUV can drive there, why not let a smaller side-by-side or four-wheeler on the same road?

The answer lies in the nature of the newer OHVs, namely “side-by-sides” or razors, which more closely resemble souped-up dune buggies than conventional SUVs. While some people use OHVs as mere modes of transportation, the vehicles are more commonly treated and utilized like recreational playthings — very powerful, fast, and noisy toys that tend to travel in herds. They therefore bring their own type of impacts.

So they are noisier than SUVs and “travel in herds”..

Law enforcement officers now spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy trying to keep the OHV drivers on designated routes and in compliance with traffic laws. OHV crashes, often resulting in serious injury, are not uncommon. And each summer several riders surrender to the temptation to illegally leave the road — these are off-road vehicles, after all — and rip across the tundra, causing irreversible damage. Unlike regular vehicles, OHVs tend to travel in herds, spewing exhaust and kicking up dust, their collective buzzing reaching far beyond the roads on which they travel. It has become almost impossible during the high season to completely escape the incessant din of OHVs on the Alpine Loop, even in wilderness study areas.

Of course, people also have serious injuries from skiing and mountaineering accidents.  I wonder how many OHVs constitute a “herd”.. in my travels I tend to see one or two at a time.  SUVs and cars kick up dust as well.  I do agree that the sound can be annoying to those of us who like quiet outside.    And there is something to be said for some noise as it alerts people and wildlife of a person’s presence. And mountain bikers, hikers and horses sometimes travel in herds, so there’s that. And certainly other users go off-trail or make user-created trails.  And 4x4s are also allowed. Maybe it’s really all about the unique noise of OHVs compared to 4x4s.  Perhaps the buzzing sound is too loud compared to 4x4s? Or there is something particularly annoying about the sounds of some vehicles (dirt bikes revving, for example?).

Are alternate days, as with mountain bikes and hikers, a way of dealing with these kinds of conflicts?

Glenn commented yesterday:

The last 15 years or so has seen an explosion of demand for public lands recreation, to which the federal land management agencies have not appropriately responded – by creating new national parks and monuments, new campgrounds, new wilderness areas, new hiking and biking trails, etc.

It seems to me that there have been new monuments for sure in the last 15 years, but as with wilderness, those are decided either higher up in the Admin or in Congress. Also there is the question of some new monuments reducing recreation access (at least to some recreationers). So we are left with new trails and campgrounds that the FS could potentially influence. What are Forests doing, and why are some successful and others not?

I ran across this decision a while back, I think from a local news outlet, and here’s Google’s AI version:

The Tahoe trail network is undergoing massive expansion following the approved U.S. Forest Service Basin Wide Trails Analysis Project. This milestone authorizes 45 miles of new trails—including e-bike paths, motorized routes, and non-motorized segments—with construction crews scheduled to upgrade and expand regional trailheads. [1, 2]

Key Developments & Trail Analysis

• Expansion Details: The multi-year USFS plan focuses on sustainable recreation. New e-bike trails (such as a branch of the Pope Baldwin Bike Path) and new trailheads at Pine Drop, Brockway Summit, and Elks Point are launching to ease basin traffic.
• North Tahoe Trail Progress: Phase 1 of the Resort Triangle Trail network connects the North Tahoe Regional Park to Tahoe City. This 6-mile paved multi-use route connects local communities and provides a safe alternative to highway travel. [1, 2, 3]

Tahoe Rim Trail (TRT) Overview

• Thru-hiking: The 165-mile TRT loop takes 10 to 14 days to complete. The route features \(27,955\) feet of elevation gain and loss with rolling climbs and stunning views of Desolation Wilderness.
• Mountain Biking Constraints: Bikes are highly popular, such as on the 8-mile Tahoe Meadows to Tunnel Creek section (allowed on even-numbered days). However, they are federally prohibited in the Desolation, Granite Chief, and Mount Rose Wilderness areas, as well as the 50-mile overlap with the Pacific Crest Trail.
• Eastern Segment Challenges: Counterclockwise routes from Kingsbury South to Tahoe City are physically demanding, requiring careful hydration and cache planning due to dry sections and deep elevation changes. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Planning Tools & Updates

Aspen Public Radio had an interesting pivot in this story from Forest Service budget and recreation, to restructuring…my bold.

Amid restructuring talk, Forest Service says it can no longer manage popular Maroon Bells recreation area

Based on what the FS tells us, the point of restructuring is to get more funding to the field. My bold.. it sounds as if it is a budget problem, not a restructuring problem.

The U.S. Forest Service says it can no longer manage a popular recreation area near Aspen in Western Colorado. The agency is hoping that Pitkin County will take over management of the Maroon Bells Scenic Area for five years under a special use permit.

The Maroon Bells Scenic Area draws over 100,000 visitors to the White River National Forest each year.

In a meeting with the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, May 12, representatives from the Forest Service said there was an almost $300,000 gap between what it costs to manage the Bells and the revenue the agency brings in, and it’s not sustainable for the agency.

Kendra Head, the developed and dispersed recreation manager for the White River National Forest, explained the situation to the commissioners.

“The White River National Forest has been subsidizing the Bells for years from other programs across the Forest,” she said. “Budgets are tight across the Forest and we need to change management strategies. Deferred maintenance needs have accumulated and it’s difficult to hire staff with the cost of living and various hiring freezes.”

As a federal agency, she said, the Forest Service is limited in how much it can raise fees for these recreation areas. She said the county will have a lot more leeway to set prices through the special use permit.

Gary Tennenbaum, the director of Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, said that under the current operations plan from the White River, about 18% of the fee revenue would go back to the U.S. Forest Service.

“Since we’re a nonprofit, we’re not looking to profit on the management of the Bells,” he explained. “We would use all of that for deferred maintenance. So if it’s $300,000, we’ll plan for $300,000 worth of deferred maintenance. If it’s more, everything that we get from the Bells, goes back into the Bells.”

“Imagine this place came up for sale tomorrow,” he said. We would do everything in our power to buy it, because it is such a special resource.”

Tennenbaum emphasized that the land would remain under Forest Service ownership, and the agency would approve management plans, fee structures, and would continue to be responsible for capital improvements. However, the ongoing federal situation with public land management hung over the conversation.

“I know a lot of people are talking about, ‘oh, the Forest Service is getting cut, cut, cut,’” Tennenbaum said. “But one day, maybe, they’ll magically get some money and they’ll be able to do this. Well, if the county does this, we can give it back.”

Then it goes into a quote from The Wilderness Society.. currently D talking points.. going directly to “dismantling” “chaos” and the ever-popular “selling of public lands.” It might be relevant that the Prez of the Wilderness Society worked as BLM Director in the Biden Admin, but then again…

“Once you dismantle the agency, you introduce chaos,” said Josh Hicks, conservation director at the Wilderness Society in April. “The Forest Service is not able to do its job and serve the public as well, and that can foment frustration and lead to selling off and selling out our public lands.”

**********

And finally back to the acting Forest Supe:

During the Pitkin County meeting, White River National Forest officials told commissioners that they were able to hire seasonal workers for this summer season, both through normal channels and interns through the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps, and estimated that they had about two-thirds of their seasonal positions filled. They did not provide numbers on permanent staff

“Although we are not fully staffed, we have more boots on the ground this year than we did last year,” said Kendra Head.

In response to questions from the commissioners, Brian Glasgow, the acting supervisor of the White River National Forest, said that the White River and other forests are planning for the restructuring of the agency to go ahead as has been outlined in documents released by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

The biggest change, he said, is that instead of Colorado being grouped in with Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, and South Dakota in one big region, there will be a Colorado state director at the Forest Service, meant to oversee the agency’s work in the state.

“That might actually be to our net benefit: a little closer tie to our local politicians and all the rest,” he said. “Beyond that, there’s not a lot of near-term immediate impact to the White River National Forest.”

“It’s going to be difficult for a lot of people in the Forest Service,” he added. “There are regional offices and research stations that are closing altogether. A lot of people are going to get directed (to) reassignments.We expect that we will probably receive some of those refugees as new employees on the Forest. But beyond that, for the foreseeable future, we’re not expecting net change on the Forest.”

Now some of you might be wondering, “how unusual is it for counties or cities to take over management of an area under a special use permit, where the entity gets to charge for access?”  I don’t know and hopefully others can add examples. It seems like it would depend on “one road for vehicle access” which might be unusual.

But another Colorado place, Pike’s Peak, has apparently had the same kind of thing, since 1948.

In 1915, the U.S. Forest Service allowed Spencer Penrose to complete the road to the summit. However, when the agreement ended 20 years later, the road responsibility returned to the federal government and the $2 toll was lifted. People could drive up the mountain free of charge. Unfortunately, without the maintenance afforded by the toll, the road surface deteriorated greatly.  In 1948 the U.S. Forest Service issued a special-use permit to the City of Colorado Springs, which then became responsible for maintaining the road to the top. The City of Colorado Springs continues to maintain the road to this day.

And here is how it works:

The management of Pikes Peak is a complicated affair. Here’s a quick summary.

• The U.S. Forest Service has over-arching responsibility of the mountain, as it is part of the Pike National Forest.

• Through a special use permit issued by the Forest Service, the City of Colorado is responsible for administering and managing the Pikes Peak Highway and the concessions.

• The concessions on Pikes Peak are outsourced by the City of Colorado Springs to Aramark.

• The Pikes Peak Cog Rail (now owned by the Broadmoor Hotel), has a permanent lease to the right-of-way for the Cog Railway tracks from Manitou to the Summit.  This permanent lease was granted after Spencer Penrose deeded the entire summit of Pikes Peak to the U.S. Forest Service.

• The U.S. Army owns the High Altitude Research Laboratory on the Summit.

• Colorado Springs Utilities also has an interest, as their radio transmission equipment is located on the Summit.

I looked in Grok for other examples and it came up with these..

Here are some documented cases:

• Pitkin County, Colorado — Exploring/negotiating a Special Use Permit with the USFS to oversee day-to-day operations and management of the Maroon Bells Scenic Area (White River National Forest), starting potentially in 2027. The county would handle visitor services while USFS retains ownership.
• City and County of Denver / Winter Park Recreational Association, Colorado — Holds a long-term ski area term special use permit for Winter Park Resort on Arapaho National Forest lands.
• Various counties and municipalities partner for trail systems, shuttle operations (e.g., Hanging Lake in Colorado), or local recreation management through cooperative agreements that may include SUPs.

Other forests (e.g., Ozark-St. Francis in Arkansas) list “Access Special Use Permit Applications” and “State Parks Special Use Permit Applications,” indicating counties or local entities apply for road access or facility management.

I think the answer was Colorado-focused because Grok knows I live in Colorado. It would be interesting to see what results from AI queries using other chatbots from people in other locations.

Either no one was interested in organizational charts for the Forest Service, or everyone’s off for Memorial Day already. This story is significant for those hoping to find campsites this weekend.  It’s mysterious how solving these problems seems to elude Admins, Congress, and the usual outdoor industry suspects. It seems to me a Congressional investigation might be helpful, including looking into financial records.

We’ve covered some of Rec.gov before..this story is titled Wreck Dot Gov and it’s free access via the Re:Public site.

That gap is showing up on other public lands. Maybe you’ve driven into a campground to find reserved signs on all the posts, but then watched the sites sit empty. I know I have. The Recreation.gov system was supposed to make it easier to access public lands, and to alleviate administrative work from federal land managers, who already have enough on their plates. Instead, it feels like a breaking point between the digital and physical worlds.

Even beyond bot usage, academics have shown that digital access through Rec.gov is inequitable, and that demand for camping and other public land access is outpacing technology and policy. Rangers can’t do anything about those empty campsites, which they want to see used. People like me are pissed they can’t get outside when they want.

And they’re also pissed that the government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton is profiting off of every single Recreation.gov transaction, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

As we work though our frustration about access, it’s worth considering why a consulting company Bloomberg once called “the world’s most profitable spy organization”—one that you might remember as Edward Snowden’s employer when he leaked global surveillance documents, and which recently lost 31 Department of Treasury contracts because a former employee leaked Trump’s tax documents—is holding the keys to our public lands.

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

Throughout the system, rangers are bearing the brunt of people’s dissatisfaction. “People booked tickets through Rec.gov or with us in the visitor center, and the systems didn’t talk to each other,” says Walsh. “People would show up and claim they had tickets but couldn’t verify them. That led to stress and visitor conflict, and this was a park that didn’t have security or law enforcement.”

Rangers don’t have a lot of power to correct bad behavior. They can’t open unused campsites until after people don’t show up for their reservation, so the first night of a no-show can’t be used by anyone else. They can’t do anything about unused sites besides marking the user down in notes that are shared internally. One ranger told me he didn’t know if it made any difference—“We’re basically just blocking an email address,” he said. Some rangers told me they see the same group of people show up every year, while other people wait decades for a spot.

When BAH won the contract for Rec.gov, it was required to “provide a means to identify and suppress suspicious transactions including but not limited to web robot activity” and “recognize and prevent potentially duplicate profiles and provide a means to remove duplicate information.”

Both the company and the government acknowledge that there are issues on those fronts. “The site does experience attempted bot activity,” the Forest Service press office replied to me, “but multiple defenses are in place to detect and block large-scale attacks or efforts to capture multiple reservations.”

Healy says BAH has acknowledged the problems with bots enough that it has built availability alerts, which let users know when spots open up, to try to stay ahead of bots, and ahead of new businesses like Campnab or Outdoor Status, where you can set alerts for popular campsites or ticketed activities. In a statement, he emailed: “Booz Allen has implemented multiple defenses to detect, prevent, and mitigate bots that attempt to take advantage of the system; is constantly monitoring potential bot activity on the site; and is partnering with industry-leading vendors to leverage advanced solutions for identifying and mitigating that activity.”

But, he says, it’s tricky to create the right amount of friction to stop bad actors while still making the site accessible. “Believe me when I say the people involved want it to be fair,” he says.

These problems aren’t unique to public land, of course. They plague booking sites from Ticketmaster on down. It’s widespread enough that in 2016, Congress passed the Better Online Ticket Sales Act (BOTS) to try to outlaw bots that scoop up tickets, but the law only addresses events with over 200 people. It doesn’t apply to things like campground reservations or hiking permits, where bots are scraping for a single opening at a time. On the bright side, there doesn’t yet appear to be much of a secondary market for scalped reservations.

There’s a difference, of course, between tickets to a Taylor Swift concert and time on public land. But if getting a good campsite becomes a race for who has the most computing power, then can we really say public land is for everyone?

*******

Do the federal land management agencies suffer from tech-o-phobia? What else is going on? It seems like an issue everyone agrees on except perhaps the folks at Booz Allen Hamilton.  Like I always say, good government performance should cross party lines.  D’s generally want the government to do more things, so a track record of competence is in their interests.  R’s like being careful with/saving bucks so they should also be interested. And here is an apparent low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked.

With a sample size of two.. Tahoe and Frisco, it seems like communities with well-resourced inhabitants have less controversy over wildfire mitigation and possibly other topics.The other possibility is that many folks are getting along better than we think- across the country- but perhaps the media universe does not share those accounts equally.

This is a comprehensive article worth reading but may have a paywall. For those of you interested in the project documents, they are here.

People in the small Summit County town of Frisco used to call heavily wooded federal land adjacent to town “the asbestos forest,” because it seemed impervious to wildfire. That illusion went up in smoke, though, after nearby wildfires in 2005 and 2017 threatened homes and persuaded them they needed to address the threat on their doorstep.

Since then, state and federal agencies have joined them to discuss ways to reduce dead trees and other potential wildfire fuels in the forest nearby, not only for the threat they pose to Frisco, but also to the Dillon Reservoir bordering town to the east. Wildfire runoff could contaminate the reservoir, which represents about 40% of Denver Water’s supply to the metro area.

Earlier this month, Frisco — which measures less than two square miles and has a population of about 3,000 — and those agencies worked out a plan for wildfire fuel reduction on national forest land. But in doing so, they also took that opportunity to expand recreation opportunities in a 3,000-acre area south and east of town, colloquially known as Frisco’s “Backyard.”

Tying it all together

The work will begin this summer, when Frisco begins construction of a 1.3-mile summer hiking trail and a 1.4-mile Nordic ski trail connecting the Peninsula Recreation Area, which is north of Colorado Highway 9, with the Backyard on the other side of the highway. In late summer, the town plans to begin rebuilding, improving or re-routing an additional 12.3 miles of trails.

It also hopes to begin construction of 4.7 miles of new trails and adopt 14.3 miles of “social trails” — unofficial pathways that have been created by human traffic — for addition to the existing forest service trail network.

“We’re looking at them together, trying to make a logical system where we’re not duplicating routes and where we’re considering how the trails and the recreation experience interact with the proposed fuels treatments,” Massman explained.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit Summit Huts Association plans to build an overnight hut at the Peninsula Recreation Area in partnership with the town. Summit Huts already operates five backcountry huts in Summit County and will fundraise to build the Frisco hut.

….

Wildfires are a “legit concern”
But it was the fire mitigation plan that paved the way for the recreation improvements.

While Frisco is small, it acts as a sort of gateway town for the Breckenridge and Copper Mountain ski areas, and to some degree for people heading over Vail Pass to the ski resorts further along I-70. As a result, it boasts an assortment of stores, restaurants and other businesses that generate sales tax revenue, enabling the town to pursue ambitious projects despite its small size.

That includes more than $780,000 the town spent on the National Environmental Policy resource management study (approved this month) regarding the wildfire risk they face and ways to mitigate it. It was a direct reaction to those fires in 2005 and 2017.

“We were all like, ‘It’s a legit concern, we actually need to do more around fire mitigation, we have a real problem,’” said Agee, the town spokeswoman. “It’s not that we were dumb and didn’t think that fire danger was legit, but that really made us think harder.”

Fuels treatment means reducing materials that could readily burn and spread wildfire. The Backyard has a lot of lodgepole pine trees that were killed by the mountain pine beetle. Fuel reduction work will focus on removing dead and live lodgepole pines.

“The aspen trees, the spruce trees and the fir trees, those will all stay,” said Massman, adding that they are immune to the pine beetle. “The area is steep, there is no real road access, so most of the treatments will occur with hand crews cutting with chainsaws and then hand-piling logs for future pile burning. It’s not like a prescribed burn. We’d make these piles and then we’d burn them in the winter when snow is on the ground.”

Check out Vladimir’s ideas.. some are novel (at least to me). much to discuss!

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

The three major funding sources for Forest Service recreation programs has been appropriated dollars, collection of Recreation Fee Program and withholding of special fees related to the recreation program. There is a real need for new steady funding sources particularly for operations and maintenance dollars.

Except for a few very brief periods of time, the Forest Service recreation program has always been thought to be underfunded.
The proof of this was always the deferred maintenance backlog for recreation facilities. To a much lesser extent “overuse” and the inability to mitigate the impact of visitor use was also used to frame it as “underfunded recreation” in the Forest Service.
Historically, the recreation program was originally funded through special use permits. This funded the summer home program, when there was no money for campgrounds. The “fishing resorts” of the west when there was no money for boat launches. And of course, the western ski industry which to a great extent is dependent on Forest Service managed land.
Then, of course, there was the CCC program which built many recreation facilities on National Forests, but was a “employment program” with the built recreation facilities being “training” for folks. With the public land timber boom from the 1950’s through the 1970’s the Forest Service was able to use timber dollars to subsidize recreation opportunities.
The Forest Service Operation Outdoors in 1957, though not as successful as the Mission 66 program by the National Park Service, did push Forest Service into providing recreation opportunities.

Too Many Facilities Too Little Money.
Granted ,when developing a new program an agency will almost always overbuild the facilities for various reasons. The Forest Service took it to a entirely new level.
I worked for the National Park Service, BLM, and the Forest Service in recreation management. It has always struck me that the Forest Service has so many more recreation facilities than the other agencies for the acreage managed.
The Forest Service is probably underfunded, but it is also dramatically overbuilt in its recreation facilities. And its recreation facilities are poorly designed and incur high maintenance and operation costs.
The Forest Service has never successfully addressed the excess recreation facility issue. And it needs to focus on rebuilding and designing recreation facilities with low maintenance and operation costs.

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest example.
I was the Recreation Program Manager for the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest from July 1997 to my retirement in April, 2007.

The funding for the recreation came from basically three sources: State grant programs, Recreation Fee Program, and Appropriated dollars from Congress. Though it fluctuated year by year, each of those sources accounted for about 1/3 of the recreation, trails, and wilderness budget. The Forest recreation budget peaked at about 10 million dollars and then started declining slowly after that.

The issue was that Appropriated dollars did NOT cover the fixed costs of the recreation program. If I remember correctly from one of my economics classes that means the organization is bankrupt and should close it doors.

The state grant programs were competitive grant applications and the Forest invested quite a bit of time and energy to make sure we could compete in those programs and that we would be the model agency for grant program applications.

The Recreation Fee Program was at that time supposed to be experimental, but opportunities to change the program were very limited and in many cases defeated by recreation groups that did not want to pay for their recreation programs.

What to do???
The Federal land management agencies need a steady funding source that can be used for operations and maintenance funding outside the Congressional funding process.

The first really successful Federal recreation funding program was the Duck Stamp program and Pittman-Robertson 10-11% tax on hunting and fishing products to fund state wildlife programs.

There are other funding sources following this line of thinking.
There is need to develop Federal grant recreation programs similar to the State of Washington’s refund of gas taxes paid when the gas was used on “non-public roads” (it really means non-gas tax funded public roads) to fund recreation programs on local, state, and federal lands.

This is similar to the Federal Recreation Trails Program (RTP) Funded by gas taxes paid by off-road vehicles, the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is dedicated to the construction, restoration and maintenance of nonmotorized and motorized recreational trails (paved and unpaved) and trail-related facilities.

EXCEPT, the state of Washington program includes ALL sources of gasoline, not just that burned by ORV’s like the Federal program. Expansion of the Federal program to all gasoline burned on non-gas tax supported roads would be a significant source of recreation funding for ALL Federal land management agencies.

Right now, gas taxes paid by recreationists using Federal lands are DIVERTED to state and Federal highway programs. The issue of fairness is a strong argument for diverting these funds to the agencies that manage the impacts of recreation users on the Federal lands. The other advantage is that the tax would be directly linked to inflation increases in the Federal gas tax.

I briefly looked at which agency would be benefit the most and it would be the National Park Service. But the funding increase would be most impressive for agencies like Forest Service and BLM. The recreation funds could be focused on operation and maintenance costs of existing facilities.
Likewise, years ago hunters and fishers put a 10% plus tax on fishing and hunting equipment to fund fish and wildlife projects. The program has been wildly successful for saving our fish and wildlife resources.

The same can be done by shaming the outdoor product companies that are dependent on public lands for their wealth, but refuse to even consider help funding the public lands that created their wealth. We are talking serious money. Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia is a BILLIONAIRE to his chagrin. One of only 900 in the United States. We can help him with his guilt trip by helping the Patagonia nonprofit fund recreation services on public lands.
There could be other programs that would fit under this heading.
There are serious issues with agencies lobbying Congress and the Forest Service, BLM, and other Federal agencies need to develop OUTSIDE LOBBYING groups to lobby on behalf of the agencies. American Forests, the Boone and Crockett Club did this in past decades.

I don’t see today. It needs to happen again.

There is other legislation that can be “tweaked” to shift funds to the land management agencies as well.

Agency Special Use Fees.
Congress has over the years allowed the Forest Service to retain fees to be used in management of the National Forests.
The agencies really should do a review of these authorities and how they could be used to fund recreation opportunities.

The OKA-WEN had a problem with the state of Washington and the snowmobile program. To change the funding I had to rewrite and get approval for a new MOU with Washington State Parks. And they were not too excited about diverting snowmobile funding from them to the Forest Service for management of the snowmobile program. At that point, we started looking at putting them under a Special Use Permit. That would provide monies for funding Forest Service oversight of the snowmobile program. I did retire before jumping into that rabbit hole.

There is a need to look at all Forest Service permit programs and take a look at what it would take to adequately fund oversight of these programs.

Recreation Fee Program.
The Recreation Fee Program is a disjointed mess.
Special attention needs to be paid to REC.GOV. That program needs some serious reform. As expensive as the National Park Service fee program is to the American people. It is at least coherent and accepted by the public.
The other land management agencies need to look at the Recreation Fee program to simplify and make it more effective.

Appropriated Dollars
Congress likes building “monuments” to itself. It doesn’t like using taxpayer monies to maintain the monuments.
It might be more effective for the agencies to focus using recreation fee programs, special use fees, and special tax on recreation and the proposed redirect of Federal gas tax revenues to fund recreation operations and maintenance programs
Congress can then focus on building “monuments”.

Conclusion
I thought I could write a “short” article on this topic and it quickly got away from me.

But to summarize, the land management agencies need to review all state and Federal grant programs related to recreation. There are many out there. Some can be rewritten to make them more effective and extend them to recreation funding.
The Special Use Permit fees are another program area that should be reviewed.
The Recreation Fee program is a mess. It needs to be made simpler and more efficient.

The Forest Service lost its “special relationship” with Congress in the late 1970’s and the agency has not  recovered. Congress likes funding “monuments” the land management agencies should insist on stable funding sources for operations and maintenance.

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

Vladimir Steblina graduated from UC Berkeley with a BS degree in Forestry in 1972.  His  first professional job was with a forestry and engineering Consulting firm based in Oakland, California.  After than I worked for the National Park Service, BLM and Forest Service and finally retired as the Recreation, Wilderness, and Trails Program Manager for the Okanogan/Wenatchee National Forests in 2007.

Here are some of the highlights of his career, in his own words.

Career highlights from my perspective included as project manager for mapping and inventory of ALL the Giant Sequoia’s south of the Mineral King road for HJW consulting firm.  That also included a couple of timber growth studies and other projects such as timber sales.

For the NPS I developed and prepared a Recreational Carrying Capacity study for the Lake Mohave part of Lake Mead NRA with Mike Harvey.  The study focused on the resolving conflicts between various users primarily water skiers and houseboaters.

For the Forest Service I wrote the St. Joe Wild and Scenic River Plan.  Then there was about 15 wasted years in Forest Planning as economist and analyst doing ForPlan runs and other wasted analysis.

I am really proud of laying out and building Huckleberry Flat Campground for BLM.  The BLM and Federal Highway came to agreement dumping waste material into Huckleberry Flat before I got there.  I worked Federal Highways to ballast the road and put funny little spurs off the main road.  Thanks to them the public got a “free” campground.

My career was split between recreation and timber analysis, but my heart was always with recreation management, but timber paid the bills for a long time.