The Conservation Funding Crisis

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
Post Reply
justpeachy
Posts: 3066
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

The Conservation Funding Crisis

Post by justpeachy » October 3rd, 2022, 12:37 pm

This report from the Conservation Economics Institute is worth reading, or at least the summary.

The Conservation Funding Crisis
https://www.conservationecon.org/_files ... f3b57f.pdf

The Executive Summary at the beginning includes this:

Our investigation of federal land management budget trends in real dollars (adjusted for inflation) revealed the
following troubling trends:
* Due to exceptional drought, funding for wildfire management has increased, but often in lieu of funding for conservation and recreation programs that can prevent wildfires and increase wildfire resilience. This concern is most prominent for the
USFS but also for California BLM budgets.
* Conservation funding for the USFS has dropped precipitously. USFS appropriations for Recreation programs have decreased 43% since 2010. USFS appropriations for Protection/Restoration activities have declined nearly 40% since 2010. When removing land acquisition funds (coming from the LWCF), Protection/Restoration funding has decreased 60% since 2010.
* Over the last decade, rapidly increasing visitation and recreational use of public lands has vastly outpaced recreation funding for the BLM, USFS, and USFWS. Per-visit recreation appropriations on these federal lands have dropped dramatically. The USFS averaged almost $4.50 of Recreation funding per visit in 2010, for example. By 2021, that amount had dropped to less than $2.50.
* Large recreation budget deficits have developed for all federal agencies. While previous recreation funding levels for federal agencies were already insufficient to fully protect and facilitate sustainable recreation, the current funding levels are much worse.
* Funding for grazing and oil and gas extraction on BLM lands has increased at a higher rate than funding for conservation activities. Despite that increase, however, rangeland health has declined and the backlog of restoration work needed to offset the effects of oil and gas development has expanded.
* While oil production on BLM lands has rapidly increased, the staffing and resources necessary to mitigate negative impacts have not kept pace. Since 2017, oil production on BLM lands has increased by 117% yet the number of full-time equivalent BLM employees working in the oil and gas arena declined 2% during the study years.
* Recreation funding is experiencing an increase in dependence on recreation user fees. User fees are a helpful form of conservation funding, but they have increased while general appropriations have decreased, resulting in a net overall decrease in recreation funding. Moreover, increasing recreation funding by relying more on user fees undermines equitable access by placing a greater proportional burden on lower income Americans.
* The vast majority of new funding created by the Great American Outdoors Act in 2020 (the Legacy Restoration Fund) is allocated to the National Park Service. While good for national parks it is insufficient to address the overarching problem.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: The Conservation Funding Crisis

Post by retired jerry » October 3rd, 2022, 12:55 pm

Thanks for posting that. I just read summary, too depressing to read more

I was wondering about that 2020 funding. National Parks have a lot of deferred maintenance so good they did that. Now we need something more for FS and BLM.

60 Minutes did a story about the Caldor fire. The FS identified thinning needed next to habitations to protect them from wildfires but they didn't do it before Grizzly Flats burned up. I think because of lack of funding. Other nearby developments that did have thinning adjacent survived. There is a large amount of work required to protect human habitations.

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: The Conservation Funding Crisis

Post by Water » October 4th, 2022, 8:45 pm

thanks for passing this along.

user fees will never sustainably fund recreation 'amenities' especially when the FS is highly focused on developing them to FLREA standards to collect standard and expanded amenity fees. Snowgrass TH for example, will need a privy built at an estimated (in 2020 I believe) $32000. Once that is built and a picnic table, fee tube, and garbage can are placed there, they estimate revenue of $6,000 per year.

Now it only takes the privy foundation cracking, treefall on it, or vandalism to get $5000-20,000 worth of repairs and wipe out the next 3 years of revenue collection at that site. Maybe they think this balances out across the forest, but I have my doubts with perhaps 20 years of continually growing deferred maintenance, they're going to actually 'get in front' of it by repeating the same effort of building and maintaining new facilities and services. Frankly I'd call it stupidity to expect a different result.

I do really question when it says USFS appropriations for recreation programs have decreased 43%, they also mention overall funding levels previously insufficient are much worse. I'd be very curious to know if the 43% decrease is in line with the greater funding decreases.

the other thing I'd love an organization like this to investigate is the fees for oil and gas development and grazing on public land. I was just down in the North Warner Mountains and while absolutely gorgeous, the free range cattle have clearly decimated every lowland spring and put their cow patty native plant munching footprints on every square inch of that public land. As recreation fee extraction ticks up, I'd love to know if the needle on 'extractive' use has moved an inch. My guess is not since the user base that benefits from that has a unified front, unlike recreation.
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: The Conservation Funding Crisis

Post by retired jerry » October 5th, 2022, 6:16 am

congress should pass a law that they can charge at trailhead if they use the money for trail maintenance. Not require the amenities.

the point is, that the forest service can't charge for people to just use forest service land, they can only charge for developments. Trail maintenance should count.

although it would be better to just pay for it from taxes. They used to pay for it from timber fees but they cut less than they used to.

the requirement for amenities works for day use areas and campgrounds.

justpeachy
Posts: 3066
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: The Conservation Funding Crisis

Post by justpeachy » October 5th, 2022, 11:40 am

Water wrote:
October 4th, 2022, 8:45 pm
the other thing I'd love an organization like this to investigate is the fees for oil and gas development and grazing on public land.
I remembered reading an article about grazing fees earlier this year. I went hunting and found it: https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-publ ... azing-fees

The first sentence sums is up: "The cost of grazing on public lands is lower now than it was 40 years ago, in 1981." :roll:

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: The Conservation Funding Crisis

Post by retired jerry » October 5th, 2022, 11:52 am

when you say cost, I assume it didn't go up with inflation :)

and they are so indignant that they have to pay so much or at all

Walkin' Fool
Posts: 77
Joined: July 7th, 2014, 10:03 am

Re: The Conservation Funding Crisis

Post by Walkin' Fool » October 17th, 2022, 12:21 pm

justpeachy wrote:
October 5th, 2022, 11:40 am
Water wrote:
October 4th, 2022, 8:45 pm
the other thing I'd love an organization like this to investigate is the fees for oil and gas development and grazing on public land.
I remembered reading an article about grazing fees earlier this year. I went hunting and found it: https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-publ ... azing-fees

The first sentence sums is up: "The cost of grazing on public lands is lower now than it was 40 years ago, in 1981." :roll:
As a side note, I love High Country News and have been a subscriber for a few years now. Excellent publication.

Post Reply