There was an old Ranger who lived in a shoe.
He had so many campgrounds he
didn’t know what to do.
He gave them some space, with out any care
And hoped that come morning the money be there.
This month, the Sierra National Forest Rangers and Recreation Staff went through a very interesting planning exercise to look at the Recreation Facilities on the forest. The facilities were mostly campgrounds and picnic areas that can include toilets, tables, fire rings, water systems, parking places, signs, ampitheaters, and other items that need care and maintence. This planning process was initiated by national direction:
“Agency leadership is concerned about the continued erosion of the capacity of National Forest recreation sites to meet the needs of the recreating public.”
“In order to address this trend…the Washington Office staff worked to develop and pilot a process that will enable us to focus limited resources on our highest priority sites and facilities. The results of this effort will provide Forest Supervisors the information they need to improve quality recreation opportunities and reduce our deferred maintenance burden…”
From a January 14, 2005 letter to Regional Foresters, from David Holland, National Director of Recreation and Heritage Resources:
“If the annual work plan shows that the National Required Minimum Tasks can not be met during the period the site would be operated, the site will not be opened for the season… If one of the critical tasks associated with Health, Cleanliness, Safety or Security Standards is not met at any point during the operating season, the condition will be immediately corrected or the site will be closed.”
After a week of serious planning, cussing, discussing, whining, and philosophising, the final conclusion was the the Sierra National Forest has enough resources to sustain eleven (11) campgrounds. Eleven.
The 1982 forest Recreation Map lists 60 family campgrounds, ten (10) group recreation sites, and 22 single family picnic areas.
Do the math, that’s 11 of 92 sites.
I think it is safe to say that something is askew.
But what? We’re going to do a little tweaking to make sure the logic holds the process together, and maybe the answer goes up to maybe 15, pushing it 18 or 20. Then what?
“Once the Forest Leadership Team has finalized its prioritization and tiering of Recreation Sites, the next step of the Rec Site FMP process is to develop a Recreation Site 5-year Action Plan approved by the Forest Supervisor and sent to the Region Forest for concurrence.
The answer is that we do nothing. At least we will do nothing until the Forest Supervisor says so, or as Mike LeFevre put it “Till the pencil can’t squeeze out any more blood and we go deficit again, and someone has to put a stop to it.”
My favorite quote from the Recreation Facility Master Planning Process Guide:
“Has the Forest been realistic? Are you willing to sign a contract with the Regional Forester to implement these results, including closing or decommissioning sites?”
Are we going somewhere with this, or not?
——————————————————————————-
Cindy’s Sidebar Comment:
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I would
wear one by my side.
And if “ifs” and “ands”
Were pots and pans,
There’d be no work for tinkers!
—————————————————————————–