Forest Service and Alpine County back 'light-touch' plan for Carson River Hot Springs; county to consider ordinance language

The U.S. Forest Service presented a stakeholder-driven management strategy for the Carson River Hot Springs area and asked Alpine County to join a nonbinding memorandum of understanding to coordinate monitoring, signage and light-touch management. "We overall agreed to a more light touch management strategy," said Chris Eddie, recreation management specialist for the Bridgeport and Carson ranger districts.

The plan, developed with a 23-member planning team and facilitated by the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, responds to rising visitation that has led to sanitation problems, vegetation and soil impacts and conflicts between user types. Eddie said the group evaluated a range of options — including permanent restrooms and road improvements — but concluded many were infeasible or would change the character of the site. He said the next steps are finalizing the stakeholder agreement and installing interpretive and best-practice signs funded by a county RAC grant.

Kaylee Cruz, deputy district ranger on the Carson Ranger District, reported recent Forest Service work in Alpine County including pile burning and seedling plantings, and confirmed campground openings and coordination on culvert and fiber projects. "We do plan in the next few weeks to go out there again just to kind of get a baseline on what the site looks like," Cruz said.

Board members pressed staff on operational details and the MOU's signatory list. Several supervisors asked that the document list positions with successors or otherwise be updated to reflect personnel changes so the correct organizations remain represented. Eddie said he would maintain a running roster and can update the signatories over time.

Supervisors also discussed whether the county should explore an ordinance to allow recovery of search-and-rescue costs for hazardous conduct on public lands. A board member noted precedent in other counties and suggested putting a general countywide ordinance on staff's to-do list for follow-up research by county counsel. Eddie said signage could include county language about potential fees if a formal ordinance were adopted later.

The board signaled support for joining the stakeholder group; the MOU presentation will return to the May 5 agenda for possible placement on the consent calendar for approval and signature. The Forest Service confirmed it intends to provide a formal signature at the forest-supervisor level once final edits are complete.

The county's role under the proposed MOU is nonbinding and collaborative: participate in monitoring, help shape signage content and meet periodically with other land managers. If impacts continue despite education and monitoring, the group will revisit additional management strategies.