Forest Service 

Anatomy of 

Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station 

Backcountry 

Research Paper 

N E-575 Management 

I986 

p*i"n**l @J mma.= 

Costs 

Herbert E. Echelberger 

Harriet J. Plumley 
The Authors 

Herbert E. Echelberger is a research social scientist and Project Leader of the Forest Recreation Investment Research Project at the George D. 

Aiken Forest Science Laboratory, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 

Burlington, Vermont. He received B.S. and MS. degrees in forestry from 

Southern Illinois University, and a Ph.D. in resources management from the 

State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse in 1976. 

Harriet J. Plumley was research analyst with the Backcountry Research 

Project located at Durham, New Hampshire. She is now with the Lincoln 

National Forest in Alamogordo, New Mexico. Her degrees include a B.S. 

from Antioch College in Ohio, an M.L.A. and Ph.D. from the State University 

of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 

Manuscript received for publication 3 June 1985 

Abstract 

Operation and management costs for several dispersed overnight site 

locations and backcountry trails in the White Mountain National Forest 

were studied. Average annual costs ranged from $200 to $1,500 per mile for 

trails and from $0.35 to $4.29 per visitor for overnight sites. Average annual 

costs for Rrails and overnight sites increased with elevation and use levels, 

but on a per-visitor basis, high-use trails cost less to maintain than low-use 

trails at all elevations. Costs per visitor at overnight sites were less well 

defined. The method used in this study may be useful to backcountry recreation managers in their efforts to acquire a better understanding of all 

the costs of providing backcountry recreation opportunities. 
What's the Problem? 

Dispersed recreation is the most prevalent use of 

national forests, and backcountry hiking and camping 

are among the most popular activities. Before the 

19601s, relatively few people ventured into remote forest lands seeking wilderness or backcountry recreation 

experiences, and management needs were few. However, during the 1960's and early 1970's, visitation increases of 15 percent per year at overnight sites were 

common. Spencer and others (1980) noted a threefold 

increase in hiking and backpacking between 1965 and 

1977, but felt that the rate of increase had declined 

between 1977 and 1980. From 1981 to 1984, total dispersed recreation in the National Forest System actually dropped from 151 to 145 million visitor-days. 

However, these 20 years of heavy use have had an 

impact. Many trailheads have been expanded and in 

some cases paved to accommodate increased use. 

Trails have been reconstructed to reduce soil erosion 

and to provide easier and safer access to remote destinations. Overnight sites have been developed to 

reduce the physical impacts of camping as well as provide shelter and other amenities for overnight visitors. 

These improvements cost money, and annual maintenance must continue every year. Someone must bear 

these costs-usually the public land management 

agency or a trail-maintaining club. 

The study of backcountry management costs is 

not a new endeavor. Tyre (1975) found that average 

costs in the southeastern United States ranged from 

$0.07 per visitor-day on general, undeveloped lands to 

$0.27 per visitor-day on wilderness areas. Guldin (1980) 

compared 1977 wilderness management costs on four 

areas in New England and found area costs of $1.80 to 

$8.37 per visitor-day. (These costs included payments 

in lieu of taxes, fire protection costs, and planning 

costs.) And, Wand (1980) stated that management 

costs on four different backcountry areas in Maine 

ranged from $1.36 to $4.98 per visitor-day. In each of 

these studies, opportunity costs were not included. 

These studies have contributed to a better understanding of the fixed costs associated with providing 

backcountry and wilderness recreation opportunities. 

But, other important dimensions remain. The variable 

costs of specific facilities on different land types with 

different levels of use have not been investigated. In 

this paper, costs affected by these variable factors of 

backcountry management are examined. Because of 

the variation in terrain characteristics and trail locations within the eastern mountain regions, trail and 

overnight facility requirements might be expected to 

vary significantly with use levels. 

To accommodate these variations, a framework 

was developed for relating the costs of providing backcountry hiking and camping opportunities to use levels 

and physical site characteristics: Recreation use 

levels-volume, fequency of use, and time of season-and physical site characteristics-topography, 

soil drainage, and plant community-require management actions to protect resources. These 

resources-structures, use management programs, and 

design techniques-incur management costs that vary 

with labor costs, material costs, transportation costs 

and administrative overhead. This framework can be 

easily integrated into the Design Capacity System 

introduced by Leonard and others (1977), which is influenced by the recreational objectives that management 

sets for an area, the physical ability of the area to fulfill the objectives, the financial resources available', 

and the social constraints that may be imposed by 

users. 

In the White Mountain National Forest of New 

Hampshire, backcountry facilities are located on a 

variety of terrains with varying suitabilities for recreational use. The physical impact of hiking and camping 

tends to be concentrated on small portions of the recreation lands, mainly along trail corridors and at overnight sites. In this study, we investigated the types of 

management practices adopted for trails and overnight 

sites on various forest areas and the costs associated 

with those practices. Our primary interest was to compare the costs incurred for resource protection on various sites with different physical characteristics and 

use levels. Costs of land acquisition, fire protection, 

search and rescue operations, and off-site visitor information programs were not included. 
Study Areas 

The backcountry areas used for this study are 

composed of a mixture of granite and metamorphic 

gneiss and schists. Past glacial activity and the humid 

climate have weathered the White Mountains down to 

rounded land forms and produced four principal kinds 

of surface deposits: 1) angular boulders with little soil; 

2) colluvium with shallow, weakly developed soils; 

3) glacial till deposits of varied depths of rock and 

sediments; and 4) outwash soils. 

The lower valley floors and toesiopes located at 

elevations generally below 2,300 feet are characterized 

by smooth terrain with deep, well-drained soils of cobbiy, loamy sand or bouldery, sandy loam. The midslopes are characterized by a variety of glacial till 

deposits. The soils are generally deep, but surface 

drainage varies from slow to rapid, depending on the 

presence of shallow, hardpan layers, the distribution of 

subsurface boulders, and terrain undulations and rockiness. The upper elevation land types, generally occurring above 3,000 feet, have shallow soil with many 

angular boulders and bedrock or ledge frequently 

exposed to the surfaces. Above 4,200 feet the soils 

become very shallow and the climate severe. The vegetation changes from low, softwood forest to krummholz to alpine tundra; and, finally to rocky summits 

with no soil or alpine vegetation. 

Study Method 

A variety of trail segments and overnight sites 

were investigated to determine what types and 

amounts of improvements had been made. Sites were 

selected to provide a broad representation of land 

types, trail grades, and use levels. 

About 75 miles of trail segments were examined 

on six different land types, ranging from hardwood forests on lower mountain slopes to alpine tundra on 

upper mountain slopes. Three trail grade classes (0 to 

15 percent, 15 to 30 percent, and greater than 30 percent) were chosen to further divide trail maintenance 

needs within each land type. Daily trail use was estimated by managers and used to classify trail segments 

into four use-level groups (low-less than 10; moderate-10 to 30; high-30 to 100; and very high-greater 

than 100 persons per day). For purposes of a more 

manageable framework, the land types and trail grade 

classes were collapsed and combined into three categories-low elevation and low trail grades; mid-elevation and moderate trail grades; high elevation and 

steep trail grades. Trail use levels were also combined 

to low use (500 visitors per year) and high use (6,500 

visitors per year). This resulted in each trail segment 

being placed in one of six categories. 

For each trail category, trail maintenance structures (waterbars, steps, bridging and puncheon, sidehill cribbing, and so on) were counted, and the length 

of trail sections in need of maintenance was measured. 

Trail sections were considered problems if they had: 

1) severely eroded sections (sections with gullies greater than 6 inches deep or with very loose, unstable soil 

on a steep grade) for more than 10 feet; 2) side-hill erosion from drainage crossing the trail; 3) poorly drained 

sections on flat areas that were greater than 10 feet 

long or that were causing trail widening problems. This 

inventory defined the number of improvements made in 

each trail category, and where necessary, the number 

of improvements required on problem sections to bring 

the trail up to management standards. The average 

number of improvements needed per mile of trail was 

computed by adding the number of improvements 

determined to be needed for each trail category and 

then dividing by the total length of trail observed in 

that category. 

About two dozen overnight sites were classified 

into 12 site conditions, represented by three different 

land types and four different use levels. The use levels 

represented the capacities for which the sites had i 

been designed and built. Low-use sites can accommo- / 

date 2 to 4 persons per night (2001year); moderate-use 

sites can accommodate 4 to 8 persons per night 9 

(6001year); high-use sites consist of shelters andlor tent 

platforms and can accommodate about 20 people per 

night (1,5001year); and very high-use sites have several 

shelters and tent platforms that can accommodate 50 

to 60 people per night (3,0001year). 

The management needs for each site condition 

were determined from observations of the practices 

adopted at well-managed sites. Where soil conditions 

dictated some form of human-waste disposal other 

than a pit privy, bin composting was chosen over a 

haul-out system. The Appalachian Mountain Club hut 

facilities Were not included in this study because they 

are managed like hotels offering bedding and hot 

meals, rather than backcountry campsites. 
Management costs for reconstruction and maintenance of trails and overnight sites were computed 

using a set of standard unit prices for each management structure and program. Standard unit prices were 

used for two reasons: records of actual expenditures 

for backcountry maintenance work were not available 

for the type of categories desired; and a comparison of 

actual costs would have confounded the results due to 

the great variation of costs for items such as labor, 

transportation, and materials. By calculating the costs 

with standard unit prices, we were able to compare the 

relative difference in costs between site and use-level 

conditions. 

Estimates of unit prices for various trail maintenance jobs and overnight facilities were obtained from 

the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont, the 

White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, 

and the Appalachian Mountain Club. For some of the 

overnight facilities, standard costs were calculated 

from itemized expense needs to which unit prices for 

labor, construction materials, travel, and overhead were 

applied. The unit prices used in this study are listed in 

Tables 1 and 2. 

Table 1.-Trail construction and maintenance costs, in dollars 

Item Unit costa -- 

A. Trail construction 

1. Clearing 1,742lmile (0.3311inear foot) 

2. Waterbars 16.50lwaterbar 

3. Ditching 1.6511inear foot 

4. Steps-rock 15.lOlstep 

-log 16.151step 

5. Cribbing-rock 9.4511inear foot 

-log 5.8511inear foot 

6. Puncheon (bridging) 

native 4.8511inear foot 

7. Rock tread 

stepstones (1 step12 feet) 2.lOllinear foot 

paving (all rock) 4.9011inear foot 

8. Scree walls 2.0011inear footb 

9. Special provisions 

pin step 28.001stepb 

cut step or ladder used on 

steep rock faces 45.001step or ladder 

B. Trail location markers 

1. Paint blazing 31.501mile 

2. Cairn building 

a. large, every 50 feet 10.401cairnb 

b. small, every 100 feet 2.601cairnb 

C. Trail maintenance 

1. Patrolling-every year 10.401mile 

clear blowdowns 

clean out drainage ditches 

2. Brushing-every 3 years 

a. low elevation (deciduous forest) 52.001mile including patrolling 

b. mid-elevation (softwood forest) 104.001mile, including patrolling 

a Most unit costs are based on Green Mountain National Forest co-op prices for 1979. 

Costs include 10 percent overhead. 

b Appalachian Mountain Club estimates of labor times were used to compute unit 

costs for these items. 
Table 2.-Overnight site facility and management program costs, 

in dollars 

Category Occurrence 

A. Facility 

1. Tent platforms 

Double size (10 ft x 12 ft) 

2. Shelter, 3-sided & precut 

Capacity 8 

3. Shelter, 3-sided & precut 

Capacity 10 to 14 

4. Special water supply and 

dishwashing areas 

5. Signs 

6. Human-waste disposal facilities 

Outhouse and pit 

Move outhouse to new pit 

7. Bin composting system 

Outhouse-modified for 

compost system 

8. Equipment for 1 unit (max. 1,500 

visitorslyear 

Operating costs 

1-unit system 

1-unit system at caretaker site 

2-unit system 

2-unit system at caretaker site 

B. Management Program 

1. Caretaker programs 

a. Full-time, long season with law 

enforcement capability (Total164 man-days) 

b. Full-time, long season with no 

law enforcement capability 

c. Full-time, no law enforcement 

capability (Total-98 man-days) 

d. Peak-use, no law enforcement 

capability (Total-30 man-days) 

2. Annual site maintenance programs 

(includes labor and materials for 

structure repairs) 

a. Patrolling only 

(at tentsite areas-3 tripslyear) 

b. Level I (at low-use sites, 

privy only) 

c. Level II (at moderate-use sites) 

with no caretaker available 

If at caretaker site, caretaker 

program costs cover most 

labor needs 

d. Level Ill (at high-use or more 

structured sites) 

No caretaker available 

If at caretaker site 

10 years 

Every 20 years 

Every 20 years 

10 years 

Replacements 

needed 

every 5 years 

20 years 

Depends on site 

use and soil 

conditions 

20 years 

5 years 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Unit costa 

a Includes labor costs (based on 1977 USDA Forest Service rates), material costs, 

transportation costs, and a.26 percent administration overhead cost. 
What We Found 

The unit prices were applied to each of the reconstruction and maintenance jobs that would be required 

each year over a 20-year period. The lifetimes of the 

trail structures are not known, so an assumption was 

made that half of the structures would need replacement every 10 years. The cost per visitor per year was 

calculated as the average annual cost divided by an 

average number of users per year. An example of the 

cost calculations for one trail section is shown in 

Table 3. 

Table 3.-Example of average annual cost calculations (AC), in dollars, for a trail at 

mid-elevation, of moderate (15-30%) 

grade, and with high use. 

Initial 

Year construction (C,) 

0 Clearing & grubbing 

Blazing 

Structures: 

steps (32) 

cribbing (28 ft) 

waterbars (56) 

ditching (13 ft) 

Tread: 

rock paving (30 ft) 

log bridging (17 ft) 

Unit cost Costlmile 

1,742.001mile 1,742.00 

31.501mile 31 .50 

Total Co = 3,595.40 

Year Maintenance costs (C,) Costlmile 

1 Patrolling 

2 Patrolling 

3 Brushing, patrolling, blazing ($104.00 + 

$31 .SO) 

4 Patrolling 

5 Patrolling 

6 Brushing, patrolling, blazing 

7 Patrolling 

8 Patrolling 

9 Brushing, patrolling, blazing 

10 Patrolling 

Replace 112 C, structures 

Total C, = 1,390.25 

Trails 

On low-elevation trails with low use and grades 

less than 15 percent, we observed no maintenance 

structures or trail problems. On similar trails receiving 

high use, a moderate amount of erosion control work 

had been done and some tread (rock paving or wood 

puncheon) had been used on flat, poorly drained areas. 

The calculated average annual costs for a 20-year 

period ranged from $210 per mile on low-use trails to 

$574 per mile on high-use trails (Table 4). 

As previously stated, trail data were combined for 

the mid-elevation land types because of the complex 

variability in surface drainage conditions and trail 

grades. Trail improvements were few for low-use trails 

of moderate grade, and the calculated costs were similar to those on the low-elevation trails. On high-use 

trails, more trail structures were installed for erosion 

control and poorly drained areas. The calculated average annual cost was about twice that of the low-use 

trails. One of the most expensive trails was on a poorly 

drained basin floor beneath a cirque headwall in one of 

the mid-elevation land types. The trail was on a low 

grade and designed for very high use with extensive 

rock tread and wood puncheon. The calculated annual 

cost was $2,700 per mile. 

The calculated average annual costs for steepgrade trails in the upper elevation, softwood forest 

ranged from $291 to $1,508 per mile. The low-use trail 

sections had little work, while the high-use trail sections had extensive erosion control work and were 

much more expensive to maintain. 

In general, all the low-use trails, regardless of 

location, had the lowest costs, but because of fewer 

trail users, the costs per visitor were higher than those 

of the higher use trails. Trails with the most extensive 

work were those receiving high to very high use and 

were located in upper elevation, softwood forests over 

flat, poorly drained areas or on steep grades. Tundra 

trails also had extensive work and high costs if they 

were receiving high use. Tundra trails with low to moderate use, however, had annual costs that were lower 

than those for trails in the low-elevation hardwood 

forests. 

AC = (C, + C,) + Y 

= ($3,595 + $1,390) + 10 = $498.50 

Costlvisitorlyear = $498.50 + 6,500 = $0.08 
Table 4.-Trail maintenance structures and calculated costs. 

Structures and costslmile 

Trail location and grade Low use High use 

(500 visitorslyear) (6,500 visitorslyear) 

Low elevation, hardwood forest, 

deep, well-drained soils-low trail 

grade No structures 

Mid-elevation, mixed hardwoodssoftwoods; soil drainage variable, 

bouldery terrain-moderate trail 

grade Waterbars-3 

Upper-elevation, softwood forest; 

thin soils, bouldery ierrain-steep 

trail grade Steps-26 

Waterbars-3 

C, = $2,216 

Cm = $70 

AC = $291 

($0.58lvisitor) 

Waterbars-124 

Steps-6 

Tread -44 ft 

Scree-40 ft 

C, = $4,200 

Cm = $154 

AC = $574 

($0.09lvisitor) 

a Co = Initial construction cost, including clearing and blazing 

Cm = Average annual maintenance cost 

AC = Average annual cost (See Table 3 forcalcutations) 

Overnight Sites most of the routine maintenance jobs are handled without additional labor costs. The management practices that have been used 

for resource protection at designated overnight sites 

receiving clustered use include: 1) shelters or tent 

platforms to concentrate camping parties and reduce 

the surface area that becomes trampled and compacted; 2) a human-waste disposal system that does 

not rely on soil leaching; 3) delineated paths within the 

overnight site to discourage indiscriminate trampli,ng 

of ground vegetation; 4) a drinking-water outlet pipe at 

a "hardened" collection point (this has been used to 

protect the ground surrounding a spring outlet, especially where frequent trampling could cause soil to 

wash into the water supply); and 5) resident caretakers 

to provide visitor information, maintain site facilities, 

operate compost systems, and where necessary, police 

the site. Routine maintenance is also required, including litter removal, shelter and privy cleaning and 

repairs, and sign replacement. At sites with caretakers, 

The calculated average annual costs (AC) of designated overnight camping areas ranged from $74 to 

$12,577 (Table 5). These costs were computed by adding the initial construction costs (C,) to 19 years of 

average annual maintenance costs (C,), which include 

replacement costs for facilities with less than a 20-year 

life and management program costs (see Table 2B), 

and dividing the sum by 20 for an average annual cost. 

The higher costs were required for areas designed for 

higher use or at higher elevations. These hypothetical 

costs represent costs that would be required to reconstruct and maintain the on-site facilities and management program adopted primarily for resource protection at various camping areas in the White Mountains. 

The costs per visitor are based on an average number 

of visitors per year that typically use the site. 
Table 5.-Overnight site costs, in dollars, by use levels 

Use levels 

(personslyear) 

Site location 

Moderate High Very high 

(600) (1,500) (3,000) 

Low-elevation 

mountain slopes; 

hardwood forests; 

deep, well-drained 

soils on smooth 

terrain 

M id-elevation 

mountain slopes; 

mixed hardwoodsoftwood forest; 

soil drainage 

variable on 

I undulating terrain 

Upper-elevation I mountain slopes; 

softwood forest; 

rapid to poorly 

drained, thin soils 

on bouldery terrain 

Designated 

dispersed Tentsites Shelter & platforms Shelter & platforms 

tentsites (4) (Cap. 4) (Cap. 20) (Cap. 60) 

C, = 484a C, = 1,387 C, = 9,710 C, = 22,770 

C, = 52 C, = 149 Cm = 2,273 C, = 12,040 

AC = 74 AC = 21 1 AC = 2,645 AC = 12,577 

(0.37lvisitor) (0.35lvisitor) (1.76lvisitor) (4.19lvisitor) 

Shelter (Cap. 8) 

Co = 7,458 

C, = 370 

AC = 724 

(1.28lvisitor) 

Designated 

dispersed Tentsites Shelter & platforms Shelter & platforms 

tentsites (4) (Cap. 4) (Cap. 20) (Cap. 44) 

Shelter & platforms 

(Cap. 12) 

Designated 

dispersed Tent platforms Shelter & platforms ' Shelter & platforms 

sites (4) (Cap. 10) (Cap. 20) (Cap. 44) 

Co = 484 C, = 3,240 C, = 10,375 Co = 17,450 

C, = 177 C, = 2,305 C, = 6,101 Cm = 9,696 

AC = 192 AC = 2,352 AC = 6,314 AC = 10,083 

(0.96lvisitor) (3.92lvisitor) (4.2llvisitor) (3.36lvisitor) 

Shelter & platforms 

(Cap. 12) 

a C, = Initial construction cost. 

C, = Average annual maintenance cost, based on 19 years, including replacement costs for facilities of less than a 20-year life. 

AG = Average annual cost = (C, + 19 C,) + 20 
The construction and annual maintenance costs 

rose more quickly for upper elevation, softwood sites 

than for lower elevation sites because of the need for a 

human-waste disposal system, added ground protection measures, and a caretaker program. Sites with the 

lowest average costs per visitor are the low-use sites 

that do not require facilities for ground protection or 

human-waste disposal. The site with the highest cost 

per visitor ($4.29) is an upper elevation location that 

could receive moderate use of about six to nine persons per night. At these use levels, several management facilities are needed, but the additional costs are 

not spread over a large number of visitors. 

The sites with the highest average annual costs 

are the large sites designed for very high use. These 

sites tend to attract many inexperienced or inconsiderate visitors. They require full-time caretakers with law 

enforcement responsibilities plus most or all of the 

structural facilities needed at other locations. The lowelevation sites (AC = $12,577) have the added problem 

of close proximity to trailheads. Their high construction costs compounded by very high maintenance 

costs results in very high costs per visitor. 

Discussion 

Public agencies are being asked to do more every 

year with fewer dollars. Furthermore, this year's dollar 

does not go as far as last year's, and next year some 

recreation and park agencies may be asked to become 

more self-sufficient. How can the information in this 

paper help planners and managers meet this financial 

pinch? Before an agency can meet a financial pinch, it 

should know what its costs are. The operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs of providing backcountry 

recreation opportunities ir! northern New England were 

computed using a cost-per-visitor mile and cost-pervisitor night framework that should not be too difficult 

to adopt in other locations. Based on use levels and 

land characteristics, and influenced by management's 

objectives, our study allows disaggregation of the 

costs of provision down to types of sites. 

For example, the data in Table 5 show that "very 

high-use" sites at all elevations are extremely expensive to build and maintain, both in total dollars expended and in costs per visitor, when compared to 

costs of provision for sites that accommodate lower 

use levels. It also shows that upper elevation sites are 

very expensive to manage at almost all use levels. If 

the costs per visitor-night of these expensive or popular sites are to be controlled, then use levels of those 

sites should not be allowed to rise. This goal might be 

attained by issuing permits prior to a party's departure 

for expensive or popular sites andlor charging a "cost 

of provision fee" for the permit. 

The framework we used to collect trail data was 

too detailed. Although use data were initially collected 

for four levels of trail use and on six different land 

types and at three trail grade classes, we combined the. 

data into two use levels at three grade classes, with 

the grade classes encompassing the land types. 

Managerial decisions based on the cost-per-visitor 

mile may not be quite as cut and dried as those based 

on costs-per-visitor night because as use rises, the perunit costs go down. Operation and maintenance costs 

averaged about $0.50 per visitor-mile on low-use trails 

and about $0.10 on high-use trails except at upper elevations where the costs rose to $0.23 per visitor-mile. 

Perhaps a framework containing only six categories-two use levels at three elevation-grade 

levels-is enough detail for decisionmaking. 

If visitor fees are adopted for backcountry recreation, knowledge of the management costs for 

different types of opportunities could be useful in determining fee schedules for different types of areas 

rather than charging all visitors the same fee. Visitors 

to low-use, low-maintenance areas may resent having 

to pay the same fee as visitors to high-maintenance 

areas offering more facilities. With the heightened attention on public expenditures, this would seem the 

time to start a standardized and regular monitoring 

system for backcountry recreation management costs. 

Literature Cited 

Guldin, Richard W. Wilderness costs in New England. 

Journal of Forestry. 78(9):548-552; 1980. 

Irland, Lloyd C. Costs of managing backcountry 

recreation areas in Maine, 1978. Augusta, ME: Maine 

Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and 

Recreation; 1980; Tech. Rep. No. 5. 

Leonard, R. E.; Plumley, H. J.; Holman, W. R. A design 

capacity system. In: Expanding America's Trail System, 4th National Trails Symposium Proceedings. 

1977 September 8-10; Lake Junaluska, NC. National 

Trails Council; 1977: 160-163. 

Spencer, Edward L.; Echelberger, Herbert E.; Leonard, 

Raymond E.; Evans, Craig. Trends in hiking and backcountry use. In: LaPage, Wilbur F., chairman. 

Proceedings 1980 national outdoor recreation trends 

symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-57, Broomall, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 

1980: 195-198. 

Tyre, Gary L. Average costs of recreation on national 

forests in the South. Journal of Leisure Research. 

7(2):114-120; 1975. 

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1986-605-026:20041 
Echelberger, Herbert E; Plumley, Harriet J. Anatomy ofb'backcountry management costs. Res. Pap. NE-575. Broomall, 

PA: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1986.8 p. 

Operation and management costs for several dispersed overnight site locations and backcountry trails in the White 

Mountain National Forest were studied. Average annual costs 

ranged from $200 to $1,500 per mile for trails and from $0.35 to 

$4.29 per visitor for overnight sites. Average annual costs for 

trails and overnight sites increased with elevation and use 

levels, but on a per-visitor basis, high-use trails cost less to 

maintain than low-use trails at all elevations. Costs per visitor at 

overnight sites were less well defined. The method used in this 

study may be useful to backcountry recreation managers in 

their efforts to acquire a better understanding of all the costs of 

providing backcountry recreation opportunities. 

ODC 907.2:671:627.3 

I Keywords: backcountry, management, costs 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in 

Broomall, Pa. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of 

~B'ssac husetts. 

0 Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with Berea College. 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of 

Vermont. 

Delaware, Ohio. 

0 Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of 

New Hampshire, 

Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University. 

0 Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia 

University, Morgantown. 

0 Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine, 

Orono. 

Parsons, West Virginia. 

Princeton, West Virginia. 

Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of 

New York Cdege of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at 

Syracuse University, Syracuse. 

0 University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the 

Pennsylvania State University. 

Warren, Pennsylvania.