NW Forest Pass and Missing Amenities

[cunningkeith]

Re: the law's expiration.

It is slated to expire Sept. 30, 2020. But Congress has extended it multiple times since 2014 through "continuing resolutions."

[drm]

Is it not true though that the USFS isn't even spending all the money it's banking a lot of it. What they collect they should spend on trails.

They don't spend all the money they get in the year they get it because contracts and programs span years. This is a political problem because of a project cannot be done in a year, then the money has to be banked to pay for the rest of the work the next year. But Congress says hey you didn't spend everything, you got money left over, we're cutting your budget. Congress does not seem to care that the money is contracted. So the FS really does want to spend it as quick as it can, but the contracting procedure can be time-consuming. There are also legal limitations to spending NWFP money on trails that has been discussed here, though trails near trailheads can get work from these funds.

For the record, I am a member of the South Gifford Pinchot Collaborative, a consultative group of "stakeholders" (environmentalists, timber cutters, wildlife group reps, small business owners, political electeds, etc) that advises the Gifford Pinchot NF on a variety of things. I got to be a member of this group because I represent the Friends of Mt Adams, though there are some independent folks who do not represent groups. GPNF and WA DNR also participate. I've been on for less than a year and it's quite a learning curve. Most of what is done is setting conditions for timber cutting, but some recreational spending issues are coming up too. There are collaborative groups for most national forests, including Mt Hood.

[Aimless]

There was a time long ago when trail building and trail maintenance was done by crews of Forest Service employees. They may have been temporary employees just for the summer led by a permanent crew boss, but they were hired by, paid by, and worked directly for the FS. No contracting required. The FS abandoned this operating model ages ago, but when it was in place new trails were built and old ones were maintained far better than at present.

[retired jerry]

Didn't trail maintenance get paid for from timber harvesting? Now there's less so not as much money?

[xrp]

Why does this keep coming up?

Fragosa et al vs USFS (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so it is binding in WA and OR) ruled that you can’t be forced to have a pass if you don’t use the amenities.

[Aimless]

Why does this keep coming up?

Fragosa et al vs USFS (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so it is binding in WA and OR) ruled that you can’t be forced to have a pass if you don’t use the amenities.

Perhaps you never use the toilet or picnic table at trailheads, but it would be wrong to assume that no one ever uses them. Therefore, there are places where and conditions under which a NWFP may be legally required without Fragosa et al vs USFS negating it. But as I understood the original question, it addressed a rather different concern: it asked how many trailheads cited the necessity of buying and displaying a NWFP while also not providing all the legally required amenities. A different question altogether.

[xrp]

But as I understood the original question, it addressed a rather different concern: it asked how many trailheads cited the necessity of buying and displaying a NWFP while also not providing all the legally required amenities. A different question altogether.

Excellent point, Aimless. The Adams and Fragosa rulings were in early and late 2012, respectively. That was awhile ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. During this time (2010-2013) I was doing most of my hiking in the Mt St Helens/GPNF area. After the Adams ruling, I noticed a lot of amenities pop up in places they had not been before. There seemed to be an explosion of them showing up during the summer of 2012. This was before Fragosa, of course.

Unfortunately, I haven’t compiled a running list.

[drm]

There was a time long ago when trail building and trail maintenance was done by crews of Forest Service employees. They may have been temporary employees just for the summer led by a permanent crew boss, but they were hired by, paid by, and worked directly for the FS. No contracting required. The FS abandoned this operating model ages ago, but when it was in place new trails were built and old ones were maintained far better than at present.

Why do you say this was abandoned? This is how it works in the Mt Adams district of Gifford Pinchot. I know the guy who leads this effort for them and he posts here occasionally when there is major trail news. I think he does so under the name Trail crew or something like that. I think they mostly do tree clearing and heavy work. He is probably reading this! I think this is not the only NF to still use that model, but the dollars available to it have declined and while his team only covers the one district, there are other places where one team has a vast territory. I was told a few years back that one such team had to cover the entire Wallowas AND Hells Canyon.

[Aimless]

Why do you say this was abandoned?

Only via observation and deduction.

When I have seen trail crews of any description in the past couple of decades they have invariably been gangs of volunteers. The evidence of heavy trail work I've seen, where heavy tools and big saws were obviously in play, always used to meet the highest standards of excellence up to about 1990. Now it is of uneven quality, sometimes well done, sometimes hastily and somewhat cursorily. This speaks to a very basic change in how the FS maintains trails; it's not just a lack of money, but a very fundamental change in their operating standards as a result of that lack.

[retired jerry]

I saw some FS employees cutting trees on the Timberline Trail above Mt Hood Meadows a couple years ago. Those were huge trees, I was impressed they could do it so easily. With chain saws.