72°F
sponsored by:
FIND IT WITH OUR NEW DIRECTORY!
Click to activate search window!
Local    Subscribe to our feeds    Add to My Yahoo!
Advertisement

Advertising Info

Article Options

Comments (7 comment(s))  |  Email this story
Print this story  |  Discuss  |  Big Text  |  Normal Text
Current Rating:
0
   Number of Votes:
0
Rate:  |  |  | 
Save and Share  add to yahoo add delicious add to digg add to facebook add to reddit add to newsvine  
   How do I share?
Proposed Shawnee fee increases stir debate
BY BECKY MALKOVICH, THE SOUTHERN
Tuesday, March 4, 2008 10:48 PM CST
Proposed recreational fees, if approved, will help the Shawnee National Forest cope with rising costs, a shrinking budget and a scaled-back labor pool, a Shawnee official said.

While controversial, the Recreational Enhancement Act fee proposals will help maintain and improve trails, day use areas and campgrounds, Recreation Program Manager Tim Pohlman said.

The proposed fees at developed recreational facilities in the forest include a $5 per car per day fee at Johnson Creek and Pounds Hollow beach and picnic areas, Little Grand Canyon and Garden of the Gods and Bell Smith Springs interpretive and picnic sites.

Fees would also be increased by $5 or $6 at certain campgrounds including Johnson Creek group, Pine Hills, Pine Ridge, Camp Cadiz and Pharaoh.

A $5 per day fee is also proposed for equestrian use of designated trails in the Shawnee.

Frequent Shawnee visitors could purchase yearly passes at $50 for use of the trails or day use areas.

"The budget for developed recreation is down, while expenses are up. We pay the same price for gas and electricity as everybody else. Those two factors, coupled with the loss of the Senior and Community Service Employment program have put us where we are today," Pohlman said.

The SCSE program for many years provided the Shawnee with dozens of employees whose salaries were paid for by the U.S. Department of Labor, Pohlman said.

"As recently as five years ago, there were 50 people working in the program. They provided maintenance service - mowed grass, painted signs, picked up litter - basically cared for and tended the recreation sites in the forest at a vastly reduced price," he said. "Now there are just a couple of workers. That's made a huge difference. I can't stress enough how important they were."

To make up for the loss of workers, the forest has either reduced services or is forced to contract out for services, he said.

The budget has increased for designated trails in the past few years, but with a backlog of planned trail maintenance and reconstruction projects, Pohlman said there is no guarantee that the budget increases will continue long enough to complete all of the projects.

"We've done a lot of work, but there is much more to be done," he said. "The trails are our No. 1 priority. Equestrians are big customers for the forest and we want to accommodate that use. We are working diligently to bring the trails up to the standards of use they require."

Pohlman said he is aware of opposition to the proposed fees. Businesses that serve Shawnee visitors are concerned about the economic effect the fees might have, while county boards, including those in Hardin and Pope counties, are considering passing resolutions opposing the implementation of fees.

Users of the forest also have concerns about the proposed fees. At a recent informational meeting held by concerned citizens, some audience members expressed their distrust of the forest service and their doubts that the money would be used for the stated intentions.

"The Act is very specific about how the money is spent," Pohlman said. "Specific accounts must be set up; the money doesn't go into a general fund. The accounting side will be very transparent."

Ninety-five percent of the fees collected will be returned to the Shawnee and 80 percent must go back to the facilities where they were generated, he said.

Costs to administer fee collection cannot exceed 15 percent of the collected money.

The forest service must submit reports to Congress and the public annually detailing exactly how much money was collected and where it is spent.

"The forest service supervisor is committed to making sure people can see how their money is being spent," he said.

Public comment on the proposed fees will be accepted until April 15. After that, public comment will be scrutinized and the proposal will be modified, altered or left the same before reaching an advisory committee that will make a decision on whether to implement the fees.

If the proposal is accepted, fees could be put into place by fall at the earliest, although the Shawnee would likely wait until spring 2009, he said.

Comments and recommendations regarding the Shawnee National Forest's Recreation Enhancement Act fee proposals can be sent to Hurston A. Nicholas, Forest Supervisor, Shawnee National Forest, 50 Highway 145 South, Harrisburg, IL 62946 and must be submitted before April 15.

beckymalk@gmail.com

927-5633


Add Your Own Comments

No account? Register here!

If you already have, sign in below:
Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

 

Sensewithnocents wrote on Mar 5, 2008 1:38 PM:

" Of course it’s controversial, Tim! If everyone was rich there would be no controversy.

Over time, under the Fee program, popular sites will be developed to the max but more primitive recreation areas will go with little or no maintenance. A cycle of funds encouraging development is not wise, economically, or good for the Shawnee.

The old FS practice of “spend it” or “end it” will kick in and development in the Shawnee will never stop... or the FS will find ways waste Recreation Fees to justify the program.

And isn’t “volume visitation discount” actually illogical and a programmatic oxymoron? You mean, the more one visits the forest, the less impact they create? Of course, NOT! But, why doesn’t the FS get a volume discount on gas? Why did the FS lose the SCSE program? Bush’s, “all government is bad politics,” perhaps?

Imagine. Toilets of gold in “Pharoah Campground.” Overflowing toilets in Red Bud Ruins.

The Forest’s claim of so-called “transparency” is merely a glittering carrot intended to spark interest in private “Stewardship Contracts,” and “Partnerships.” In short, the FS “Fees” program is simply Capitalism vs Democracy.

Never mind what the people, aka taxpayers, want!
"

Scott Silver wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:50 PM:

" This article errs when it states that "Costs to administer fee collection cannot exceed 15 percent of the collected money."

That is a common misconception being promulgated by USFS personnel.

The law itself states: (c) Administration, Overhead, and Indirect Costs- The Secretary may use not more than an average of 15 percent of total revenues collected under this Act for administration, overhead, and indirect costs related to the recreation fee program by that Secretary.

The Forest Service is trying to reinterpret the law and have the public believe that the "costs to administer FEE COLLECTION" can not exceed 15 percent of revenues. In reality the cost to administer the entire "recreation fee program", including direct and indirect costs as well as all administrative expenses is capped at 15%.

The Forest Service is NOT meeting those requirements. The costs to administer the fee program far exceeds the 15% cap mandated by law. The USFS is thus in violation of the law, or so it does appear.

Would someone from the Forest Service care to comment???? "

Josephus wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:46 AM:

" The proposed fee plan is nothing more than a foot in the door for the privatization of public lands. It was set into motion by Reagan decades ago and is only now coming to fruit. It has been fought from the outset by environmentalists and only now are the so-called "wise users" coming to realize the implications. Anyone who has researched it knows that this is but the foot in the door for the "Disneyfication" of our public lands at the expense of the taxpayers and for the profit of corporations. This is in keeping with the Repubs and blue dog Dems promise to starve the gov. until it can be drowned in the tub. Halliburton and their ilk will love the results. But the vast majority of us will suffer the negative consequences. "

stop the squaking wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:37 AM:

" If paying small fees keeps what is open, open and possibly opens up more, just do it. Look at Rend Lake and all the closures there. If we want to be stubborn, we can lose out. Payment is expected at Crab Orchard and people still use those facilities. Quit the cackling, unify and keep the forest open for everybody! "

Bell Smith wrote on Mar 5, 2008 9:03 AM:

" I urge everyone who cares about the future of public land to oppose these fees. At first blush it may seem reasonable to ask people to pay for certain amenities. However, the history of this issue is clear that this is part of a long-range plan to privatize public land, turning over forested land to timber companies, grazing land out west to cattle companies, and turning over our jewels of recreation to concessionaires like the Disney corporation. This flies in face of the very reasons that this public land was set aside in the first place. Don't fall for this current fee proposal: please write a note to the Forest Service and your legislators opposing these fees. "

jason wrote on Mar 5, 2008 5:30 AM:

" The budget is down? Hmmmm could it be that federal tax cuts left less money for the forest service. I guess this is another part of Bush's legacy. Thanks Republicans! "

OMA wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:36 AM:

" There is a bill in the Senate that would end these Forest Service fees - S.2438 - Fee Repeal and Expanded Access Act (the FREA Act). The whole fee program only exists because Sen Stevens cut a deal for some pork on a must-pass appropriations bill. There was no public input and no debate and western Senators were opposed to the fees. FREA needs more co-sponsors, call your Senators today! More info is here:

http://www.i-world.net/oma/news/action-items/2008-03-fees.html "