Page 13 - the NOISE April 2014

the sights and sounds of that high density recreation. So that’s a challenge but that’s one of my goals — to hear all those different voices. That’s one of the reasons I see for developing those already disturbed areas rather than having it sprawl out. We really try to balance it out across the district. We really need to be a forest that represents all those different recreation interests.
In Sedona, we have the Amendment 12 commitments that we made to the city — that is unique and not something you see in many other forests. I take those commitments really seri- ously. I spend a lot of my time working with people from the city and local organizations and recreation groups; listening to their interests and concerns.
That’s what I meant when I said I wanted to be some place where the Forest Service is really relevant to people. I certainly hope that if people have a concern they feel is not being met, they will reach out to me. What would be troublesome is if people have those concerns but they aren’t bringing them forward. I really believe in our process of having public input.
Speaking of public input, let me offer you kudos on your efforts with the air tour operators we’ve discussed before. Would you like to talk about that issue?
Sure — that is something unique about this position. I have this — it’s not a responsibility in that it’s not a duty assigned to me — but I have an interest in things I have no authority over; for example helicopter flights over the NF. Where I would have authority is if they were land- ing on the NF or if they were asking for a filming permit. I have had those requests and even denied them. To the extent I can control those overflights I do within the limits of my authority.
But there is this other aspect of being a member of the community where I have the oppor- tunity to engage people and not say “you can’t do this because there’s a regulation.” But what we’ve done is sit down with the air tour operators — and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the airport have facilitated these conversations — and we can say these are concerns. For example, where overflights might affect nesting birds or vibrations might affect cultural resources or noise affects recreational users.
We’ve had some real frank conversations and I’m hearing good things that the tour operators are making adjustments voluntarily. This subject is part of the new forest plan, so these efforts will continue.
The next challenge will be how to contact private operators and discuss our best manage- ment practices with them. I’m pleased with the results so far because we’re getting fewer phone calls with complaints. This is an example of bringing people together with seemingly irreconcilable differences and sitting down and finding solutions.
On February 9, 2012 — just a week after the Red Rock Ranger District revamped the Red Rock Pass system — the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling regarding USFS recreation fees. The case of Adams v. USFS, known also as the “Mt. Lemmon Decision,” ruled that the USFS has been charging fees where they are expressly prohibited by FLREA.
Specifically, the three judge panel ruled that, even where amenities are present at a forest site, if a visitor does not use the amenities, that visitor is not subject to recreation fees.
FLREA expressly prohibits fees “solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides; for persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horse- back riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the fa- cilities and services; and for camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services.”
Why is the Red Rock Pass still being presented as a requirement for visitors and locals alike to access public lands when a congressional mandate and court rulings say that users cannot be charged a fee to simply park their car and go hiking?
I disagree that the Red Rock Pass is being presented as a requirement to access public lands. The Red Rock Ranger District is over 500,000 acres in size. Recreation passes are required at just 17 of our most heavily used sites within that area. That leaves a lot of national forest that you can access without paying a fee.
For those visitors who want to simply park their car and go hiking, there are abundant oppor- tunities to do so outside of developed recreation sites. I see it as a choice those people make if they want to recreate in those areas and use those facilities, and take advantage of those facilities. But there are so many people who want to recreate on the District that it would be unfair for a hiker to take up a needed campsite in one of our campgrounds and then not pay a fee because they make a claim they are just hiking.
I think a lot of people who are purchasing passes are doing that as a show of support for preserving those sites and for reducing the effects of the enormous load of visitors and its impacts. I have heard concerns about recreation fees from the public, but honestly I hear from many more community members who are worried about water quality, human waste and soil erosion.
The inclusion of toilets, trash removal, and picnicking areas at existing sites helps mitigate that. Human waste is a significant health problem in this district, particularly where that waste may contaminate water. As more people use these sites more facilities are needed to reduce these negative impacts.
My job is to listen and make decisions weighing the impact of all our uses and the perspec- tives of all our visitors and local community members. We want the Red Rock Ranger District to represent outstanding high quality recreation management and natural resource protection, and sometimes that means responding to change, which is difficult for some people.
I think having the ability to supplement appropriated funds to manage those areas that get really intensive use helps us provide trash pickup that reduces both human waste and animal waste. I think having the fee program allows us to meet those concerns and provide the nec- essary facilities. Imagine what Bell Rock Pathway would look like if we didn’t have the ability to pick up trash there and have bathroom facilities and parking. Recreation fees are just one of the tools Congress has given us to address this enormous recreation load. I think, through case law, the way to implement that is being defined and that’s part of our process and we’re responding to that as it becomes clarified.
>> TO BE CONTINUED NEXT MONTH | Cindy Cole is a writer, photographer, hiker, and mother. cindy@thenoise.us
thenoise.us • the NOISE arts & news •
APRIL 2014 • 13