The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

We’ve been talking about the importance of recreation on National Forests and the lack of adequate funding for the basics.  What’s puzzling to me (and I’ve mentioned this before) is why the States are so successful at lobbying, and recreation interests are not.

We are always hearing about the economic value of the outdoor industry, and how its much better for forests and communities than “extractive uses.”  Here’s a recent example from Utah.

“The reaction to that from the conservation community or the environmental community was ‘Oh, well, you can’t put a price tag on these places,’ or … ‘That’s not what we should be doing — it’s about these beautiful vistas,’” said Jessica Turner, president of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable.

Her organization, referred to as ORR, is a broad coalition of outdoor recreation businesses and associations that come from nearly all subsets of the outdoor industry. One could say it represents the whole big tent of the industry, but Turner suggested that they’d also have to somehow include “yurt, glamp, lodge, RV,” as well as boat slips and then find ways to include engines, too.

whom does ORR represent? Member include states, the National Ski Association, the American Bus Association, RV industry associations, Boat US, Rivian, universities, the Diving Equipment and Marketing Association, Motorcycle, Snowmobiles and Booz Allen Hamilton (due to their contracting for Rec.gov).

There is definitely big money in all of these.. so here’s the mystery.. if the States could get IRA bucks for $1.5 bill (extra to Appropriated bucks) for the Urban and Community Forestry Program, why weren’t the states and industry asking for a big chunk for recreation (I could write the “climate resilience” verbiage myself). Or were they asking and some Congressional dynamics didn’t work to get the funding?

I’m not one of those who thinks that the FS should only be for NFS and R&D.. S&PF bucks wouldn’t be there except for States asking for it. Maybe States don’t lobby hard enough because the bucks don’t come to/through them.

According to ORR’s latest published research based on federal data, the outdoor recreation industry was worth $1.2 trillion in 2023, the most recent available data. That’s 2.3% of the U.S. gross domestic product.

Just the excise taxes on things like fuel and gas for ATVs, boats and purchasing the wide variety of required equipment brought in approximately $6 billion to the federal government’s purse that year.

For context, that means the outdoor recreation economy is larger than that of farming or mining. And it’s not that far from the oil and gas industry, either. That market was worth $1.55 trillion in 2024 and is approaching $1.6 trillion this year, according to Towards Chem & Materials’ last report.

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

It seems to me that minerals, food and gas are necessary for recreationists to recreate. And we should always be careful to note that the ORR includes soccer balls and gardening tools.

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

When the numbers are broken out to focus just on the money spent on public lands and waterways, their scale becomes clear. On public lands alone, the sector generates $128 billion a year. Recreational visitors fork over $72 billion directly to the federal government, with $27 billion spent at national parks, another $12 billion on U.S. Forest Service land and $6.2 on Bureau of Land Management land.

Some of my economist friends might say this shows the BLM needs to build more and/or charge more.

A similar approach of determining the actual monetary value of natural experiences was undertaken by the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey in a different study, where researchers determined an actual dollar value for the worth of a bear sighting. It’s more than one would think.

In both cases, when land and wildlife are left alone so Americans can recreate in the myriad ways they like to, they drive an awful lot of revenue for both the public and the private sector.

This is one of those “sounds vaguely plausible” statements.. and yet Americans have been happily recreating alongside oil and gas infrastructure, mining (at least in Colorado),  thinned forests and range allotments.  In real life, it doesn’t seem to be an either/or.

One of the more surprising statistics comes from the U.S. Forest Service. The report found that folks recreating in national forests brings in more revenue to the federal government than the timber industry. Recreation generates and maintains more jobs, too.

“Recreation … support(ed) 161,000 jobs, compared to the combined 103,200 jobs from forest products, livestock grazing, mineral extraction, and energy production,” the report states.

That statement was a tiny bit confusing as I read it it was another study that was done by the FS., but it’s more ORR. Inquiring minds might wonder about comparative pay in the different sectors.

In yearly sightings alone, individual grizzlies are worth $46,000 and individual black bears are worth $15,000. Said another way, the park’s grizzlies and black bears are worth about $10 million and $7 million, respectively, every year.

Enriquez and Richardson based their calculations on information in the Yellowstone Visitor Survey. That data set includes information that suggests travel costs, and also determines how much visitors value and prioritize seeing a bear and whether or not they saw one. Divining those numbers out yielded an accountable figure.

And, in economics terms, bears are great multiple use species, Enriquez explained. They have economic benefits and losses attached to them — similarly to other animals like elephants, moose, and wolves. To understand their value is less clear because, while the damages are easy to quantify in livestock depredation and property damage, the positive impact on tourism and subsequent local economies is less clear.

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

“The way people talk about the economic value of lands it always has this really big bend towards ‘We’ve got to take something from it,’” Turner said. “We’re saying, sure, and also, you could just leave it there and build a trail or build a lodge and that’ll bring in revenue for a long time.”

So we have a very active industry… why are they not choosing to voluntarily pay into recreation/trails budgets or lobby for them? Or do they lobby, but what makes them unsuccessful?

First, apologies to Patrick for spelling his name wrong in the title of this piece as was sent out through email.  I fixed it online.

Patrick McKay wrote the below as a comment, but it has enough information for a post, plus he is currently litigating a travel management decision, so we are hearing from the horse’s mouth, or from the motor vehicle’s engine or whatever the analogy would be.  While researching this analogy,  I found an interesting piece on why ATVs are so loud.

Patrick’s piece also raised other questions.  If as Patrick says, and the general feeling I got from being around as the TMR was developed, was to have a standardized national process, then why didn’t it work that way in practice? Also what was the intent of Part A and how does that relate to what Patrick has observed?  Perhaps we need some retirees who were involved at the “intention” stage (2004-ish) and I know some of you are out there.

Also, Bill Avey mentioned in a comment that Citizens for Balanced Use waited to sue on the Helena-Lewis and Clark travel plan.  One idea that the Permitting Reform folks have is to shorted the litigation window, which has been negatively received by ENGOs.  So I’m curious about “why people wait so long to sue” and wonder whether anyone knows the reason in this case.

If I were in the Admin, I’d experiment with a six-pronged approach.  1) each Forest gets feedback on its own travel management, what’s working and what’s not, 2) FS employees are asked what are the problems and what could help, 3) national FACA committee of the usual interest groups reviews what’s rolled up by others and proposes changes (with some folks on the FACA committee chosen for implementation knowledge and skills) 4) internal committee reviews “will this actually work?” issues, 5) a technology sub-group that asks the question “how can current technologies help?” which would include folks from current apps like Onyx, All Trails and so on, and 6) can we harmonize this effort (at least mapping- with BLM)?

My experience with FACA committees on the Roadless Rules and others (as well as the Committee of Scientists)  is that they tend to be heavy on interest group reps and/or academics and sometimes lack implementation experience.  Perhaps a six-pronged approach  would better balance general principles with implementation, as it appears that this is where things went off the rails (or ATV trails). Also the views of the people (employees) carrying out the work tend to not enter the discussion at all, in my experience with NFMA and Roadless rules. This can easily be rectified.

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

From Patrick:

I don’t think designated routes and MVUMs are going anywhere, and I doubt the Travel Management Rule will just be straight up repealed, but it will need to be replaced with something that is hopefully simpler and friendlier to motorized recreation.

As someone actively litigating a recent travel plan, it’s astounding how badly the existing TMR has been implemented and how bad the Forest Service is at following its mandates, to the point where I doubt any two forests have ever even used the same procedures in creating a travel plan. Every forest does it completely differently, and even things like the Travel Analysis Process that is supposed to be standardized isn’t, with different forests using widely different criteria and differing definitions of the same criteria (for example, some defining recreational use benefit to include the recreational experience of driving the road itself, while others only consider the destination at the end of the road). A simpler, more standardized process for travel management with clear criteria to consider could benefit everyone.

One thing that most people don’t realize is there are really two different Travel Management Rules rolled into one: the Subpart B route designation process that most people think of as a travel management plan, and the Subpart A minimum road system (MRS) designation that no one seems to know what it’s for, how to do it, or how it is supposed to relate to Subpart B route designations.

Most forests haven’t even tried to designate a MRS, and those that have, have followed totally different procedures and or tried to awkwardly tack it onto Subpart B planning in ways that haven’t held up in court. The Pike San Isabel NF seems to have weirdly conflated designating an MRS with the pre-NEPA Travel Analysis Process, even though FS handbooks explicitly say its supposed to be done through NEPA, which is now a primary issue in our litigation. I would love to see the Subpart A minimum road system section dropped from the TMR entirely, as that section has done nothing but cause confusion and litigation since it was adopted and is redundant with the actual route designations in Subpart B planning.

As for Subpart B planning, the Forest Service’s regulations have the same glaring flaw the BLM’s do — which is that there is no real consideration of motorized recreation benefits required at all. It’s interesting. The preamble to TMR explicitly said, “Motor vehicles are a legitimate and appropriate way for people to enjoy their National Forests—in the right places, and with proper management.” This sentence was supposed to be a compromise that ensured motorized recreation would be evaluated as legitimate multiple use. Yet, in the actual route designation criteria for motorized routes, recreation is almost nowhere to be found:
———
(a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands. In designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration.

(b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing:

(1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources;
(2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats;
(3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and
(4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands.

In addition, the responsible official shall consider:

(5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.
———

While “provision of recreational opportunities” is listed in the general criteria in paragraph a, the specific mandatory criteria in paragraph b are all negative impacts to be “minimized”. Those are the only ones courts have said must be evaluated for each specific route, and the only ones with a required objective. The general criteria (which is the only place positive benefits of roads are listed) must only be “considered”, and there is no mandate to maximize recreational opportunities to balance with minimizing impacts. The focus of travel planning thus becomes solely about minimizing impacts rather than providing recreational opportunities, which is at best an afterthought.

In practice, only the most general analysis of recreational opportunities forest-wide is included in travel planning documents, while every individual route gets a detailed report of its negative impacts. At most, there might be an arbitrary recreational use benefit score assigned to individual routes (defined inconsistently as mentioned above), which the public rarely has any input on, and which is rarely enough to outweigh high scores for negative impacts. This makes closure the default designation and makes it extremely difficult to justify keeping routes open.

While the TMR’s preamble paid lip service to treating motorized recreation as a legitimate multiple use, the actual rule clearly does not, but frames motorized recreation as a second-class use to be tolerated only when it can be affirmatively shown to have minimal negative impacts on anything else. And by allowing motorized recreation only where impacts on non-motorized recreation are minimized, it sets up a clear hierarchy where non-motorized recreation is prioritized and the desired experience of non-motorized users trumps that of motorized users.

I would like to see the TMR amended to actually treat motorized recreation as a legitimate multiple use, giving it equal weight to non-motorized recreation and requiring an individual evaluation of recreational benefits for every route. For any route with at least moderate recreational value, the burden of proof should be on the Forest Service to prove that closure is the only feasible way to mitigate serious specific existing impacts (not just location based risks of impacts like forests usually consider currently). Especially considering most national forests have already been through at least one round of travel planning under the 2005 TMR, the default expectation really should be that every motorized route currently open should remain open permanently unless there is some really strong reason to close it.

One of the more interesting patterns I’ve observed is that we develop regs to do certain things.. but checking on whether the reg actually does those things, whether the reg works well or works at all, are not part of the design. So we go through periods of disgruntlement (sometimes 30 years or more) and if it adds up to enough, on some unknown scale, we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Instead of continual improvement, we have slow degeneration and maybe starting over from scratch.

Here’s what the 2005 Summary says in part the Travel Management rule was intended to do.

The clear identification of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on each National Forest will enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural resource values through more effective management of motor vehicle use; enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National Forest System lands; address needs for access to National Forest System lands; and preserve areas of opportunity on each National Forest for nonmotorized travel and experiences.

The Travel Management Rule Highlights According to an old Forest Service link.

• The rule requires each national forest or ranger district to designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicles.
• Designation will include class of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year for motor vehicle use. A given route, for example, could be designated for use by motorcycles, ATVs, or street-legal vehicles.
• Once designation is complete, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system or inconsistent with the designations.
• Designation decisions will be made locally, with public input and in coordination with state, local, and tribal governments.
• Designations will be shown on a motor vehicle use map. Use inconsistent with the designations will be prohibited

It’s hard to tell from this description exactly what the problems are. I do remember certain Districts getting litigated no matter which decision they made.

Here’s an interesting E&E News story from today.

The Forest Service plans to nullify regulations governing the use of off-highway vehicles on national forests, potentially opening trails to greater use of ATVs after next year. The agency listed the proposed repeal on its latest regulatory update, calling it a response to legal challenges and a part of the Trump administration’s broader government streamlining efforts.

In addition, the Forest Service said, voiding the 20-year-old regulations would support more decision-making at the local level, although the agency didn’t say what might replace the rules if they’re jettisoned.

I’d like to know more about how that would work. Maybe decision makers on forests would have more latitude?

A notice of proposed rulemaking could come by next August, according to the regulatory update. An Agriculture Department spokesperson said existing travel management plans on individual forests would remain, where established.

I wonder how many forests don’t already have them, and how many are in litigation.

“The concept is to reduce duplicative and onerous planning requirements needed to update or establish travel management plans and maps,” USDA said. “It has not yet been determined if and how alternative regulations would be amended.”
Repealing the regulations — called the travel management rule, implemented in 2005 — could satisfy organizations calling for more access to trails and old logging roads for all-terrain vehicles, four-wheelers, snowmobiles and similar recreational vehicles. But motorized ATVs have environmental impacts that spurred the Forest Service to write the regulations in the first place.

It seems to me that there are actually three issues. 1. FS can’t afford to keep all trails open and can’t find sources of funding or volunteers to helpl. 2.  People (horses, bikers, hikers) tend not to like sharing trails with ATV folks,  3. Some ATVers do illegal things, and they are more problematic and obvious than when other users do illegal things, 4. Some people have an anti-ATV bias (aka the pyramid of pristinity).

Note that this quote (and travel management was intended, if I recall correctly) to designate trails and then be able to keep people from going everywhere.  But even then game retrieval was an issue, as in how far off the road can you go with a vehicle to retrieve game?

The management rule calls for forest supervisors to designate which roads or trails on individual national forests are open to off-highway vehicles. The designations are shown on motor vehicle use maps; areas not designated are considered off-limits to the recreational vehicles.

Paper MVUMs are not always easy to use (even for non-motorized users who want to check things)  and I don’t know whether there are better versions or apps or whatever.

Here is one point of view:

Individual forest transportation plans resulting from the rule have sparked litigation, including a 2022 lawsuit by recreational vehicle riders and Citizens for Balanced Use, contending that new restrictions at the Helena National Forest in Montana were too broad. In that case, the organizations said, many areas where motorized vehicles had been allowed for decades were made off-limits. The groups said the Forest Service overlooked the National Environmental Policy Act’s requirement to assess economic and social, as well as environmental, impacts from expelling motorized vehicles. The rule’s critics say it’s had the opposite of the intended effect in parts of Western states, concentrating environmental impacts in the smaller number of places where vehicles were allowed access, while escalating conflicts between the Forest Service and the public.

“The rule has failed its stated purpose and produced widespread unintended consequences,” said Don George, president of Forest Access for All, based in Baker City, Oregon.  The Forest Service already has ample authority through the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and local forest orders to determine which areas should have vehicle access, said George, whose organization opposes any substitute regulations that would restrict access.

I thought that the TM rule was a national structure for making those decisions, and regardless of the rule FS folks could make any decisions they want.  Hopefully folks on TSW can explain this better.

Here’s another point of view:

Groups promoting greater access to public lands have been fighting the travel management rule for years. But some organizations, including national groups representing the motorcycle and off-highway vehicle industries, say the regulations should be improved — not repealed.

Three organizations — the Motorcycle Industry Council, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America and the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association — urged the Forest Service in October not to abandon the travel management rule. Instead, they said, officials should leave the basic regulation in place and work on its flaws.

Despite its shortcomings — including shutting access to areas that long had it — they said, the rule has documented many places as open to off-highway vehicles and led to the creation of the first motor vehicle use maps to guide forest visitors.

Repealing the rule, they warned, could roll back “hard-fought gains” that the regulation made possible.

“The Associations believe that travel planning is a critical tool to promote high-quality sustainable recreation for all public land users, mitigate resource damage, and conserve our shared public lands, and ensure benefits for current and future generations,” they said.

And from Rasmussen of Back Country Horsemen:

“We often overlook the fact that, decades ago, there was constant struggle and acrimony among forest visitors when there were few restrictions and few of us had trails designated specifically for our use,” Rasmussen said in an email Monday.

He added, “Some bad actors caused a lot of damage. We don’t want to return to the days when access for motorized trail use was pitted against those who seek a relatively quiet and peaceful forest experience.”

This seems to be a bit of #s 2 and 3. It seems to me that we can agree that motorized vehicles should not be allowed on all trails, nor off-trail.There are fuzzy areas that we should know well by now (e.g. game retrieval) and maybe have solutions that work?

Folks need maps that work well and we need law enforcement. So what are the differences between rule, no rule and improved rule?

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

2005 was twenty years ago.  Since then we have apps such that mapping should be a breeze.  And maps and locations are now available on your phone. If cows can use virtual fencing, why not motorized vehicles?  Any vehicle to be used on NFs or BLM could  be required to register (enough to pay for a GPS transmitter).  If a vehicle is off the approved map, it would issue annoying beeping noises and finally cause the vehicle to lock up, or send a message to law enforcement. It seems to me that in this day and age we can do better than restricting the access of good guys based on the behavior of bad guys. Because having the good guys in the woods is a generally good thing.

Speaking of bad guys, I wish this reporter had asked the Angeles LEOs for details on where these gang activities occurred.

*****