More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by Water » January 9th, 2020, 3:06 pm

drm wrote:
January 8th, 2020, 7:12 pm
Water wrote:
January 7th, 2020, 1:08 pm
Please explain to me how if the goal is to match this, creating new facilities and service maintenance costs helps arrive at matching available resources? Are they trying to suggest revenues gained after building bathrooms and installing picnic tables, and having trash service at new trailheads that currently do not have these costs associated will both pay for all activities at those trailheads AND more, in order to address other expenses?
I generally agree, but that is coming from people who don't use these facilities much if at all. The blowback they get for suggesting closing almost anything is enormous. There are always a chunk of people who have been using those facilities since their daddy took them there in 1965 and it's the absolute only place they want to go. I exaggerate a bit, but you get the point. There is one CG they are proposing closing on the NE side of Indian Heaven.
Thanks for trying to work/discuss this with me, DRM. As obviously I am way more critical of the FS (unnecessarily so, from your view). But What is coming from the people that use those facilities. I guess what I don't understand is why when you look at a map from 20 or 40 years ago, you see more camp grounds than you do today? As usage has gone up, developed use has gone down it seems. I have heard about those folks fixated on one spot, but I would ask really, so why are they removing them? people don't use them enough? And we repeatedly hear usage is up in our national forests. What's the disconnect here? Is there something specific why people don't want to use the campground? Ok in that case I understand maybe it just doesn't work (soggy spots, road noise, spots too close, etc).

But if we broadly say there is less to put into facilities because any confluence of logging revenues, congressional appropriation, and FS internal budgeting changes which negatively affects supporting these facilities, then why oh why would their future plans INCLUDE building new facilities?? They're going to spend $155k on developing 5 trailheads alone that will cost how much to service each year?

It's totally unacceptable and borderline disingenuous to tell the public they can't tell us costs for things or even averages of different slices, but they know exactly how much money they cost to build and in snowgrass's case, they arrive at an exact number of revenue it will generate $6500. (it doesn't say but I'm going to assume annually). The money coming in is to a T and the money going out is just a big mess? That's not a good look either. If they can't quantify it and share it, why would the public trust their numbers that they're going to reduce the overall upkeep costs, even while building new facilities?

craziness
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by drm » January 19th, 2020, 8:44 am

Are they building many new facilities? I thought they were mostly replacing degraded facilities in those cases.

Nonetheless, there is plenty of craziness and irrationality going on. FS personnel have only so much leeway within the broader themes set far away.

I also think there has been a large increase in dispersed car camping and related activities. This presents a problem because the FS is in no position to manage dispersed road activities, even to designate dispersed car camping sites, which would then require some level of management - another new burden. But a lot of decisions affect those activities.

As to better/more facilities in the past, there were fewer fires to fight and more timber money coming in. The dollars-to-visitors ratio was much higher then.

chrisca
Posts: 107
Joined: January 22nd, 2010, 10:48 am

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by chrisca » February 18th, 2020, 11:33 pm

I track these numbers. Here's the GPNF collections & carryover.
GPNF Expenses.jpg
GPNF Carryover.jpg

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by drm » February 20th, 2020, 7:22 am

Carry overs just means they were't spent. They may be committed to multi-year projects, projects still in extended planning phases, etc.

johnspeth
Posts: 346
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 8:33 am

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by johnspeth » February 20th, 2020, 8:52 am

drm wrote:
February 20th, 2020, 7:22 am
Carry overs just means they were't spent. They may be committed to multi-year projects, projects still in extended planning phases, etc.
That's true but there appears to be a disturbing trend: The USFS is stockpiling funding instead of spending it. Wouldn't that alarm the government accountants?

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14395
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by retired jerry » February 20th, 2020, 9:07 am

or, it's financially conservative to have a reserve fund in case funding is lower for one year

they've now accumulated about 2 years worth of expenses, maybe that's unnecessarily large

I can see it both ways

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3710
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by adamschneider » February 20th, 2020, 2:06 pm

retired jerry wrote:
February 20th, 2020, 9:07 am
I can see it both ways
Dammit, Jerry, that's not how it works on the Internet! You must be RIGHT or WRONG, and destroy your enemies! ;)

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14395
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by retired jerry » February 20th, 2020, 2:51 pm

I guess I don't make a very good internet troll? :)

I'm so wishy washy

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by Water » July 19th, 2022, 12:09 pm

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/giffordp ... RD1043504
here's your new fees

and for all their 'backlog of maintenance' in order to enact new fees at places that are currently free, they're going to have build pit toilets, service them, weekly service for trash removal/TP stocking, etc. endless NEW maintenance outlays. Because people won't vandalize the kiosks, bathrooms, trees and snow won't damage them.. sure. smart move GPNF! build new things!
What is the difference between free and fee recreation sites?
Many recreation sites offer limited amenities or visitors services and are free of charge. Other sites charge recreation fees; in exchange, these recreation areas offer visitor services and amenities such as restroom facilities, trash collection, visitor security, and interpretive services.

As required by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), proposed new fee sites either already have all the required amenities, or the required amenities will be installed prior to charging the fee.

If the proposed changes in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest fee proposal are implemented, about 70 percent of the 234 developed recreation sites on the Forest would remain non-fee or free of charge.
visitor security! always looking for that one


And yes they are considering the 'monument pass', because everybody has been complaining it's just too straight forward to figure out what passes and permits are needed, especially those in the portland metro area where there's different state agencies on either side of the river.
The fee proposal includes a proposed change at Johnston Ridge Observatory (JRO). The current fee at JRO is $8 per person (16 and older). One option is a proposed change to $12 per person (16 and older). The full suite of Interagency Passes will continue to allow the pass holder (with valid ID) plus 3 persons into JRO. The other option is a Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument Pass (Monument Pass). The Monument Pass is being proposed at $30 per private vehicle, or $25 per motorcycle. The Monument Pass would be good for seven days, valid at JRO, and at all day use sites within the National Volcanic Monument boundary. The Northwest Forest Pass (NWFP) would also be accepted at all sites within the National Volcanic Monument boundary, except at JRO.
this is so stupid, just sell a NWFP to people that is good for a year. If it's a matter of keeping funds in the monument, maybe the administrators who get paid to do a job can figure out how the hell to allocate their NW forest pass funds better, it's not like a new pass creates new money out of thin air, unless they're trying to catch people re-buying the monument pass since it expires after 7 days..
Feel Free to Feel Free

jvangeld
Posts: 156
Joined: May 29th, 2018, 6:36 pm
Location: Proebstel, WA

Re: More fees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Post by jvangeld » July 20th, 2022, 12:19 pm

visitor security! always looking for that one
I got on the GIS commenting site, and here it a typical fee proposal:
Marble Mountain Shelter
Site Name Marble Mountain Shelter
Site Type GROUP PICNIC SITE
Forest Gifford Pinchot National Forest
District Mount St. Helens Nvm
Proposed Action New Fee
Area Description This site is located on Forest Road 83, and is situated between many popular sites on Mount St Helens, such as Ape Cave, June Lake, Ape Canyon and Lava Canyon.

Amenities No Fire Device, Paved Access Road, Paved Parking, Pavillion without Utilities, Security: Respond to Emergencies Only, Vault Toilet.

Other Amenties Recreation opportunities adjacent, Site has few things that need to be replaced.

Proposed Changes Fee Per Night: Current: $0 Proposed: $100 Group Size: 100
The best I can tell, "Respond to Emergencies Only" is the default response for almost the entire forest, whether it is a fee site or not. But since that response exists in theory, apparently it can be listed as an amenity.
Jeremy VanGelder - Friends of Road 4109

Post Reply