Draft SNFPA Management Review and Recommendations

Recreation Impacts

Key Findings

1. The ROD was not written with recreation uses in mind. This makes it extremely frustrating for field personnel to tease out the direction relevant to a specific project.
2. The aquatic management strategy contains provisions found in other management direction (BMPs for example). It is unnecessary to include this in the ROD as if it were another layer of requirements to be met.
3. Developed recreation sites have been mapped as old forest emphasis areas. In most cases, it is not appropriate to manage developed recreation sites for old forest structure and function.
4. The ROD suggests that landscape analyses, alone, will trigger new requirements, relocation or closure of existing recreation activities. This was not the intent.
5. While letters of clarification do help in clearing up some confusion, it is extremely inefficient for field personnel to wade through layers of corrections and interpretations. Direction to the field must be clear and unambiguous.

USDA Forest Service · Pacific Southwest Region