Recreation Fees and Reforms

[chrisca]

This thread is specific to the Northwest Forest Pass and use of recreation fees to benefit trail users. Some background:

My report on the Forest Service's fee revenues and spending: http://www.lensjoy.com/Blog/NWFP_Report.htm
A recent Oregonian article covering the issues raised, which reaches a different conclusion: http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index. ... _fore.html
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which will sunset in 2017 if not reauthorized:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-87
The Forest Service's published reports on fee revenue and spending: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/passes ... 999#crgnsa
(Note: This page loads slowly.)

We are in the middle of a discovery process in order to shed more light on how NW Forest Pass dollars are spent in our region. Due to that, there will be differences in what some people find. The report I wrote will be corrected if any errors are found. So far, I have not received any requests from the Forest Service to change the numbers in it. According to Jamie Hale, the Oregonian story reporter, there are complicated reasons why the numbers don't add up which will require more work to understand.

Currently, reading the Forest Service's published reports on use of the NW Forest Pass funds indicates that in the Columbia Gorge, there is approximately a half million dollars of unspent fees. For the region including Oregon and Washington, the unspent amount is $14 million dollars. These are preliminary amounts and may change. However, Stan Hinatsu, recreation coordinator for the Gorge Scenic Area, indicated the half-million dollar figure was about right.

The hiking community will be well served if it works to get greater transparency of how recreation fees are spent, and more say into the spending process. Given that hikers do a lot of volunteer work for the Forest Service, we have leverage to ask for more consideration of our needs. We've been fairly quiet as a group, but that isn't a good way to get the things one wants. Asking works much better.

[Koda]

there is at least two separate threads in this forum with detailed discussion, links and sources cited on this subject, including participation with a USFS person. I don't have the links on hand at the moment but perhaps I can dig into my bookmarks during some of the downtime over this holiday weekend. I know that deep in the MHNF website are pdf links to their NWFP spending, not much of it for trail maintenance but at least one puppet show and a mt bike race at Govt Camp IIRC...
would love to see a summary of what you find

[justpeachy]

I know that deep in the MHNF website are pdf links to their NWFP spending

I think this is what you're talking about: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/passes ... ev2_026999

[drm]

Is it possible that increased carryover of funds is due to a lack of qualified staff to put together projects to spend it on and get them approved? It's not like any staffer on FS can see that there is unspent funds and say, ah, let's go create a new trail. Maintenance is less bureacratically difficult than creating a new trail, but they either have to hire paid trail people or coordinate with volunteers.

[jdemott]

I guess I don't see a big problem with having carryover funds, as long as the money eventually gets spent on recreation-related needs in the area where the fees were collected. I wouldn't suggest that anyone should spend their whole paycheck as soon as they get it--you ought to hold on to enough money to last until the next payday, plus have some money in the bank to deal with emergencies. It seems like the FS should do the same.

Having greater transparency and more public input into how the funds are spent seems like a good thing. But I can also understand that public opinion doesn't always appreciate where the real needs are. Some elements of essential infrastructure, like drainage culverts, don't capture the public imagination like a trail to a viewpoint.

[Charley]

I guess I don't see a big problem with having carryover funds, as long as the money eventually gets spent on recreation-related needs in the area where the fees were collected. I wouldn't suggest that anyone should spend their whole paycheck as soon as they get it--you ought to hold on to enough money to last until the next payday, plus have some money in the bank to deal with emergencies. It seems like the FS should do the same.

Having greater transparency and more public input into how the funds are spent seems like a good thing. But I can also understand that public opinion doesn't always appreciate where the real needs are. Some elements of essential infrastructure, like drainage culverts, don't capture the public imagination like a trail to a viewpoint.

I agree.

[chrisca]

I guess I don't see a big problem with having carryover funds, as long as the money eventually gets spent on recreation-related needs in the area where the fees were collected. I wouldn't suggest that anyone should spend their whole paycheck as soon as they get it--you ought to hold on to enough money to last until the next payday, plus have some money in the bank to deal with emergencies. It seems like the FS should do the same.

Having greater transparency and more public input into how the funds are spent seems like a good thing. But I can also understand that public opinion doesn't always appreciate where the real needs are. Some elements of essential infrastructure, like drainage culverts, don't capture the public imagination like a trail to a viewpoint.

The issue and reason I dug into the numbers isn't the carryover funds per se, it's the whole picture of escalating carryover funds, escalating collections, and flat to down spending. The FS has said part of the problem is lack of staff, but it doesn't take much expertise to hire a contracted trail crew to cut blowdown. There are at least four people in the FS who've been interviewed on various aspects of the issue, and it's a question why so many people are managing money and so few are tasked to spend it. When the carryover has reached parity with collections, there is a real question about hoarding. It's our job as the recreation user community to ask this question and collectively arrive at an amount that makes sense, and serves the growing user base that's buying the Forest Passes.

[Waffle Stomper]

Perhaps I missed it, but to what extent do we know those carryover funds actually exist or if they have been "borrowed" for other purposes?

[jdemott]

I hope you didn't misinterpret my post. I certainly applaud your taking the initiative to ask questions and raise awareness of fiscal issues among hikers and other recreation users. Most of all, I would like to see the FS regard hikers as an important constituency whose needs must be taken into account, both because user fees provide a meaningful revenue source and because hikers are an informed and vocal segment of the public.

[BigBear]

Adams v USFS, as reaffirmed by Bark v USFS: Charging fees for hiking, backpacking and picnicking are "unambiguously prohibited" by the Recreational Enhancement Act.

I guess there's some ambiguity to the term "unambiguously prohibited." Should be an interesting next four years with a president that doesn't understand the Civil Rights Act of 1964, et al.