Page 12 - the NOISE May 2014

NICOLE BRANTON:RAY
NEW DISTRICT RANGER DEFENDS RED ROCK PASS AMID ‘DOUBLE TAXATION’ OUTCRY FROM LOCAL NATURALISTS
INTERVIEW BY CINDY COLE
In September 2013, the Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest received a new District Ranger. Nicole Branton took over the district after serving as an archeologist on the Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland (ARP). I had the opportunity to interview Ms. Branton about her new job. This is the second half of that interview.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that there is no fee for ‘no amenity’ use. At Mt. Lem- mon, they have had to make adjustments to their recreation areas — to accommodate visitors that want to, for example, hike a trail but have no need for the facilities. The appeals court says the law means what it says but the Red Rock Ranger District has held firm to fee sites, and has not provided options for trailhead access to visitors who don’t want to use facilities. Yet there has been no accom- modation for access to trailheads and the Forest Service has been told by the courts it can’t charge a fee just for access. Is the Red Rock Ranger District denying access to certain trailheads by continuing to require fees?
I see what you’re getting at — again I disagree that we’re denying access. You’re right that we’re not building additional parking areas that would be free parking areas immediately ad- jacent to fee parking. Again that comes down to balancing that use versus the resource pro- tection. And I think a lot of times here especially around Sedona the people issues can really overwhelm the resource issues.
We have to be responsible to both of those. I think that to double up parking areas at every fee site so we could have a second area available — I don’t think that would be environmen- tally responsible for us to do in terms of resource impact.
Now where you will see that for example is at Beaver Creek. There we have a concessionaire site with a fee as well as a separate free parking area. I think that if we were in a different land- scape with different soil and water concerns and different topography, it might be possible to do that in other places. But again I think that would be adding a burden to the taxpayers for maintaining that additional area and I don’t think that would be responsible action.
So just to clarify about the Beaver Creek changes — will there still be a free parking area on the opposite side of the road from where the new day use site managed by RRM requires a fee?
Yes, we explicitly and deliberately made the decision to keep the fee free parking area at the Beaver Creek location. That concern has been heard.
So that speaks to the 9th Circuit Court decision which it should be remembered was delivered 8 days after the new Red Rock Pass system was put into place. I would love to see that type of accom- modation in other areas around the Red Rock Ranger District. I realize that there are challenges for that to be accomplished but in Mt. Lemmon what they did in some areas was to take the existing parking areas and just divide them in half making one side fee free and the other side fee required. So there doesn’t necessarily need to be new construction to make that happen.
Yes, there are a lot of engineering aspects that come into play there and at Mt. Lemmon, they have a little more space to do that. We’re certainly trying to do that where we can. But the big issue that we have to get our head around is people’s parking behavior here. I hear so much about parking problems around here.
So is the fee being used as a deterrent to keep more people from going in to certain areas?
Oh no, I don’t think it’s being used as a deterrent. Again, I think people are making choices about where to recreate. I think there are a lot of other opportunities on the forest. I think that people think the Red Rock Ranger District is this corridor around Sedona — Cathedral Rock and Bell Rock — but it’s a tremendously large district and the forest is 1.3 million acres. That’s a lot of other opportunities. So I don’t think it’s a deterrent. I think having that fee is one of the tools Congress has given us to address the maintenance load that comes with having that intense amount of recreational use.
PHOTOS BY CHARLES SEIVERD
And you don’t see any issues with that fee being given the appearance of being mandatory when in fact there are certain activities users are engaging in that the courts have ruled the fee is not required?
I don’t. I don’t think it’s being presented as mandatory, personally. It’s a little unfair for some- body to go into an area that has this really high use and take up a spot in a campground, for example, and then say,“Well I was just hiking,”because that is taking away an opportunity from somebody else to camp and use all those facilities. That’s my personal opinion but I just don’t see it being presented as mandatory to recreate on the National Forest.
Is this District actively issuing tickets for people who don’t display Red Rock Passes in the form of Violation Notices and/or Notice of Required Fees at designated fee sites?
I probably shouldn’t comment on a law enforcement issue. You might ask our patrol captain, John Nelson, to comment on that. Law enforcement doesn’t actually work for me. They are part of the Forest Service but they are “stove piped” and don’t work for me. I work closely with them
but he would have a better sense on whether or not it’s appropriate to comment on that issue. I would say the Red Rock Pass represents a visitor’s statement of value and a commitment to support the Red Rock area. We have had visitors from all over the country (and the world) buy these passes. The public support for the Red Rock Pass program is woven right into the design of the program. The Red Rocks recreation fee program requires coordination with the Arizona
Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RecRAC) and is the result of an extensive and ongo- ing public process. The RecRAC holds us accountable for gathering public input on how we manage the fee program and we have been very responsive to their requests. For example, the RecRAC has asked the Red Rock Ranger District to designate fee-free days when no passes are required and we have added several for 2014.
In fact, we are presenting an updated business plan to the RecRAC this spring and I welcome any comments your readers have on the fee program. The RecRAC is the public input piece Congress wisely put into FLREA when they created that law. So again, I think that speaks to whether this is a mandatory fee and whether the public supports it.
You brought up the point that some people are concerned about this and some people see it as a double taxation. But FLREA and the RecRAC hold our feet to the flame as far as showing that the public supports our fees or any changes to our sites. And I think the fact they have approved them demonstrates that. While I don’t disagree that some people don’t like how it’s being carried out, but if they felt that the public didn’t support it, they wouldn’t let us do it.
I might argue that’s not always the case. While our RecRAC has been a little more diligent at times, we have to remember the Mt. Lemmon decision came 8 days after the new fee system was imple- mented here in the RRRD ... So the RecRAC had come here — and they made some tough decisions
— but they did not have that knowledge when they approved the new fee system.
And there was still disagreement among the members that there was adequate public support,
especially for the corridors in Oak Creek Canyon and along Highway 179 since FLREA still says the USFS can’t charge a fee to someone who just wants to park their car and go hiking. There were some RecRAC members who had misgivings about those corridors.
But though ours is one of more discerning ones, by and large, nationally the RecRACs have been a rubber stamp citizens’ panel and have done whatever a forest district asks. From this side of things, some feel like that process has failed because the RecRACs have taken the USFS’ word that there is public support without examining the means by which they’ve come to that conclusion.
For example, there were push polls done here where pro-fee advocates asked questions of visitors like “You don’t mind paying $5?” and people said, “Sure, no problem” but they didn’t understand the larger issues in the area or the legal requirements before the USFS and this was used to say there was public support. A third party review of overall comments, including written comments, showed many more critical responses than these verbal polls ... Then the RecRAC is told there is public sup- port and they don’t look beyond that.
12 • MAY 2014 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
INTERVIEW