Recreation Site Analysis

• To create a more sustainable developed recreation program.
• Enable us to focus limited resources on our highest priority sites and facilities and reduce our operating costs and deferred maintenance burden.
• Inform and involve the community throughout the process and provide all stakeholders an opportunity to participate in the effort.
• Encourage constituents to become active participants in Forest stewardship.
• Provide a foundation for regional and national support when planned program changes are implemented.
• Invest in a facility only if it can be financially sustained in the long-term.
• Update databases prior to and throughout the planning and implementation phases to improve future cost evaluations and data accuracy.

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest’s overall recreation budget today is over half a million dollars less than it was a decade ago, and costs have increased. While the RSA evaluates just the developed recreation site portfolio and recommends actions that will allow the agency to provide safe and sustainable facilities, other components of the recreation program must also use the same funding. When coupled with continually increasing operations and maintenance costs, the Forest faces decreasing capacity to manage all aspects of the Forest’s recreation program such as wilderness, trails, waysides, rentals, administration of outfitter/guides, concessionaires, visitor information, dispersed uses, and other recreation services.

RSA evaluates the relative sustainability of each of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest’s developed recreation sites by balancing visitor needs with management costs, public input and other factors. The goal is to manage facilities to standard and within budget without sacrificing the quality of facilities and services, public safety, or creating unacceptable impacts to natural resources.

• Operate high-quality sites on the Forest while increasing operational efficiency by leveraging concessions, partners, volunteers, grants, and fees, where practical.
• Decrease recreation site deferred maintenance backlogs.
• Identify sites and site features to repair/replace/reconstruct based on conditions such as middle-higher rank on the prioritized list of sites, moderate deferred maintenance, low service cost per visitor, moderate to high occupancy, designated high value special site category, high potential to protect resources long term.
• Identify sites and constructed features to close/decommission based on conditions such as low rank on the prioritized list of sites, poor facility condition, high level of deferred maintenance, high cost per visitor, low occupancy, and low potential for resource damage if the site is closed.
• Bring all Forest recreation site conditions up to agency standards for quality and public health and safety.

The RSA is based upon the best available budget projections which currently project steady or slightly declining annual recreation budgets.

We reached out through in-person meetings, media, website and social media, stakeholder letters, key stakeholders and groups, local government officials, and involvement with Forest collaborative groups.

Priority rankings and preliminary site recommendations were shared with interested stakeholders and local governments. The public had an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the 6-year Draft Program of Work.

Placing a value on the importance of a site to local communities was initially evaluated through staff knowledge of the facilities and use patterns. Public input will also be used to develop the 5-year Draft Program of Work.

RSA evaluations take into account social, ecological, and economic values of specific sites to provide context of their importance and potential for long-term sustainability. Twelve questions are answered for each site, resulting in a ranking from 12 (lowest) to 60 (highest). Although the rankings are useful for prioritizing sites and maintaining consistency in applying RSA principles across the Forest, the rankings are not binding as to decision-making.

Tough decisions will have to be made if the repair is costly and funding isn’t available. Water systems or toilet buildings may have to be closed, and in some cases, sites may be closed until repairs can be made.

A niche, or vision statement describes the forest’s specific recreation focus reflecting public demand and unique ecological features of the land. It helps a forest narrow its focus to what will create the most public value with limited resources. The Gifford Pinchot NF niche statement was developed in advance of the 2008 Recreation Facility Analysis and was recently updated. Recreation sites were evaluated on how well they line up with the niche statement.

The niche statement describes the forest as a combination of easily accessed day use opportunities in several key gateway areas and along primary travelways, with an abundance of more rustic and remote backcountry landscapes off the beaten path. The proximity of the forest to nearby urban population centers allows the Forest to connect with millions of visitors annually, while supporting tourism and quality of life for local residents. The niche further identifies four important niche settings, each with a distinct flavor of desired recreation settings, opportunities, and types of developed recreation sites.

• The Gateway setting allow for direct connections between adjacent communities to the Forest and convenient access for visitors with sites designed for high concentrations of visitor use and offering a welcoming portal to the Forest and Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. From the Gateways, well maintained and signed Forest Travelways progress further into the forest, and are widely known and frequently used by forest visitors. The Forest Travelways settings offer many highly developed campgrounds and day use sites providing front-country experiences and opportunities, and provide important access to less developed backcountry and wilderness areas on the forest. Extensive Backcountry areas on the forest offers a sense of independence and self-reliance with more rustic and low development roads, recreation sites, and trails that directly or indirectly support dispersed and backcountry types of recreation opportunities. Designated wildernesses and similarly managed backcountry areas offer visitors an experience of remoteness and isolation.

The desirability criteria included whether a site was located next to water or other unique attractions, and looked at how close a site was to other recreational opportunities (trails, scenic views, historical features, etc.). The evaluation criteria used are available to those interested in learning more about the process.

Examples of external funding sources include fees from recreation pass sales collected at fee sites, as well as and special use permits and concessionaire programs, federal/state/local grants, and in-kind or other contributions from partner groups. Other providers could also include local government partners, community clubs/groups, or individuals contributing as volunteers.

Site condition surveys are conducted regularly and maintenance needs and then recorded in the agency’s facility database. These numbers are used to help determine if continued investment is warranted, or whether a site needs changes to make it economically or environmentally sustainable.

It is critical to note that public health and safety are paramount in site management and cannot be compromised. Routine condition surveys will continue to be conducted for all facilities to prioritize safety-related issues. The RSA proposes mitigation measures for some sites, including safety measures within floodplains, removal of hazardous trees, repair or removal of deteriorated facilities, etc. For example, if staff cannot service a toilet adequately or frequently enough, closure and removal of toilet facilities can improve public health and safety. In addition, floodplain delineation will determine if part or all of any sites are at risk of flooding, and site adjustments would be made accordingly.

Standards and guidelines for site management are covered in other existing Forest Service regulations and policies. The RSA is designed to help the Forest meet these standards and guidelines by balancing management needs of developed recreation sites with available staffing and budget. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis will be conducted to address any significant site alterations proposed in the Final RSA Program of Work.

The RSA is based on the best available projections of agency budgets and available resources over the next six years.

Yes. Changes in service levels or significantly altering some sites may have unintended consequences that will be evaluated prior to implementation. Many sites were originally developed to meet a need evidenced by use patterns and impacts to specific areas. The RSA weighed the pros and cons of retaining, changing, or decommissioning certain amenities to make sure facilities can continue to accommodate use and reduce impacts to acceptable levels.

No. Actually, the objective is to have better sites for the public to use. Better sites would free up resources to address other challenges such as impacts of dispersed uses. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest is working towards having a moderate number of high quality sites, rather than having a large number of sites, many of which are seldom used and don’t meet a high standard of quality. Quality is better than quantity is the basic premise. The forest considered numerous factors in evaluating each developed recreation site. These considerations were related to how well a site supports the recreation needs of the public on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, the role that site plays in the local community, community input, and the site’s relationship to the environment.

No, but recreation opportunities on national forests are provided in many ways. Currently, some of our developed recreation facilities are operated and maintained by private concessionaires selected through a competitive process. Other sites are operated and maintained by the Forest Service and supported through the efforts of volunteers and non-profit partnerships.

Private interests providing recreation opportunities on public lands is a long-standing practice and is one of several options a forest might consider when determining how to best manage a particular recreation site. It makes sense, in some cases, to have private interests, who have the resources, the business savvy, and a good visitor service ethic to operate desired recreation opportunities like daily management of campgrounds, caves, and visitor facility locations.

Concession operation is one option a national forest considers when determining how to best manage a particular recreation site. Outfitter and Guides can provide a variety of services for many recreation activities. These types of management options can provide economic opportunities for local community members and increase recreational access to the forest.

Yes. The Forest may consider increasing fees at existing fee sites, or consider establishing a fee at some sites where a fee is not currently charged to help ensure that the developed recreation site remains available and well maintained for the public to use and enjoy. The goal is to be able to continue to provide the services and facilities that visitors expect and that meet health and safety standards. The Forest will conduct additional public involvement for every fee change that is proposed through the RSA process.

Trails and Dispersed Recreation are the next two program areas the forest plans to evaluate to ensure a sustainable program in those areas.