FYI on 12/12 the Hood-Willamette SRS RAC gave their affirmative recommendation on increases of fees on campgrounds, yurts, lookout towers and the Mt. Hood Permit. They declined to endorse new fees at 9 currently free trailheads, based on equity concerns. They were originally going to recommend them but Jeff Parker from NW Youth Corp said he felt just charging to be at a trailhead was not equitable or necessary and a bunch of members flipped their vote. Despite a positive outcome, it did not inspire confidence to watch people so easily flip their vote--why were they voting in favor if that one mention was enough to flip them? My impression is there was minimal review of materials by most of these people, prior to the meeting. And to that end, the relationship is one of helping award title ii project money and being 'part of the team' with the forest service, there's a lot of feel good pat-on-the-back vs much check/balance with FS desires.
They however did add a few items to the Mt. Hood Permit - they want a governing board of stakeholders (PMR, Crag Rats, Sheriff, etc) to be involved in the implementation phase, alterations or changes of the $10k being distributed to rescue organizations, and to change the 2 day climbing permit to 3 days.
Beyond that, Todd Harbin, Assistant National Recreation Fee Program Manager unsurprisingly seemed extremely committed to fees. He also said equity concerns were not really concerns because it already costs a lot of money to have a car and drive to the forest, and climbing equipment is really expensive too. Discounting that Mt. Hood is the only Volcano you can easily take public transit to..and ignoring equity concerns can be cumulative. This was especially tone deaf in my opinion from a middle aged white male making over $100k.
To that end he also said that FLREA specifically has an exemption to let them use a SRS RAC and other places have done it, congress wouldn't have put that language in there if they didn't want them to do it, so that is fine. Regarding the provisions in FLREA listed below, he said (paraphrasing) "general public support is hard to define, it's a nebulous thing, yes there is support for more campgrounds and services, people like those things." This seemed like a bad faith answer to me, I guess congress puts one thing in the law that's specific but despite a whole section talking about making public announcements and getting public comment.. that's unclear to him.
§6803. Public participation
(9) Approval Procedures
A recommendation may be submitted to the Secretary only if the recommendation is approved by a majority of the members of the Committee from each of the categories specified in paragraph (5)(D) and general public support for the recommendation is documented.
They briefly showed a powerpoint that attempted to quantify the number and type of comments but they clicked off the slide very quickly that broke it down as a pie chart.. I will receive that and the rest of the minutes/logs etc in about a week. Along with a brief presentation they did on FLREA to get the members 'up to speed' on the law/what they were doing. It omitted/glossed over a lot. Some members of the committee were still not clear on the 'different types of fees' after the presentation. I am not surprised since they are a committee convened under the authority of Secure Rural Schools Act and not a FLREA generated Recreational RAC.
It was a sad affair to watch overall. I am still in vociferous disagreement two equestrian interests, geriatric commissioners of linn and lane county, and this committee giving the approval to go forward with the Mt. Hood Climbing Permit. There were a few decent/pointed questions from 2-3 individuals on the committee, but it seemed more like a formality, the FS has a ready-made answer. A big part was 'where do you get all the money to do maintenance backlog improvements, or capital improvements like new toilets?' --and why can't you use that money to improve existing things? I heard a sociopathic response about budget tom-foolery and why they can't move money this way but that can that way. It was rather nonsensical. But that new fees would allow them to take money previously allocated to a site and move it elsewhere. The same shell game of investing in more services/amenities, growing a deferred backlog, and pretending fees will ever cover it. Status quo, you won't see things really improve anywhere since they will take existing funding away from it when a fee comes online or is increased.
OHV fees were dropped. Because the state collects a registration fee and that money goes to the FS as well, there was concerns about inter-mingling such fees and it amounting to double-taxation. It was mentioned that there were private conversations with OHV group(s) interests that opposed it, but none of this was in the public record of comments on the proposal. Also mentioned was that if they put fees on OHVs, they're worried they will cause resource damage in other places. Too bad climbers can't threaten to trash some other volcano so they don't put fees on Hood..
Also unmentioned was anything about security that the proposal said would increase (but was wholly unsupported with any facts), and parking as an issue for climbing (have never seen one iota of data about that).