Bosterson wrote: ↑October 10th, 2019, 10:54 am
... So as far as I can tell, absent evidence to the contrary you would be required to buy their limited entry permit AND have a NWFP. ...
Trying to find the source but I believe they said if you have a permit you won't need a NWFP.
This FAQ on fees is helpful:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO ... 670380.pdf
Q. What would happen if the fee is not approved?
A. There would be multiple impacts if the fee was not approved.
-The two Forests would struggle making enough staff available to help visitors obtain the newly
required wilderness limited entry permits.
-The two Forests would have limited capacity to educate visitors about Leave No Trace, the limited
entry permit system, and what makes wilderness special.
-The two Forests would not be able to increase trail maintenance activities,
-There would be fewer wilderness rangers making contacts, educating visitors about Leave No
-Trace, enforcing the permit system, cleaning up after visitors (burying human waste, carrying out
garbage, etc.).
-The two forests would be limited in growing volunteer and partnership programs, because our
current staffing workloads are at capacity.
So if you don't approve the fee.. sounds like their plan is effectively scrapped. You somehow get the permit (and pay rec.gov the service fee still--so crazy)..but they can do nothing, like their current sitch. I'd almost be fine with that. Hey how interesting that these fees are supposed to be helping increase funding for trail work! That's news to me..
As an aside to your point about the Wilderness Act:
From the FS Project Planning Page:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/projectdetail/d ... EPRD543135
The goal of the project is to sustain recreational use in these five wildernesses while ensuring future generations can experience the natural and undeveloped qualities of these areas. Actions to reduce impacts are needed to meet the purposes of the Wilderness Act and to meet the direction in the Deschutes and Willamette Forest Plans. Throughout the process, the Forests will engage both local communities and communities of interest to bring the public’s energy and ideas into balancing the three important components (environmental, social, and economic) of sustainability while meeting the Forest Service’s wilderness commitments.
Management Direction
Legislative Direction: The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifies congressional policy to secure for the American people an enduring resource of wilderness for the enjoyment of present and future generations. It defines wildernesses as areas untrammeled by people that offer outstanding opportunities for solitude and directs agencies to manage wilderness to preserve natural ecological conditions.
The wilderness areas of the Central Cascades in Oregon were legislated in 1964, 1968, and 1984:
Mount Washington and Three Sisters Wilderness:Designated by Public Law 88-577 – Wilderness Act of 1964.
Mount Jefferson Wilderness:Designated by Public Law 90-548 in 1968.
Waldo Lake Wilderness designated and additions made to Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington and Three Sisters:Public Law 98-328, Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984.
Forest Service Regulations and Policy: Pertinent sections of the Code of Federal Regulations include 36 CFR 293.2(b) – Wilderness will be made available for human use to the optimum extent consistent with the maintenance of primitive conditions; and 36 CFR 293.3(a) - ….the Forest Service may require permits for, or otherwise limit or regulate, any use of National Forest land, including, but not limited to, camping, campfires, and grazing of recreation livestock. Forest Service Manual 2323.14 Visitor Management states “Plan and manage public use of wilderness in such a manner that preserves the wilderness character of the area. Provide for the limiting and distribution of visitor use according to periodic estimates of capacity in the forest plan.
Emphasis mine. So they're not legally allowed to develop these 'areas' so throw that straw man out. Seems like their interpretation of the Wilderness Act is interesting..
My read of this sounds like they can indeed limit use.. But charging to limit it. heck no. Not under FLREA. Special use my butt.
From the CCWS main page:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschute ... EPRD578153
Current management is not successfully addressing the impacts associated with growing use. Impacts from visitors include degradation and loss of meadow and riparian vegetation, tree damage, presence of human and dog waste, widening and braiding of trails, and compaction of sites.
I could print this out on a big banner and mail it to them 5 years in the future if they wanted an accurate prediction. Given that statement, on what track-record do they think anyone should give them the benefit of the doubt that they can do this with permits on the internet? it's a laugh.
§ 293.3 Control of uses.
(a) To the extent not limited by the Wilderness Act, subsequent legislation establishing a particular unit, or the regulations in this part, the Chief, Forest Service, may prescribe measures necessary to control fire, insects, and disease and measures which may be used in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons or damage to property and may require permits for, or otherwise limit or regulate, any use of National Forest land, including, but not limited to, camping, campfires, and grazing of recreation livestock.
So they're doing this under damage to property? hmm This all seems tenuous to me.