Every spring on our first visit to our claims up in the Tahoe National Forest in Sierra County we have to take a saw with us to cut our way along a narrow trail for 2 miles and many elevation changes through fallen timber after the winter snowstorms and encroaching side brush impede access to the claims. We've always included trail cutting work in our proofs of labor and they've never been rejected. The FS approves of this, I suppose, because otherwise they would have to do it (which they do in the case of massive trees too large for us to handle). But, additionally, we also report other work performed to improve the claim ranging from replacement windows for the cabin (which serves to store our mining equipment) after bears break in to the number of cubic feet of gravels we process. The key criterion is whether the work improves the claim in the sense of improving one's ability to recover gold. Thus, what doesn't work is picking up litter or packing out garbage. Those types of labor may "improve" sightliness, but contribute nothing toward gold extraction.
"Recreational" mining (a phrase that has as many interpretations as there are interpretors) is not covered by the Mining Law of 1872. The ML of 1872, enacted during America's westward expansion (along with homestead laws), envisions the types of work that ultimately can result in patenting land.