Court decision about National Forest parking fees

[Daniel Eagan]

Not sure how relevant this is for the Northeast, but Jim Smith successfully challenged parking fees for Red Rock Pass in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Flagstaff Federal Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey dismissed charges against Smith.

According to the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, "this decision renders moot the signs in the Red Rock Pass area that say you have to buy a pass to park anywhere on the National Forest, and makes it unlikely that the Coconino - or any other National Forest - can ever again successfully prosecute someone for not having a pass at trailheads or dispersed camping areas."

The entire decision is here.

 

[MichaelJ]

Fascinating reading - thanks!

However, it is misinformation for the Coalition to say it "renders moot the signs" as a blanket statement:

However, dismissing this citation is not the death knell of the Red Rock Pass program. The record before the Court reveals numerous recreation sites and locations within the Red Rock HIRA which qualify as “areas” and where charging a recreational amenity fee would not violate the other provisions of the FLREA.

For those who don't want to read the whole decision, basically the government argued that since the Red Rock High Impact Recreation Area as a *whole* met the amenity requirements, that they could then charge at all locations within it. The court did not buy that argument. However, this is also why the court allowed that appropriate parking locations can still charge the fee.

 

[sardog1]

I'm going to print this decision for future reference, and also put this excerpt on my dashboard whenever appropriate:

"Mr. Smith’s use of the National Forest was limited to driving to and from a parking area on a dirt Forest Service road, overnight parking at an undeveloped dirt parking area, i.e., there were no toilet facilities, picnic tables, or trash receptacles at the parking area, and hiking into the forest on a trail, and camping for one night in a non-developed, dispersed site. The government argues that the collection of a recreation amenity fee is authorized because the Vultee Arch Trailhead is within an 'area' where an amenity fee may be charged pursuant to the authority of the FLREA. The Court concludes that this is not a permissive construction of the relevant statutory language and the Court need not defer to the agency’s construction of the term when determining if the fee is authorized."

I think this rationale might already be in practice in the WMNF, so it might not arise there. (If you know differently, let's hear about it, please.) But it will be useful to have at hand "just in case."

 

[RoySwkr]

I think this rationale might already be in practice in the WMNF, so it might not arise there. (If you know differently, let's hear about it, please.) But it will be useful to have at hand "just in case."

I would say that 19-Mile Brook trailhead has no toilet, trash removal, or picnic tables, and they charged a fee the last I knew.

And this decision does not apply nationally, only the district it was in, and was issued by a magistrate not a regular judge so higher courts may be more likely to overrule it.

I don't think a printout on the dash will have any effect, the ranger will issue tickets as directed by higher authority and let you take time to tell your story to a judge in Concord. You need to point this out to district rangers and above in the WMNF in case they don't already know.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Signal Ridge's fee tube was covered in plastic and had a sign saying "no fee required" as of yesterday... good thing too because I had forgotten to renew my parking pass.

Tim

 

[TEO]

This is good news. Thanks for sharing it, Daniel.

I carry a copy of the entire FLREA law in my glove box, which includes the amenities requirements that I posted earlier, here.

Of the WMNF trailheads that I've visited this summer, perhaps only Zealand has had all of the amenities, assuming that they have "security services." However, I would argue that unless the WMNF advertises these services at the trailhead, there is no reason why you should assume that the security services exist and that the area is lacking that particular amenity.

Note that FLREA requires picnic tables, plural, so one picnic table does not suffice. (Zealand may only have one table, in which case, it definitely is illegally charging fees.)

 

[peakbagger]

Without reopening the prior thread on the amenities, I did find it interesting to note that when I stopped by the USFS ranger district office last week to renew my pass, the employee at the desk noted "that they had not sold many recently and that maybe its because so many trailheads didnt require them anymore". On the other hand when parking at the North Twin trailhead on Sunday, the fee tube was in place (without the required amenities) and the FS was checking that there were envelopes in the dispenser. I thought it was interesting that this fee tube was active while the fee tube for the campsites was covered over.

 

[TDawg]

On the other hand when parking at the North Twin trailhead on Sunday, the fee tube was in place (without the required amenities) and the FS was checking that there were envelopes in the dispenser. I thought it was interesting that this fee tube was active while the fee tube for the campsites was covered over.

I was just thinking the same. I'll just avoid the court proceedings and get an annual pass every July. Not like it breaks the bank, anyways...

And I was informed by bobandgeri, that I passed you on Fire Wardens Tr. on your way down, peakbagger. Which, as you stated, was pretty busy for an "abandoned route!"

 

[cooperhill]

There are no amenities at Champney Brook TH and a fee is being charged. Also Carroll county sheriff officers were ticketing illegally parked cars (as parking lot is small vs. daily use).

Revenues from fees go directly back into the White Mountain Forest so I personally don't have an issue with it. Also I volunteer and never have to pay for a pass. I can see the issue with paying at a site with nothing there though.

 

[TEO]

The problem with people paying the fees, even if they are minimal, is that you are condoning the policy. The Forest Service uses the payment of fees as evidence that the law has support. In most cases, you're paying a fee that the Forest Service has no legal right to charge. So thousands of visitors are paying fees, unaware that they don't have to pay, and their payments are being used to support the program. That seems pretty sleazy to me.

If you want to support the WMNF, send them a donation.

 

[erugs]

I've parked several times this summer (on weekend days) on a trailhead along the Kanc. There is a day-use system in place there and I've seen visitors use it, but have not been ticketed, even though my pass expired some time ago. There are no facilities there and maybe that is the reason?

 

[sardog1]

The larger issue here is reining in illegal action by a federal agency. That's something that we should all think about from time to time.

And as someone who used to represent clients in litigation involving the feds (including the USFS), I'm well aware of the role of magistrate judges, the lack of precedential authority in their opinions, etc., etc. But this particular magistrate judge has written a very useful opinion, IMO.

 

[TCD]

Interesting also is that studies of "fee demonstration" projects have shown that most of the time the fee does not actually go directly to support local programs. While the fee is in fact added to local funds, the same amount is typically reduced in the funds sent from Washington or wherever the government entity is. So essentially, the fee is just additional tax paid to the central government entity, but the "shell game" allows the entity to say "all this fee money stays local." (Same with "lottery money goes to education." Watch for the shell game.)

 

[HH1]

FWIW, from today's WMNF web site:

"Beginning in 2011, the White Mountain National Forest is proposing to remove the following sites from the Recreation Fee program. Fees would no longer be charged at:

* Elbow Pond Day Use
* Russell Pond Day Use
* Cherry Mountain Dispersed Camping
* Haystack Road
* Gale River East/West Dispersed Camping
* Little Larry/Bull Brook Dispersed Camping
* Sawyer Rock Picnic Area
* Sawyer Pond Trailhead
* Sawyer River Road Trailhead
* Signal Ridge Trailhead
* Caribou Trailhead
* East Royce Trailhead
* Hastings Trailhead"

 

[Stash]

I still find the whole thing pretty silly.

 

[NewHampshire]

From now on I am being cheap. Since the trailhead for my adopted trail is a fee area I am told that the AMC will provide me (and my coadopter SilentCal) with a free yearly parking pass. In the past I have bought them. Now I am getting it on someone elses dollar.

Brian

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

From now on I am being cheap. Since the trailhead for my adopted trail is a fee area I am told that the AMC will provide me (and my coadopter SilentCal) with a free yearly parking pass. In the past I have bought them. Now I am getting it on someone elses dollar.

Brian

Good to hear that the AMC is again providing USFS parking passes for the volunteer trail adopters as I thought that they stopped doing that a few years ago.

 

[Waumbek]

FWIW, from today's WMNF web site:

"Beginning in 2011, the White Mountain National Forest is proposing to remove the following sites from the Recreation Fee program. Fees would no longer be charged at:

* Elbow Pond Day Use
* Russell Pond Day Use
* Cherry Mountain Dispersed Camping
* Haystack Road
* Gale River East/West Dispersed Camping
* Little Larry/Bull Brook Dispersed Camping
* Sawyer Rock Picnic Area
* Sawyer Pond Trailhead
* Sawyer River Road Trailhead
* Signal Ridge Trailhead
* Caribou Trailhead
* East Royce Trailhead
* Hastings Trailhead"

Perhaps the "substantial federal investments" requirement, which goes above and beyond the required six amenities, is involved:

"a. Provide significant recreation opportunities for outdoor recreation.
b. Have substantial Federal investments. It is important to note that
provision of the six required amenities (listed below) does not mean
there is substantial federal investment. The entire scope and scale of
development needs to be evaluated.
c. Are where fees can be collected efficiently; and
d. Contain all the following amenities, and are located in an integrated
manner so they reasonably accommodate the visitor.
a. Designated developed parking*
b. Permanent toilet facility*
c. Permanent trash receptacle*
d. Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk*
e. Picnic tables and
f. Security services*"

See page 9 of http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/docs/final-guidelines.pdf

 

[RoySwkr]

"Beginning in 2011, the White Mountain National Forest is proposing to remove the following sites from the Recreation Fee program. Fees would no longer be charged at:

Originally these were to be removed in 2010 but the FS held off a year, although it seems that many already have the tubes taped over

If you look at the Amenities note, the list of sites removed should be a lot longer

 

[Bob]

The problem with people paying the fees, even if they are minimal, is that you are condoning the policy. The Forest Service uses the payment of fees as evidence that the law has support. In most cases, you're paying a fee that the Forest Service has no legal right to charge. So thousands of visitors are paying fees, unaware that they don't have to pay, and their payments are being used to support the program. That seems pretty sleazy to me.

If you want to support the WMNF, send them a donation.

That is the problem I have always had- it was at first voluntary, but the rangers tried to intimidate people into paying the fees...