Fee Changes Proposed at Selected Forest Service Recreation Sites in Central Washington

[mister_coffee]

Based on past history with fee systems I am skeptical that increased fees will translate into an improved visitor experience.

[PAL]

About 8 yrs. ago we went up there and we lost the trail at one point because of all the brush. Started seeing old big cuts of downed trees ever so often and found the trail again. Higher up, it got better. The part we went on wasn't that steep, it didn't seem like. But it is remote. Ah, if people only knew...maybe it's better they don't. It used to go through over to Steheiken about 30 yrs, ago as Howard backpacked it. But it is rugged.
My goal was to reach the pass, but couldn't quite make it due to a thunderstorm that popped up. Was almost there and decided with all the rock to bag it.
There are only a few people that have any interest in it, so it is not worth it to maintain it.
Which brings up a touchy subject, which I have accepted. The trail to South Cr. will not be maintained past the cut-off to Louis Lk, from what I understand. Unless it is maintained from the other side up to Jack's property. It's Jack's right to not allow people passage, but I think I may have been most disappointed that the trail will not be maintained. I do think if people were to ask permission ahead of time, he would allow passage. But since the trail will deteriorate over time, people won't want to go up it. I wanted to go up, to try to find a bushwhack around his property, in a low water year, but my buddy hiker did not want to.
Will the increases be able to be used for maintenance? I still don't think so.

[Fun CH]

I broke my ankle on that trail near the base of the Reynolds Peak climb heading towards Renee pass a few years back. I had to climb over about 20 downed trees and it took a long time to get out.

Worst pain I've ever had.

The trail up to Renee pass ( I'll have to check the spelling) itself is kind of sketchy steep and loose. I imagine the reason it's not used is because it has seen very little maintenance.

[PAL]

So do you mean they will be doing trail maintenance? I guess they are doing the more popular ones, and some up Twisp River. We've lost some. They were going to put in a trail at the end of Little Bridge Cr.(the horsemen had a trail there) but the fires stopped that, from what I understand. They are only paying attention to the aquatics part of the Twisp Restoration Project. And the trail to Reynolds Pass will probably never be revived. I think it's just that people don't go up there and maybe that is good. It is some wild country up there.

[Fun CH]

Alf, I'm pretty sure the "new wealthy inhabitants" can afford the fees. The not so wealthy are going to be harmed by these new fees. Not that the Forest Service cares.

Pal, none of the increased income from trail fees will go towards maintenance. This was never the intended purpose of trail fees. The purpose of trail fees is three-fold, One: To pay for increased salaries for Forest Service personal and new, shiny trucks. Two: I believe the Forest Service is purposely trying to lower the amount of people using the roads and trails with the goal of keeping us proletariat servants off of Federally owned property. We are considered trespassers and a nuisance. Three: This agenda is being pushed by wealthy conservationists living in their condominium towers in downtown Seattle, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other liberal infested locales. They wouldn't know a tree from a skyscraper, a mountain stream from a Los Angeles, cement lined irrigation canal. But it makes them feel good to know they are helping to restore the Earth to a pristine condition which they will never see from high up in their Ivory Towers.

wow, that's a lot of politically motivated speculation short on facts.

The FS actually is mandated to promote recreation and they are spending a boat load of money building new trails along with that new 5 star horse camp at the loop and that poorly located snow park at Silver Star.

Personally I'd like to see FS personal driving around in the best equipped Vehicles out there and have more resources to manage our Forests.

My only qualms are that they use categorical exclusions to exclude public comment on a few high impact projects and have been unable to successfully mitigate the public health, safety, social and Environmental impacts of motorized the commercial heliski use of our wilderness quality mountains.

[PAL]

Gonzo right. I said nothing for maintenance. I too agree with what you said, mostly. There are wealthy conservationists here too. And I'm glad as they kept out the mining of the mountain top. But then, poor people are pushed out. Some of the groups are aligning themselves with the housing situation. A little late.
Didn't Congress use to budget funds for the FS? Not much anymore.

[Gonzo'57]

Alf, I'm pretty sure the "new wealthy inhabitants" can afford the fees. The not so wealthy are going to be harmed by these new fees. Not that the Forest Service cares.

Pal, none of the increased income from trail fees will go towards maintenance. This was never the intended purpose of trail fees. The purpose of trail fees is three-fold, One: To pay for increased salaries for Forest Service personal and new, shiny trucks. Two: I believe the Forest Service is purposely trying to lower the amount of people using the roads and trails with the goal of keeping us proletariat servants off of Federally owned property. We are considered trespassers and a nuisance. Three: This agenda is being pushed by wealthy conservationists living in their condominium towers in downtown Seattle, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other liberal infested locales. They wouldn't know a tree from a skyscraper, a mountain stream from a Los Angeles, cement lined irrigation canal. But it makes them feel good to know they are helping to restore the Earth to a pristine condition which they will never see from high up in their Ivory Towers.

[mister_coffee]

Agreed that the trash situation was awful in 2020, and to a lesser extent it was awful last summer too.

My own feeling is that the additional trailhead fees are adding insult to injury. We already have to pay for the Northwest Forest Pass. And it isn't like trail or trailhead maintenance has improved in any significant way since those fees are introduced.

It is also interesting to me that the National Parks (at least NOCA) checked out of the Northwest Forest Pass because the fee income didn't match the administrative costs of participating in the program.

[PAL]

One of my 1st thoughts was that we do have people that come here to live in the forests because they may have work but no place to live. I've seen numerous camps in designated areas as well as spots where people can camp/live that are free, but have no toilet facilities, which is ok in my book, as long as the waste is disposed of properly.
Sadly the 1st year of Covid brought people over not experienced being in the woods and I saw alot of "trash". These little trash heaps could well have been from recreationalists and not those living in the woods.
Increasing the fees will only pay for administrative salaries, IMO, as we hardly see any trail maintenance. And barely road maintenance unless we have a fire. The trail maintenance we do see is done by the Backcountry Horsemen and other volunteers. Ray's posting does say they are accepting comments on fees, so best get a letter started.

[pasayten]

Fee Changes Proposed at Selected Forest Service Recreation Sites in Central Washington
Release Date: May 7, 2021

The Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proposing to raise fees and establish new fees at certain Forest Service recreation sites in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and the Tonasket Ranger District of the Colville National Forest and is soliciting comments from the public now through July 31, 2021.

Fee changes are being considered to allow the forest to continue to provide services, such as garbage collection and drinking water, and to provide for the health and public safety expected by visitors at recreation sites. These fees will also be used for large scale maintenance and improvement projects at sites where fees are collected.

“Raising fees will help offset the increased costs of maintenance at the sites,” said Forest Recreation Program Manager Suzanne Cable. “The last time fee increases occurred on recreation sites in the Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest was in 2010.”

Public input on the proposed changes is a welcome and a valued part of the overall process. Forest Service staff will evaluate and later present the public comments and input to a citizen advisory committee. The advisory committee will review all recommended fee changes before making recommendations to Forest Service Regional Forester Glenn Casamassa, top manager over all national forests in Oregon and Washington. Changes would not go into effect until after Casamassa’s approval.

“Once approved, the dates the fee changes go into effect will vary,” Cable said. “We don’t plan to increase fees at all approved locations at the same time.”

The proposal includes changing fees at over 60 recreation sites including campgrounds, lookouts, trailheads, and rental cabins across the forest and establishing new fees at 25 sites. Sites with proposed changes can be found at this link:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/rec-fee-proposal

“Recreation fees and money collected from overnight rentals and campgrounds is kept on the forest to operate and maintain these sites. Besides routine operation and maintenance, monies are used to chip away at major projects to reduce backlog maintenance, fix old or install new picnic tables and toilets, and more,” Cable said.

Forest Service staff hope to present the proposed fee changes to members of the Resource Advisory Committee for review fall or winter of 2021. The public is welcome to comment in writing prior to advisory committee meetings. The exact meeting times, location, and agenda will be announced on the forest website and through local media.

Comments on the proposed fee increases should be mailed to:

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest
ATTN: Recreation Fees/Suzanne Cable
215 Melody Lane
Wenatchee, WA 98801

Or emailed to SM.FS.FeeProposal@usda.gov

Comments must be received by July 31, 2021 to be considered.

Questions on fees proposed for specific sites should be directed to the District where that site is located.

Chelan Ranger District.....509-682-4900
Cle Elum Ranger District.....509-852-1100
Entiat Ranger District.....509-784-4700
Methow Valley Ranger District.....509-996-4000
Naches Ranger District.....509-653-1401
Wenatchee River Ranger District.....509-548-2550
Tonasket Ranger District (Colville).....509-486-2186