Red Rock Pass Lies

[Jim]

The real title of the thread should be Red Rock Pass BS, but I didn't think Joe would want that in thread title.
I managed to drive my civic all the way to the Dry Creek Trailhead yesterday via FR 251 or Dry Creek Road. The road had been closed for four days during the previous week for maintenance, even though the FS didn't do anything to the road that actually improved it. I had walked almost the entire length of the road when it was closed, and I can say they hardly did anything to the road. They only thing the incompetent FS did was dump gravel in the areas where puddles had been. They didn't do anything about dumping gravel on the slopes that were badly eroded, did nothing about the huge rocks that stick up out of the road on slopes and level areas, and overall they made no improvements to the road; things that would have made my drive easier even though I did make it in and out. It took them 4 days of having the road closed to do absolutely nothing. I suppose that people without SUVs, trucks, or a rented Sedona Jeep aren't supposed to hike the trails up there, Red Rocks Pass holder or not.

I guess the Red Rocks Pass money must have run out for road maintenance, you know, since they spend it all on that Fire Engine they boast about at trail heads. I know I proudly pay a fee to hike so I can buy Sedona Fire Equipment and not have the roads to trails actually improved, not have trails that aren't sissy tourist trails improved, and not really get anything for the price of a pass besides knowing that 50% of it goes to "administrative costs" so that I have the good warm feeling of employing someone in a private outfit who has a contract with the FS to make sure people at trail heads bought a pass.

Does it make any sense to have a Red Rocks Pass run by a private company which uses half of that money to employ its pass workers, and then buy Sedona Fire Engines? When did Sedona's fire department become my concern as a hiker? Why am I paying for this? Maybe Sedona's High School needs a new soccer field, why don't we pay for that too? How about a Sedona DARE program, they could use one of those, too, I am sure. What the hell is a pass with proceeds that are supposed to be about improving trail conditions and trail heads doing buying fire engines? The wealthy pricks who buy those McMansions in the brush of Sedona might have their precious out of place over compensation piece burn down, so I have to pay to protect it? That engine cost a huge amount of money. I would have much rather seen that money go towards trail maintenance on trails I use, not on something the taxes from Sedona residents and businesses should be buying.

My pass expires shortly. I plan to keep hiking in Oak Creek Canyon this summer, and then move back down to the Sedona area by Autumn, but I have no intention of buying a pass. I don't care if it's $20 for a yearly pass. I get it at Safeway, so you know they get a cut. How much do you think actually goes towards trails? If it wasn't about money, they would give yearly passes away to people who put in 8 hours of trail work a year. That I could get behind, but not what currently exists.

[paulhubbard]

What torques me is that the RR Pass (I have an annual one) doesn't get you into Red Rock Crossing - That's a State Park. I assume Slide Rock is the same? (haven't had the urge to stop and visit Slide Rock in years, driving past is enough for me.) And so being State, my National Park Pass doesn't fly there either. Green $$$ or no play. Of course you can always go in the back way through the Village of Oak Creek.

[SkyIslandHiker]

Here's one of my favorite cartoons from the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition:

[Tough_Boots]

don't most wilderness and NF areas only require a fee for using spots with certain conveniences (ie bathrooms, picnic areas, camp sites, etc.)?

[paulhubbard]

"The Forest Service plans to publish a revised Red Rock fee proposal within the next several weeks, although it will be several months before any new plan is in place."

Apparently Jim Smith won his battle in the courts. Read the story here: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/knau/ ... .Red.Rocks

[hippiepunkpirate]

Apparently Jim Smith won his battle in the courts. Read the story here: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/knau/ ... .Red.Rocks

I like how it says the fees go toward "maintaining trails"

[Al_HikesAZ]

Arizona Daily Sun article today. Fewer fee sites in Red Rock Country. http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state- ... 01954.html

Fewer fee sites in Sedona CYNDY COLE Sun Staff Reporter | Posted: Saturday, October 22, 2011 9:00 am |

A proposed map of Red Rock Pass sites starting next year shows just the lower Oak Creek Canyon and the Highway 179 corridors, plus six more trailheads. All other trailheads would have free parking. Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management

You'll still need to pay to park this fall if you visit some Sedona trailheads and busy byways in Red Rock country.

But the list of sites where Red Rock Passes are required is much shorter than it was at this time last year thanks to a federal magistrate's ruling in Flagstaff.

And after Jan. 1, the list could be changed again, with passes required for just 11,000 of the 160,000 acres in the Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest.

OAK CREEK CANYON COVERED

The agency is charging $5-per-day fees at some trailheads through the end of this year, including along Oak Creek Canyon, bordering Highway 179 between the Village of Oak Creek and Sedona, and at a handful of trailheads (see list).

But new rules about where the pass is required are expected to take hold in early 2012, following a 2010 lawsuit from a hiker asserting that the Forest Service could not legally charge him a fee to visit the forest at large, and a ruling from a Flagstaff judge who partly agreed.

The Forest Service is currently leaning toward a proposal that would put Oak Creek Canyon below the Bootlegger day use area and much of the Highway 179 corridor between the Village of Oak Creek and Sedona into two zones requiring a pay-to-park pass.

Passes would also be required at the Palatki, Honanki and V Bar B cultural sites, along with trailheads for the Jim Thompson, Boynton Canyon, Bear/Doe and Baldwin trails.

But several dozen other trailheads mainly northwest of Sedona that once required fees would be free (see map).

Even though it isn't enforcing it everywhere, the Coconino National Forest is still selling passes for parking in the forest surrounding Sedona at large, said Red Rock Ranger District spokeswoman Connie Birkland.

"Technically, the Red Rock Pass is still required in the greater Red Rock area, as in the past. The only difference is we are not enforcing the pass in remote locations such as Vultee Arch. We still sell the pass for the general Red Rock area, as we have always done," she stated.

Corbin Newman, head of forests in the Southwest for the U.S. Forest Service, must still select a plan about where fees can be charged in 2012, and the Coconino National Forest has proposed the plan outlined above.

Frances Werner was head of a committee tasked with recommending a proposal to Newman.

She abstained from an August vote, stating that people in Yuma, Tucson and Phoenix should also be approached to weigh in on the fees.

"I felt there wasn't enough public input. They talked to the locals, but not the greater public," Werner said.

A 'NOTICE,' NOT A CITATION

In lieu of actual tickets, Coconino National Forest employees have been handing out something that looks similar and is called a "notice of required fee."

"That lately is their more preferred compliance tool, because they don't have to go to court to make those stick, and they don't have to prove anything to a judge. It's really un-American. You don't get your day in court," said Kitty Benzar, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition.

She is not happy with the latest proposal.

"They still haven't addressed my key issues. There are certain activities where the law says they may not charge a fee -- period -- to access the forest. And that includes just hiking or horseback-riding through," Benzar said.

Estimated revenues from the pass have averaged $800,000 a year for the Red Rock Ranger District.

Nothing would change and fees would stand at Red Rock and Slide Rock state parks and at Forest Service areas operated by concessionaires: Grasshopper Point, Red Rock Crossing/Crescent Moon and West Fork/Call of the Canyon.

The changes come after a Sedona backpacker challenged the law following a ticket for parking at a remote trailhead. In September 2010, U.S. Magistrate Mark E. Aspey in Flagstaff agreed that the Coconino National Forest wasn't always following the law on where it could or couldn't charge fees.

The law allowed agencies to charge fees where a combination of services was provided, but not where they weren't present or were distributed over many miles, he ruled.

Cyndy Cole can be reached at 913-8607 or at ccole@azdailysun.com.


Read more: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state- ... z1bYOuPGkc

[hippiepunkpirate]

@Al_HikesAZ

Sounds really damn confusing to me.

[hippiepunkpirate]

Arizona Daily Sun, "Red Rock Pass scope reduced" http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-re ... f6f5f.html - Same map as in the article Al posted from Oct...article is easier to understand I think! Good news for some of the more "off the beaten path" areas, most of the good hikes with paved access still require a pass though. Easier to read map here: http://www.redrockcountry.org/maps/map- ... -large.jpg

It becomes official Wednesday: The Red Rock Parking Pass will be required at many fewer trailheads and pullouts on the national forest surrounding Sedona.

The total area where a hiker or biker needs a $5-per-day or $20 annual pass will be cut by about 93 percent to 11,000 acres following a successful legal challenge by a Sedona backpacker who asserted that the Coconino National Forest wasn't following the law in where it required the passes.

The pass is still required along a 7-mile stretch of State Route 89A through Oak Creek Canyon from Bootlegger to Midgely Bridge, and on State Route 179 from north of Back O'Beyond Road to the Bell Rock Vista.

It will also be required at individual sites that aren't in those corridor segments: Huckaby Trailhead, Encinoso, Banjo Bill and Halfway day use areas in Oak Creek Canyon; and Cathedral Rock, Little Horse, Courthouse Butte, Yavapai Vista and Bell Rock Vista Trailheads along SR 179. Other sites requiring passes are Honanki, Palatki and V-V Heritage Sites; and Doe/Bear Mountain, Boynton Canyon, Baldwin and Jim Thompson Trailheads.

Exempt from the Red Rock Pass is all of Forest Road 152, which contains trailheads for popular destinations like Vultee Arch, Devil's Bridge and Secret Canyon.

The areas where fees can be charged have restrooms, picnic tables, garbage receptacles, parking, signing and patrols, according to the Coconino National Forest.

A group opposed to the fees stated in December that the Forest Service needs to give an exemption under federal law and not require a pass for people just visiting federal land, and not using the restrooms, picnic areas or other amenities.

This plan requires a pass for anyone parking in these areas.

Read more: http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-re ... z1kyvUaBk3

[outdoor_lover]

Well they are making up for their loss of income in other areas. I guess the Fee for the Parking Area at West Fork went up to 9.00.....

[hikeaz]

don't most wilderness and NF areas only require a fee for using spots with certain conveniences (ie bathrooms, picnic areas, camp sites, etc.)?

Excerpted from: http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/docs ... elines.pdf

These guidelines support the Forest Service recreation vision and key objectives set forth in the
National Recreation Agenda and reflect the requirements an d intent of the 2004 Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). The overarching philosophy of the recreation program is
to provide the public with Forest recreation opportunities funded primarily with Federal tax
dollars, recreation fees, and support from partners, grants, and other non-appropriated sources.
The types of activities and services that should be funded with appropriations and those that
should be funded in part or entirely by recreation fees have not been articulated clearly in the
past. This lack of clarity has resulted in inconsistency where fees were charged which
understandably caused confusion and concern by the visiting public. Of particular concern were
day-use sites, including trailheads, picnic areas, and observation sites which make up a
significant portion of the Forest Service’s recreation opportunities.

To address these concerns, Congress (through the REA) has provided specific direction on where
fees should not be charged. Further, Congress mandated that the public have free access to a
variety of recreation opportunities and undeveloped public lands. The Act also requires agencies
to “establish the minimum number of recreation fees and shall avoid the collection of multiple or
layered recreation fees for similar uses, activities, or programs.”
The enactors expect a reduction in the number of standard amenity recreation fee sites.

On page 7 of 33 you will see a list of the actions where a fee will NOT be charged (or is not SUPPOSED, legally, to be charged

Category 1

(no recreation fee)

Services and facilities for which no fee can be charged
(benefit society as a whole):
• General access
• Pass-through travel by car,
foot, boat, or horse (think Mt. Lemmon, etc.)
• Scenic overlooks and pullouts
• Wayside exhibits
• Parking only
• Dispersed areas with low or no investment
• Information centers at administrative offices
• Right-of-access permitted hunting & fishing access (Like parking along 89A to fish (with a license) in Oak Creek
• Extra services for needs of disabled
• Facility entry & use of standard amenity fee sites and services for persons
under 16 & education.

As we can see, even from their 'new, improved' spin, Coconino NF (and most of the other agencies as well) continue to thumb their noses at the law and take advantage of the public's lack of education in the matter. Become and STAY informed.

Further, excerpted from: 3(d) 1 of http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/fee- ... tml#twelve

(d) Limitations on Recreation Fees.--

(1) PROHIBITION ON FEES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR SERVICES.--The Secretary shall not charge any standard amenity recreation fee or expanded amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act for any of the following:

(A) Solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides.

(B) For general access unless specifically authorized under this section.

(C) For dispersed areas with low or no investment unless specifically authorized under this section.

(D) For persons who are driving through, walking through, boating through, horseback riding through, or hiking through Federal recreational lands and waters without using the facilities and services.

(E) For camping at undeveloped sites that do not provide a minimum number of facilities and services as described in subsection (g)(2)(A).

(F) For use of overlooks or scenic pullouts.

(G) For travel by private, noncommercial vehicle over any national parkway or any road or highway established as a part of the Federal-aid System, as defined in section 101 of title 23, United States Code, which is commonly used by the public as a means of travel between two places either or both of which are outside any unit or area at which recreation fees are charged under this Act.
(A prime example is SR64 that enters GCNP from the south but then heads east over to Cameron . If just traveling THROUGH GCNP you need not pay the $25 entry)

(H) For travel by private, noncommercial vehicle, boat, or aircraft over any road or highway, waterway, or airway to any land in which such person has any property right if such land is within any unit or area at which recreation fees are charged under this Act.

(I) For any person who has a right of access for hunting or fishing privileges under a specific provision of law or treaty.

(J) For any person who is engaged in the conduct of official Federal, State, Tribal, or local government business.

(K) For special attention or extra services necessary to meet the needs of the disabled. [/color]

[big_load]

This sounds like a step in the right direction. I drove down 89A in November for the first time in years and was frustrated by the almost complete inability to make a five-minute stop without a fee. The traffic circles were irksome as well. FWIW, New Jersey has been gradually eliminating traffic circles over the last 15 years.

[Jim]

This sounds like a step in the right direction. I drove down 89A in November for the first time in years and was frustrated by the almost complete inability to make a five-minute stop without a fee. The traffic circles were irksome as well. FWIW, New Jersey has been gradually eliminating traffic circles over the last 15 years.

I laugh at them being built as well. They are good to a point and then almost useless.

[azbackpackr]

Meanwhile, Arizona, which used to have very few roundabouts (traffic circles), has been ADDING them over the past 15 years. I guess New Jersey sold all their used ones to Arizona!

[Jim]

Nah, they were all crumbling and in bad shape. Ours are shiny and new. Plus, it takes them for ever to remove and replace them. For example, there was one in Marlton, NJ (read Marl-town, which incidentally is a type of soil or subsoil they used to mine for fertilizer, and as such make it literally a dirt town) at RTs 70 and 73, they had that planned out when I was in high school. I graduated in 1998. They started early construction in 2000, did a little more over the years, dumped dirt for fill and condemned some structures in the mid-2000s, and started actual construction about 2 or 3 years ago. I'll be there in 2 weeks for that family business, so I guess I can see what dirt-town's new interchange will look like. That is the stupid thing, instead of replacing it with an intersection, they're putting in a large interchange system. Sounds good, but there are literally traffic lights in 1000 feet in any direction. Genius. It's NJ. God, I hate that place.

[big_load]

Plus, it takes them for ever to remove and replace them

It sure does. They just started reworking Netcong Circle (Rt 46 and Rt 183), which is the closest one to me, into a simple intersection. The scheduled duration is three years. I haven't seen any road construction project in this area take less than 1.5x the scheduled duration; 2x is more typical.

[hikeaz]

Plus, it takes them for ever to remove and replace them

It sure does. They just started reworking Netcong Circle (Rt 46 and Rt 183), which is the closest one to me, into a simple intersection. The scheduled duration is three years. I haven't seen any road construction project in this area take less than 1.5x the scheduled duration; 2x is more typical.

Could be worse..... could be double the PRICE , like the WTC - and we're talking BILLIONS! (round 1 > http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... 0HtDwECbIO) - round (at least) 2 > http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... -its-costs.

[outdoor_lover]

Sorry this post didn't want to delete.

[hippiepunkpirate]

Courthouse Butte

You're doing Capitol Butte: http://hikearizona.com/decoder.php?ZTN=2064

[outdoor_lover]

@hippiepunkpirate
Ya, my bad, I deleted the post. Sorry.

[hikeaz]

Red Rock Pass, Arizona (USDA-FS) - In 1997, the Coconino National Forest implemented a pass requirement under Fee Demo on 160,000 acres surrounding Sedona. When the more restrictive FLREA replaced Fee Demo in 2005, the Forest continued exactly as before, ignoring the new restrictions. In 2010 a hiker challenged a Violation Notice he received for non-payment of the fee and received a decision from the federal magistrate judge dismissing his Violation
Notice. The judge ruled that the Red Rock Pass program was out of compliance with federal law in several respects. The Forest undertook a review of the program.

As part of that review the Forest revealed that Red Rock Pass vendors retain about 22% of gross revenue (including about 50% of revenue paid through vending machines). This vendor commission/discount is not accounted for as a cost of the fee program. (Seriously? Really?)
In GAO-03-470 a similar method of accounting for vendor commission/discounts by Forests in the Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest regions was identified as not in compliance with federal accounting standards or the USDA financial manual.
The Forest Service dismissed the violation as minor because the particular fee programs under scrutiny in that study sold very few passes through vendors at that time. (Sure thing.. the gub'ment can ignore the law and call it trivial - but chase a guy/gal all the way to federal court for $5.00)
On the Coconino National Forest, however, vendors sell all Red Rock Passes, so the impact is significant.
GAO said in the 2003 audit that not reporting vendor commissions as a fee program cost understates both revenue and expenditures and makes it impossible to tell whether the Forest is in compliance with the FLREA limit of 15% of gross revenue for administrative, overhead, and indirect costs. (More arrogant federal employees doing as they please when the law does not suit their wants - just like down in Coronado NF)