Trying to get into the Green Lakes parking area in the summer is like traveling back in time to August 1969 and finding parking near the Yasgur family farm. Cars lining both sides of the road, dogs and children running around, creating an unsafe situation for motorists and trail users.
If the U.S. Forest Service changes the way hiking and camping is managed in the wilderness area of parts of the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests, some of the Woodstock-style parking stress may be relieved—but so will the option to just grab your boots and go on a day hike.
As part of the current Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project, the Forest Service created an environmental assessment of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, Three Sisters Wilderness, Mount Washington Wilderness and Diamond Peak Wilderness.
As a result of that assessment, the Forest Service is proposing an overnight camping quota system for all trailheads in the wilderness areas, and a quota system on all Three Sisters eastside, Highway 242 trailheads and Mt. Jefferson Wilderness west side trailheads.
According to the assessment, the quotas are in response to increased use in these areas. Overall use in the Three Sisters Wilderness has increased by 231 percent since 1991 and 181 percent since 2011. Meanwhile, according to the assessment, the Tam McCarthur Rim Trailhead has seen a 538 percent increase in users from 2014 to 2016.
According to the August 2016 assessment, Tam Rim had nearly 40 overnight users per night and 350 day users per day in July 2016. Green Lakes, one of the most easily accessed trails near Bend, had over 40 overnight users per night in August 2016 and 250 day users per day in July of the same year. Under the proposed permit and quota system, Green Lakes would be limited to 17 overnight groups of up to 12 people per group, per day, and 80 day-use permits per day, according to Beth Peer of the Deschutes National Forest. Tam Rim would be limited to five overnight groups and 80 day use permits per day. Users would buy permits online through Recreation.gov, the contractor the Forest Service is required to use, Peer said.
Promoting tourism
For people who’ve lived in Bend for years, blame for the big crowds often gets laid at the feet of newcomers. But a new wrinkle exists, according to the Forest Service: tourism promotion and social media. “The use of social media to promote outdoor recreation and encourage more visitors to particular destinations in not likely to decrease in the coming years,” the assessment said.
Visit Bend was created by the Bend City Council to develop and build Bend’s tourism industry. Its website is full of beautiful pictures of the town and the surrounding recreational areas. But its staff says they also understand the impact of the growing population, working with the Forest Service to educate visitors and locals on stewardship of the lands. That includes teaching Leave No Trace principles, and avoiding geotagging their photos, according to Nate Wyeth, Visit Bend’s vice president of sales and marketing.
Kevney Dugan, Visit Bend’s CEO and president, said they even give a copy of Visit Bend’s visitors guide to the Forest Service to see if it raises any red flags.
“If they tell us not to use Green Lakes, we won’t put it in our visitors guide,” Dugan said.
Visit Bend also promotes the “Bend Pledge,” an initiative aimed at educating visitors on how to be responsible driving in town and recreating in the outdoors.
In May 2017, the Forest Service mailed out a description of its proposed action to 476 individuals, organizations and agencies, receiving a total of 465 responses. One commenter suggested not putting restrictions on public lands, because citizens have the right to be on public land, and because they pay taxes, it should be free.
When it comes to public lands with wilderness designations, it’s not that simple. The Wilderness Act of 1964 created a National Wilderness Preservation System, which gives Congress-designated wilderness areas a “very high level of protection and the Wilderness Act sets these wilderness areas apart from other public lands and establishes a mission objective for the Forest Service to preserve wilderness character.” According to the Forest Service, wilderness character has the following qualities: untrammeled, underdeveloped, natural, unconfined recreation and opportunities for solitude.
Ellen Wolf is one local resident concerned about overuse of trails.
“I am in favor of the Forest Service’s efforts to protect the Cascades Wilderness and [I] want them to succeed,” Wolf told the Source in an email. But, she has concerns about how the Forest Service will manage its efforts. Possible issues could arise with enforcing the permit system, for one.
“Those of us who follow the rules will not be able to hike, while those who don’t will continue to hike regardless of whether or not they have a permit,” Wolf said.
In the assessment, the Forest Service said the level of enforcement will vary based on fee retention and the ability to increase funding [for enforcement].
Another point of contention is the cost of the permits. As of now, the Forest Service hasn’t commented on its plan for the price of permits.
On its website, Oregon Wild, a wildlife and wildland advocacy organization, advocates for setting prices at the absolute bare minimum to avoid pricing the public, at any income level, out of public lands. The organization would also like to see the proposed permit dates changed from May 1 to September 30 to June 1 through Labor Day to minimize the impacts in the so-called shoulder seasons.
The Forest Service has four other alternatives it’s looking at in addition to its proposed plan:
Alternative one: Continue to manage the wilderness areas without change.
Alternative two: The Forest Service’s preferred plan would have an overnight camping permit system and a day-use quota system on all Three Sisters eastside, Highway 242 and Mt. Jefferson west side trailheads and self-use free permits with no limits everywhere else.
Alternative three: Focus visitor use management on the very high use trail areas only, such as Green Lakes and Tam Rim.
Alternative four: Similar to three, but also “includes limited entry permits for areas that are gaining in popularity and have a high likelihood of receiving displaced users,” according to the assessment.
Alternative five: The most strictly regulated option, which would require limited entry permits wilderness-wide for overnight and day use.
The public comment period ends May 21. Concerned people can email comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes@fs.fed.us. The subject line should include “Central Cascades Wilderness Project.”
This article appears in May 16-23, 2018.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Management and enforcement are no easy task in such a widely large area of popularity. Many feel entitled to use, in any way they wish, our National Forest and Wilderness areas. The stories are endless of abuse and misconduct…and it’s not just out-of-towners (yes Bendites who let there dogs run wild in wilderness areas). Some of the areas will be difficult to manage, like Green Lakes, which has multiple trials interwoven throughout the area. So what is Smokey the Bear to do?? Perhaps look at popular National Parks for some ideas on management. In Europe public transportation can take you to many hiking areas (soo unAmerican…LOL). For myself, prudent moves are always best…try some simple things…like Alternative Three…Green Lakes and Tam Rim. Find ways to get more seasonal weekend trail monitors funded who are checking permits and Wilderness abuses. Then regroup for the following season and go from there. At some point we are gonna have to face the reality of our popular location. The teen that lit fireworks causing thousands of acres of forest fires last summer in the gorge is now facing $36,000,000 in damages. Whether that is ridiculous or not is mute…does it get your attention. $1000 fines for Wilderness Area abuse might prevent people from spray painting ‘keep out’ on trees right on the trail that they decided to set up camp. Our Wilderness Areas are a Legacy not only to MaNature, but a testament to our ability to live along side them while honoring their right to exist untrammeled.
PLEASE READ THIS.
Quick information…
1) The ALL Forest Service are to abide by the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) that they created. This is their “bible” for guidance on how to manage the land.
2) In that novel (LRMP) of a document, under section M6-25 it states “When wilderness use results in impacts which exceed the Wilderness LAC Standards and Guidelines…the following corrective actions or sequence of actions will be taken.
Phase 1 Actions:
*Deemphasize attraction…promote elsewhere. To date the NF has NOT giving Visit Bend any other area to promote.
*Inform public of the type of campsite/characteristics they want to avoid/the types they should seek out. To date, there has been no public outreach educating the public.
*Adjust/remove admin/informational signing….Again, nothing has been done.
*Emphasize “no-trace camping”. They don’t even promote LNT (Leave Not Trace), let alone no-trace camping.
*Remove/reduce any facilities contributing to concentration of use beyond capacity….Nope, this has not been applied.
* Decrease/reduce accessibility…Again, nothing has been done.
*Restrict commercial outfitter guide use of area… Again, nothing has been done.
That is directly from Deschutes NF very own LRMP. They are to try EVERY action of Phase 1 before they considered looking at Phase 2 actions. Phase 2 actions call for limits of group size, length of stay, types of use, limits number of people, closure to commercial and finally require permits.
The Deschutes NF clearly has not even began implementing any of the Phase 1 actions. The easy answer for them, quota and permit. Permit would be at least $10/person. Only $2 would go to the NF, the other $8 would go to .gov
Is there a problem with the amount of usage in the areas listed in the article? Yep. Would someone go to those areas for a wilderness experience? Hopefully not. But one must keep in mind wilderness “experience” is totally different with each user…it’s subjective and can not be specified to the user.
Can something be done? Absolutely!!!! But none of the options listed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) is the answer. They need to follow their own LRMP. There are many viable options and actions that can be done long before quotas and permits are implemented
If you want to have OUR wilderness managed in a proper way, which is NOT any of the options listed in the EA, I highly recommend you voice your concerns by May 21. This is no joke and should be taken VERY seriously. This decision will be precedent setting.
And yet the Source continues to push these overused places every week to tourist, one “ten more places to destroy” article after another. The source is as much at fault for this as any other tourist catering organization in Bend….. Shameful on the Source’s part simply for their own profit.