HIRA and WMNF fees

[RoySwkr]

There has been substantial controversy in the West over designating High Impact Recreation Areas which makes every facility in the area eligible to charge a fee as long as the required 6 amenities are available somewhere. Court cases have caused the Forest Service to back off and a national review was ordered.

I'd be interested to hear if some of our Forest planning experts such as PS and MJ know that 9 of the 10 HIRA in FS Region 9 (east from Minnesota, north from Alleghenies) are in the WMNF - they apparently snuck these in without public hearings or even public notification and use them to justify fees at non-conforming sites. The good news is that both the Washington and Regional offices have recommended that 7 of them go away. The bad news is that Kanc and Zealand are apparently OK and the WMNF is allowed to ignore the rest of the recommendation and are already planning to expand the one on Rte.16.

http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/HIRA_Review_R9.pdf

 

[sardog1]

"First, I want to thank you and your staff for closely reviewing the 10 areas in your Region and proposing changes that would better align these fees with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA)."

I am reminded of the occasion when my client got his hands on an internal memo acknowledging deficiencies in the review process for a timber sale. At which point an Assistant U.S. Attorney caved and graciously suggested to the judge that the FS would take another look. Upon hearing this, the judge turned my way and implicitly suggested that I declare victory and quit while I was ahead. Which I happily did.

Surely someone out there is ready to take up the cudgel, armed with this latest tidbit? (Sorry, I'm not available.)

 

[Billy]

I'll pass. This ain't the hill I'm gonna die on.

 

[psmart]

Unless I'm mistaken, this is still at the stage of internal planning within the FS. The process of public input and final decision making has not yet begun.

The Washington Office recognizes that its support of these proposals does not mean they will be implemented as proposed. The next step in the Area Review process is public involvement, culminating with a presentation to the Region 9 Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) for a recommendation. Since each of the R9 proposals is different, the public involvement progress must be adjusted accordingly.

Gotta love some of the abbreviated wording!

Forest will address amenity gap in scenic area by adding trash as needed.

 

[RoySwkr]

Unless I'm mistaken, this is still at the stage of internal planning within the FS. The process of public input and final decision making has not yet begun.

The areas exist now, it is the process of removing them that hasn't begun

This may be why the $5 fee hasn't happened, to speak of something that's taken awhile

 

[RoySwkr]

April Fools Day comes early?

A three-judge panel from the liberal 9th Circuit (western states) says the Forest Service may not collect fees at sites with all 6 amenities and services, if the visitor doesn't use any of the amenities. The opinion was written by a visiting district judge from Illinois?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1593849.html

Now I'm not in favor of fees but I consider this non-sensical or unenforceable. Since developed parking is one of the amenities, that would presumably mean you would need to park on the roadside instead of in the lot which may not be allowed. You had better not look at the signboard if a ranger sees you as that's interpretive material. And if you pee in a snowbank instead of the official amenity at Lincoln Woods, it may cost you more than a parking pass. But I'm glad to see that courts are willing to enforce the law as written.

 

[TEO]

Roy, thank you for keeping us abreast of this issue.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that:

It is clear that the Forest Service cannot charge a fee from someone who does nothing other than park.

B. It is equally clear that the REA prohibits the Forest Service from charging standard amenity recreation fees for each of several activities in which plaintiffs participate after they park: hiking without using facilities and services, picnicking on a road or trailside, or camping at a site that does not have a majority of the nine enumerated amenities.

And, earlier in the ruling:

It may often be the case that a visitor, after parking, does something else. Then the fee would not be “olely for parking,” and so long as the “something else” is not another activity for which subsection (d)(1) prohibits an amenity recreation fee, the agency is free to charge him. But if a visitor does nothing other than park, the fee is solely for parking and is therefore plainly prohibited by the REA.

[Underlining added by me for emphasis.]

What is your activity after parking? If your activity is solely hiking, the Forest Service is prohibited from charging a fee. You are doing to things: 1) parking--they can't charge you a fee for that; 2) hiking--they can't charge you a fee for that. However, if you use a facility--a permanent trash receptacle or permanent toilet--AND (key word) a service--security--then the Forest Service is within the law in charging a fee.

 

[Stash]

I wonder what the cost to taxpayers is for all the legal wrangling on both sides? If we didn't have to pay all those expensive lawyers and judges to interpret what the other expensive lawyers and judges wrote we'd likely have so much money in the budget that most everything would be fee free. But then the expensive lawyers and judges pay taxes on their salaries so there'd be that much less in the till. So I guess it's all just a circular reference that will keep parts of the economy going for years and that's probably a good thing.

 

[TEO]

I wonder what the cost to taxpayers is for all the legal wrangling on both sides? If we didn't have to pay all those expensive lawyers and judges to interpret what the other expensive lawyers and judges wrote we'd likely have so much money in the budget that most everything would be fee free. But then the expensive lawyers and judges pay taxes on their salaries so there'd be that much less in the till. So I guess it's all just a circular reference that will keep parts of the economy going for years and that's probably a good thing.

Uh, as far as I know federal judges aren't paid on a per-trial basis.

However, there's a simple solution to the legal wrangling: allocate the necessary funds to the Forest Service in the annual budget and do away with FLREA. Trying to run our natural resources and parks like amusement parks wasn't a bright idea. How much money has been wasted providing the minimum amenities? How much time have Forest Service personal--who as is are stretched thin--spent collecting and trying to enforce the fees?

 

[Stash]

Uh, as far as I know federal judges aren't paid on a per-trial basis.

More legal activity = More need for judges.

And the endless discussion of the topics and the need to review/enforce in excruciating detail drives the need. But that's just my opinion.

 

[psmart]

However, there's a simple solution to the legal wrangling: allocate the necessary funds to the Forest Service in the annual budget and do away with FLREA. Trying to run our natural resources and parks like amusement parks wasn't a bright idea. How much money has been wasted providing the minimum amenities? How much time have Forest Service personal--who as is are stretched thin--spent collecting and trying to enforce the fees?

Exactly.

It's interesting (and sad) to look back at the history of "parking fees" in the WMNF. The initial goal (as I recall from some of the local discussions I participated in) was to generate some revenue for back country maintenance (i.e. hiking trails). While I don't like fees more than anyone else, I do like to see the trails get the care they need. And since congress decided to move funding towards a "user pays" system, there was little choice.

The first idea was to issue a "hiking pass", but when the practicalities and legalities were considered it was decided to issue a parking pass instead, with the revenues to be used largely for "dispersed recreation". (i.e. trails) But this caused the emphasis to shift towards parking, including all the people who park in the WMNF without ever setting foot on a hiking trail. And the revenue started to get absorbed into the general WMNF budget, rather being dedicated to the trails.

The latest and saddest part of the story, IMHO, is that the legal requirements for collecting the fees seem to be driving the construction and development of trail-head facilities that may not otherwise be necessary. And in the process we run the risk of becoming more of an overdeveloped park, as opposed to the relatively wild National Forest that is enjoyed and loved by so many.

 

[RoySwkr]

The latest and saddest part of the story, IMHO, is that the legal requirements for collecting the fees seem to be driving the construction and development of trail-head facilities that may not otherwise be necessary.

I won't say that's never happened but I'd be interested to hear where you mean.

Parking on the side of the road may be OK for fishing or hunting where users should spread out but improved parking becomes necessary as trailhead use increases. Similarly more and more areas should have restrooms (thanks WODC). The trash can at Kinsman Notch may not be important to day hikers but is very handy for non-paying thru-hikers.