GPNF Developed Rec Site Survey: Your responses needed

[chrisca]

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) is asking for public comment on its developed recreation (NW Forest Pass or other fee) sites. The survey page is at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/giffordp ... EPRD578910
When you read the goals at this web page, it's clear what the subtext is. The Forest Service (FS) is trying to find ways to walk away from developed sites and/or transfer the operations to other groups. They state: "The analysis revealed over $1.7 million dollars would be needed annually to adequately operate and maintain these sites at their current level, which results in a funding shortfall of over $700,000. In addition, deferred maintenance on these sites is over $10 million, far above Forest Service funding capacity."

If we want to see these sites remain open, we've got to hold the FS accountable. The GPNF currently receives around $1.8 million in annual revenue from the Forest Pass program:

That's $100,000 more than their stated need. In addition, they have been accumulating past unspent money in a carryover account that's now totaling another $1.8 million:

Finally, when adjusted for inflation, the expenditures on recreation sites are actually declining by a small amount over time.

The details behind this situation are complicated, and mired in complex law that prevents the Forest Service from spending fee dollars at non-fee sites. In addition, factors such as fire borrowing have hindered the agency's ability to spend fee money so it can pay its firefighting expenses. Legally the fee money must be returned to the recreation sites for operations and maintenance, but there is no stipulation as to when it must be done. So our fee money can be diverted for other purposes and given back "someday."

When I raised this issue with the Gorge Scenic Area about a year ago, their spending suddenly increased. So public scrutiny and pressure does make the agency respond. We just need to let them know we're watching:

Please comment on this survey. Let the FS know which sites are important to you, but more importantly, tell them that the fee funding system must be reformed to allow fee dollars to be spent at non-fee sites so they can be put to work where they are needed the most, and that the agency needs to spend the money it already has to keep our sites open and maintained. Thanks for your comments.

[pcg]

Thank you Chris!

[Guy]

The survey questions are written in such a way that you can only answer the way they want you to, for example there are no options to say I should not have to pay more only options on how you would pay more.

[drm]

Do we want all these sites to remain open? These are front country developed sites in question. If all the NWFP money went to keep these sites open, then what would be left for trails? I thought that some of you wanted to spend less NWFP money on trailhead toilets and picnic areas and more on trails. Maybe some of them should be closed.

[chrisca]

Do we want all these sites to remain open? These are front country developed sites in question. If all the NWFP money went to keep these sites open, then what would be left for trails? I thought that some of you wanted to spend less NWFP money on trailhead toilets and picnic areas and more on trails. Maybe some of them should be closed.

It doesn't work that way. The governing law (Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, or FLREA) requires that fee dollars can only be spent at fee sites. They can't be used to build trails, because new trails aren't fee sites. Nor can they be used to maintain trails at non-fee sites. New sites can be established, but only through a cumbersome process authorized by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. Catch-22 is that Secretary Zinke just shut the committees down(https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060054139). Bottom line is that people need to put in their comments that they want the system reformed and fixed so it works. We don't have to answer the questions only in the way they're posed. The boxes are free-response, so type in what you want.

[Chip Down]

I decline to participate in the USFS BS survey. They can take their agenda and shove it where the sun don't shine. And the next time I see a USFS employee, I'll tell them that in person, possibly in in language much less refined than what I've used above.

[xrp]

Does anyone have any information on what makes a recreation site "developed"?

Here's the list from the GPNF website:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 579135.pdf

I find it odd to see simple trail heads (such as the Indian Heaven Thomas Lake trail head) grouped with picnic areas, campgrounds and visitor centers.

Did the USFS make trail heads "developed" when they lost Adams vs USFS? The result was the USFS interpreting the ruling as them being able to charge/ticket for the NWFP if amenities were present. So, prior to the summer of 2012, all of a sudden a ton of amenities popped up at every trail head possible. Then Figueroa et al vs USFS clarified that hikers would have to USE the amenities in order to have to pay the NWFP.

So, did the USFS over extend themselves by performing this amenities dump in 2012?

Camping fees should pay for campgrounds.
Picnic areas? I don't know how to handle that one.
Snoparks should be paid for by the sno*park pass.

[drm]

It doesn't work that way. The governing law (Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, or FLREA) requires that fee dollars can only be spent at fee sites. They can't be used to build trails, because new trails aren't fee sites. Nor can they be used to maintain trails at non-fee sites.

Well, they are used to maintain trails, and numerous documents can be found online that say so. Apparently trails are considered connected to the fee sites at their trailheads. I suppose somebody could sue to stop this violation of the law.

On a vaguely related issue, there is another expense: vandalism. I know of at least two locations where trails signs don't last more than weeks before being destroyed by who knows who. At Panther Creek Falls they gave up trying to replace it a few years ago. The Soda Peaks Lake trailhead is also affected. I don't know how many thousands go down the drain due to vandalism, but it adds up.

[drm]

Does anyone have any information on what makes a recreation site "developed"?

That surprised me too. It appears that anything that is road accessible that costs money is included. Somewhere I vaguely remember hearing of a document that listed annual cost by site. I would like to find that.

Camping fees should pay for campgrounds.
Picnic areas? I don't know how to handle that one.
Snoparks should be paid for by the sno*park pass.

Snoparks are state facilities. I think that there is a wide range of expenses for campgrounds and the like - some pay for themselves and some don't. Distance to drive to perform services, likelihood of tree falls, age of facilities all can impact how much a place costs. Maintaining potable water for campgrounds is a big cost and that is going to vary, but the cost of a campsite doesn't vary very much. A friend who uses state park campgrounds a lot told me that Washington SP campgrounds vary not just by campground, but by site. He hates it and stopped going to them. Although there are some rustic FS campgrounds that are cheaper, or even free, for the most part they only vary by single vs double. Varying the cost of campgrounds by expense would be a big deal, and I think they all are packed most of the summer.

[Webfoot]

I find it disturbing that they are calling undeveloped trailheads "highly developed recreation sites." For example at last inspection there are no toilets, picnic tables, trash cans, or other facilities at Grassy Knoll Trailhead, yet it's on the list. I can only take this to mean that they want to close road access entirely.