Acting Forest Supervisor Brent Handley announced last week the public comment period for proposed changes to local campground sites outlined in the Forest Service's “Recreation Site Facility Master Planning” (RSFMP) report has been extended until April 15.
According to Handley, Sequoia National Forest officials “are taking a more focused look at developed recreation sites.” The original cut off date for public input was March 1. However, amid residents' growing demand to be heard and the public hue and cry that the gutting of campgrounds would have a drastic negative effect on the fragile economic, recreational and environmental landscapes unique to the Kern River Valley, Handley issued a statement saying, “(We) invite the public to continue to participate in the evaluation process. We are committed to ensuring the public has more time to help us explore alternative ways of operating the sites that are most important to them.”
 Each year thousands of vistors enjoy the Sequoia National Forest. Local campgrounds are in danger of being stripped of amenities. |
The crux of the problem, according to Sequoia National Forest officials, is the agency's inability to operate and maintain current campground sites with the resources it currently has. The USFS cites, on its website, the “Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 budget request for the Forest Service totals $4.13 billion...a $64.25 million decrease from FY 2007. The FY 2008 budget responds to our Nation's priorities of fighting the War on Terror and reducing the Federal deficit while it maintains funding levels for priority agency programs.”
Without enough money for annual maintenance, the work is put off and becomes what is known as “deferred maintenance,” which, according to Sequoia National Forest officals, continues to increase each year.
However, according to reports issued by (WSNFC) Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, a Durango, Colo.-based group opposed to the nationwide Forest Service makeover, the RSFMP evaluates the sustainability, i.e. profitability, of recreation sites and mandates they have a “marketable niche.” The process began as early as 2002, and according to WSNFC president Robert Funkhouser, was not authorized by Congress, despite legal requirements that “management actions on public lands that alter the human condition or create severe economic impacts to local communities be subject to public review under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act).” There has been no Congressional oversight.
The Forest Service's solution to the ongoing shortfall is to reduce deferred maintenance by more than 54 percent over the next five years. This, they say, can be accomplished by converting 52 developed campground sites to “concentrated use areas (CUAs), decommissiong (eliminating) additional sites where “development would no longer exist,” and leaving 54 developed sites as they are now.
Converting developed campground sites to CUAs would result in visitors “...mainly see(ing) a change in services and facilities; no water, tables, or grills would be provided. In many cases, restrooms would remain. Many people camp in self-contained units, and they may not miss the reduced services and facilities. However, others do not have self-contained units, and they will miss those facilities and services on which they have come to rely. Flush toilets will be removed, and SSTs (portable toilets) will be installed in their place. Showers will be removed. While some people may not be happy with the changes, they will allow us to operate these areas to standard.”
The propsal goes on to state, “The conversion to CUAs will have less impact to users than closing or decommissioning the sites. For sites at Lake Isabella, in particular, the reduction of facilities may be unpopular with some members of the public and elected officials. However, elimination of fees would be very popular.”
The Forest Service's national goal is to further reduce deferred maintenance - 90 percent by 2020. “Such a reduction would require cutting deeper into the developed sites program, which would actually be a disservice to the public,” according to the Forest Service plan.
The status of developed sites, such as Camp 9, is of great concern to Rick Dancing and others of the Community Recreation Commonwealth (CRC), a local non-profit group formed in 1997 to act as a community-focused concessionaire for Camp 9. According to Dancing, “We're constantly improving the site; we've never had a better year, financially.” But the group's efforts to secure their permit for this year have become a bureaucratic nightmare. “The Forest Service personnel have all the authority, but there is not accountability,” Dancing said.
Kathy Johnson, Forest Service Permit Manager, said March 9, “At this point, I'm not sure if they have a permit.” She referred questions to Acting District Ranger Margie Clack, but numerous calls to her office were not returned. According to Danding, the Forest Service has three signed copies of their permit, and is wondering why it hasn't been issued.
The first instruction in the Forest Service's Concessionaire handbook directs “agency personnel to develop an effective business relationship with Permit Holders,” Dancing said.
Longtime Valley residents like Richard Brun are left wondering, “Whay happened to the Forest Service's mission to ‘Provide high quality outdoor recreational opportunities to meet the nation's recreational demands?'"
The Sun will continue to follow the story as events unfold. Next week's issue will report on the “Community Crossroads Project” meeting scheduled March 17 at the Senior Center.
Comments
No comments posted.