The current law allows a Standard Amenity (day-use) fee for an "area" that contains six amenities: picnic table, trash container, toilet, developed parking, interpretive exhibit, and security services. The FS has taken the word "area" and used that Standard Amenity Fee authority to draw a circle around as much as 160,000 acres of public land (Red Rock Pass High Impact Recreation Area, Sedona AZ), and call that the "area" because somewhere in there they have the six amenities. Never mind that they might be scattered around, or that the closest toilet might be ten miles away from your dispersed campsite; all 160,000 acres require a fee. This of course is absurd, and was recently found illegal by a federal magistrate; nevertheless it continues in that HIRA and over 90 others nationwide.

So that definition is not working very well. What should the definition be? Or should we be able to use a picnic table and a toilet for no fee at all, as co-owners of the land and taxpayers who contribute to its management?

I don't know if you can precisely define an "area" in which day-use fees should be charged. The FS needs to, on a case-by-case basis, figure out exactly how far the negative impact of the amenities extends. Any hiker knows that areas closer to parking lots, picnic areas, etc. are more littered than those further out. I'm not sure that legislation can establish a generic enough distance.

I personally do not mind paying for a back-country permit or a day use fee. The problem that I have with day-use fees in many areas is the the FS outsources administration to 3rd party vendors. These 3rd parties are by no means not-for-profit agencies, inflating the costs of these fees. Nobody should be making a profit off of public land! Any fee collected should go back directly into preserving the land for future use.

I don't really have a problem with 3rd party operators as long as we get the services that the fee is supposed to include e.g. litter pick-up, clean toilets, defined parking. For this to work properly, the Forest Service has to retain oversight and authority to demand compliance by the private operators...something I think they are often unable or unwilling to do.

It has nothing to do with unwilling or unable to do. At the ground level (those of us who actually patrol the campgrounds) have nothing to do with the campground (except if LEOs are needed) once the third party takes over. The only time we'll even go in there is if we're passing by to just show a presence.

The reason for this is that it's up to the third party to take care of and maintain that campground. The ones who do this is the host. They get paid to do that, it's their job (even though most of them are retired and unable to do all the work). We at the ground level do not help because we have other things to do in the field. We cannot take time to do what the third party is getting paid to do and is supposed to do.

If the campground is not concessionaired, and it's a regular FS volunteer CG host, then we'll help with the trash pickup, clean toilets, ect... because it is still our CG.

In other words, as far as the ground level FS folks are involved, once the CG is concessionaired off, it is no longer our CG.

"The reason for this is that it's up to the third party to take care of and maintain that campground. The ones who do this is the host. They get paid to do that, it's their job (even though most of them are retired and unable to do all the work). We at the ground level do not help because we have other things to do in the field. We cannot take time to do what the third party is getting paid to do and is supposed to do."

No, I'm not suggesting that you on the front lines do someone else's job for them. What I am saying is that if the host is not doing his job, then his boss (the concessionaire) should be taking action. If he is not doing his job (complying with his contract) then FS management should be stepping in and ensuring that the job is done properly by the concessionaire.

This illustrates perfectly what's wrong with the concessionaire system. If the FS simply contracted with someone to pick up the trash and clean the toilets, that would be transparent to the visitors and might actually save the taxpayer some money. Instead they transfer de facto ownership to a private company that is in business to make money and wash their hands of the place after that. We the owners get higher prices and shortened seasons. All of this is decided internally to the FS without the public having any voice in the decision.

The public does have a say. And believe it or not, the FS does take notice. Problem is, not many people put in their voice.

You only have a certain amount of time to input your voice, and you can out in an appeal. And during an appeal, the whole FS management level folks have to sit down with you (and your lawyer if you chose to have one) and discuss their actions.

I encourage the public to get more involved, because if you don't then the folks behind the desks will do what they want (and need) to do. Public input is bigger than most think.

Exactly when and how does the public get a say? You are describing the Notice-Comment-Appeal procedure specified in NEPA, but the issuing of a prospectus for concessionaire management is done as an entirely administrative matter under the Granger-Thye Act. It doesn't have to go through NEPA, or at least so the FS contends. There is generally no publicity involved at all unless the public picks up on some controversial aspect of the prospectus, which usually happens by accident. In those cases, yes, the FS sometimes responds to the resulting bad publicity because that is one thing they hate. Case in point going on right now is Bagby Hot Springs on the Mt Hood. Unless there is that bad publicity that can't be squelched, it's public be damned.

Sites can be included in a prospectus that have never gone through the FLREA process for new fee approval. Concessionaires are allowed to charge fees that the FS is prohibited from charging, and they don't have to accept federal passes that the FS would be required to honor. I'm not seeing where the public fits into that picture.

As to people not getting involved, that is largely because of meeting fatigue and comment fatigue. You can only go to so many meetings where you are not listened to, or submit so many comments that get twisted or ignored, before you write the whole process off and move on to more productive endeavors. If the FS wanted more public participation (which I doubt) they would not start every public process with a foregone conclusion.