Page 8 - the NOISE November 2013

October certainly turned into an excit- zona continued to cover the cost of keeping Use Permits don’t take any federal money is when our national Forests are turned over
ing month in sedona — and all around Arizona — with the closing, and subsequent reopening, of the federal government and all of its national Parks and United States For- est Service (UsFs) developed sites here and around the country. sedona and the state of Arizona were particularly hard hit as the home of both Red Rock Country and Grand Canyon.
On October 1, a political standoff on Capi- tol Hill resulted in the shutdown of the fed- eral government. essentially, Congress failed to approve a new budget for the coming year. nor could it come to an agreement on a con- tinuing resolution that would have allowed the government to continue operating under a temporary budget authorization. This type of legislation is usually routine but, this year, political divisiveness in the House of Repre- sentatives prevented any agreements from being reached.
The source of all the controversy has been the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. Republicans in the House of Representatives refused to include appropriate funding for the health program resulting in a stalemate with House Democrats. when the 2013 fis- cal year ended at midnight on september 30, the federal government officially ran out of money and closed its doors. Among the services affected by this closure were the Na- tional Park Service (nPs) and the UsFs. Ari- zona has 24 national park units and numer- ous UsFs fee areas, including campgrounds and day use sites.
Grand Canyon National Park was closed immediately. This is one of the busiest times of year for businesses in places like Tusayan, Flagstaff and sedona, where tourists flock to see the fall colors in and around Grand Can- yon. Most area schools have their fall break in mid-October as well so families plan their vacations at this time.
with the financial impact being felt imme- diately in these areas through cancelled hotel reservations and decreased tourist traffic, Ari- zona Governor Jan Brewer struck a deal with the feds for Arizona to foot the bill to reopen Grand Canyon national Park. On October 12, it once again opened its gates but at the ex- pense of the state and some of the affected local businesses that contributed funds. Due to its deal with the federal government, Ari-
the park open until October 27, even though the federal closure ended officially on Octo- ber 17.
In sedona, a very vocal opponent to the federal shutdown of national parks and for- ests was Warren Meyer, President of Recre- ation Resource Management (RRM), a pri- vate company that holds special Use Permits in Coconino national Forest to operate camp- grounds and day use sites. During the federal government shutdown of 1995, his company was allowed to continue their operations on federal land in spite of other closures. This time, however, things were different.
For reasons that remain unclear, the clo- sure of concessionaire-operated sites in the Red Rock Ranger District (RRRD) in sedona and Oak Creek Canyon were delayed until October 9. Mr. Meyer, who is also a board member, past President and current Trea- surer of the National Forest Recreation As- sociation (nFRA), used every available media outlet that would listen to protest the neces- sity of closing what he repeatedly referred to as “private parks” and “privately-funded operations.”
when word finally came down from the top that even concessionaire sites on forest lands would be closed because of the federal government shutdown, Mr. Meyer started us- ing words like “arbitrary and capricious,” pret- ty lawyerly language for a businessman. In one post he wrote, “we have received emails from the Us Forest service that these clo- sures are required to be consistent with the nPs, but the nPs is allowing its parks to be reopened if they are funded by outside agen- cies. Both Arizona and Utah have reached agreements to reopen national Parks in their states through use of state funding. so why can’t private parks on federal lands be re- opened through the use of private funding, which is how we operate anyway?”
If Mr. Meyer wants to operate “private parks” perhaps he should look into purchasing some land on which to run his business. But the last time I checked, UsFs land was still the property of the federal government and thus, the taxpayers. As long as he chooses to run his business on our land, he will be subject to the same political tides and bureaucratic nightmares as the rest of us.
The claim that private concessionaires operating on federal lands under special
disingenuous. On Mr. Meyer’s RRM website, it states the shutdown of privately managed UsFs sites was “an unnecessary and vindic- tive hardship placed on recreators, since our sites don’t take one dime of government money.” But, in truth, these private compa- nies take money every day from recreators that would otherwise go the UsFs and could more directly benefit the area where the fees are collected if the Forest service were col- lecting the money directly.
Mr. Meyer also claims on his blog that “we actually make lease payments to the govern- ment.” But the fees paid by concessionaires for these special Use Permits are a myth as any savvy businessman knows how to avoid paying them (albeit legally). Generally speak- ing, 100% of any fees due are offset through write-offs for maintenance and repairs.
On October 15, the nFRA, RRM and two other private concession operators filed a lawsuit against the UsFs in response to the closings. In the complaint, Mr. Meyer and his cohorts asked for their operations to be re- opened. On October 17, the UsFs countered with a motion for dismissal as the reopening of the federal government rendered the com- plaint “moot.”
It remains to be seen whether this action has permanently soured the relationship between RRM and other private conces- sionaires and the UsFs. It’s probably not the best practice to sue the key partner of your business — especially not when that partner owns the land you operate your business on.
PRivAte PARkS oR PUbliC lANDS?
In 2004, the Federal lands Recreation enhancement Act (FLReA) was passed and
it paved the way (pun intended) to develop- ment of UsFs areas to justify fees and further, to privatization of developed sites. Under FL- ReA, no fees may be charged solely for park- ing, picnicking, horseback riding through, general access, dispersed areas with low or no investments, for persons passing through an area, camping at undeveloped sites, over- looks, public roads or highways, private roads, hunting or fishing, and official business. Ad- ditionally, no entrance fees can be charged for any recreational activities on UsFs lands. But once user fee systems were in place, the door was opened wide for the expansion of private management.
to private corporations to run, they become business wares that are expected to turn a profit. As more and more sites are taken over by private concessionaires, recreation fees have steadily increased. In sedona, Recre- ation Resource Management has a special Use Permit that allows them to administer, and profit from, all of the campgrounds in the Red Rock Ranger District as well as the three most visited Day Use areas — Crescent Moon Ranch, Call of the Canyon (west Fork), and Grasshopper Point.
what’s more — when special Use Permits are issued to concessionaires, all bets are off when it comes to following the federal laws that would be applicable at a UsFs-run site.
For starters, concessionaires are not re- quired to accept interagency access passes such as the Golden Age and Golden Access passes that were available for senior and disabled federal lands visitors until 2007. In 2007, these passes were replaced with the America the Beautiful Pass (though existing passes are still honored). According to FLReA this pass “shall cover the entrance fee and standard amenity recreation fee for all fed- eral recreational lands and waters for which an entrance fee or a standard amenity recre- ation fee is charged.”
However, under the terms and conditions of the special use permits granted to private concessionaires, they are allowed to refuse to accept federal passes at the fee sites they manage. This is to ensure that they maintain their status as “business opportunities” rather than be mistaken for “providing more of a public service,” according to a UsFs memo is- sued in March 2007.
Another change that occurred with the implementation of FLReA is that individual forests were given approval to retain any fees they collected. In the past, agency fees were placed in a general fund and each for- est relied on federal budget appropriations to operate. As more and more fees have been allowed, general appropriations have trickled down to local forest districts less and less. As the result of allowing fees to be charged at the local level, more and more of congressionally appropriated funds to the UsFs are being spent in washington DC at the administrative level. UsFs districts that collect recreation fees from users tend to lose
>> Continued on 11 >>
newsfeature
8 • november 2013 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us