Posted by Todd Caudle on September 6, 2007 at 12:05 PM
I don't think there's been any recent thread on this subject, so let me bring the Mt. Evans fee argument that took place over on 14ers.com over here. It seems the USFS has been charging a fee to drive the Mt. Evans Highway when they have no jurisdiction to do so. The highway is actually Colorado-105, maintained by Colorado Dept. of Transportation funds. In other words, our Colorado state taxes pay for the road. The adjacent land is, of course, national forest. Here's where it gets interesting. When the fee demo program ended, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) took its place. Within that act it is clearly stated where fees can be charged, and more importantly in this instance, where they can't.
"(f) Standard Amenity Recreation Fee.--Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service, but only at the following:
(1) A National Conservation Area.
(2) A National Volcanic Monument.
(3) A destination visitor or interpretive center that provides a broad range of interpretive services, programs, and media.
(4) An area--
(A) that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(B) that has substantial Federal investments;
(C) where fees can be efficiently collected; and
(D) that contains all of the following amenities:
(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services. "
See, an area must contain ALL of the amenities spelled out in D. No place on Mt. Evans qualifies. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that if you consider disparate sections of road as one entity, and combine a permanent outhouse here or picnc table there, then it might comply. Probably not, but let's say it does for argument's sake.
Now consider the part of the FLREA that specifies where fees cannot be charged:
"(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.
(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."
This seems pretty clear cut to me. Note "A" "F" and "D." The booth person at the entrance station will now tell you that you can drive up the highway for free, as long as you don't stop and get out of your car ("D"). However, if you pull off to the side of the road to take pictures (or hike, or picnic, or whatever - "A" and "F"), they will ticket you. Seems like a blatant contradiction of the policy to me.
Plain and simple, if you want to drive the Mt. Evans Highway and stop along the way to take pictures, but don't want to stop in the designated parking lot at the summit or Summit Lake, but instead just use a roadside pullout, you do not have to pay an entrance fee to do so! The greenshirts who work the road don't believe this, but it is clearly stated as such in the FLREA. If you are hassled by a USFS employee for parking along the road and not paying, they are hassling you for no legitimate reason. Abuse of power.
Before anyone says, "Yeah, well, I don't mind paying the fee because it goes to a good cause, etc.," keep in mind we already pay for that road. Any payment to the USFS is paying for access to that road twice. And sure, in a perfect world, it would be nice to give public lands more money and spend less on bombs and bullets, but these funds are fungible. Once they get into the govt. coffers, they're not coming back dollar-for-dollar to our national forests.
Discuss.
Posted by Stan Rose on September 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Geez, Todd, eat the Wheeties already!
Seriously, ive never been up Evans so not familiar with the argument. Presumably people have pointed this out to the USFS, so how do they respond? what's their argument?
If they have none, then i dont see any controversy--just don't pay, and if they harass you, sue the pants off everyone.
Posted by Doug Andrews on September 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
....and if they harass you, sue the pants off everyone.
I don't know about others here, but I really don't have the time nor the money nor the inclination to pursue a lawsuit in court against a departement of the federal government.
I make a point to head up to Mt. Evans at least once a season. Everytime I've been up there its been well before sunrise or close to sunset and the entrance booth has never been manned at those times. In the past I had the Golden Eagle sticker on my NP Pass so I just continued on my merry way. I guess with the new Federal Lands Pass (or whatevers its called now) that does the same thing, I still can access the area without paying a fee. But that doesn't diminish what Todd has said. Folks who don't carry the aforementioned Pass and who have no other desire but to drive the highway and stop at a scenic pullout to enjoy the view and cool air should not have to worry or deal with a FS ranger or whomever looking to collect a fee where they have no authority or jurisdiction to do so. As long as the citizenry does not mandate that USFS abide by these regulations, we are in effect granting them power and authority they don't have. Would you allow me to charge you a fee for walking down the sidewalk in front of my house no matter how beautiful the architecture was. The sidewalk is within the city right-of-way and is paid for with my taxes already. Maybe not the best of analogies, but I hope you get my point.
Posted by Stan Rose on September 6, 2007 at 2:29 PM
but I really don't have the time nor the money nor the inclination to pursue a lawsuit in court against a departement of the federal government.
It would be a class action, Doug, no money and little time needed on your part.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on September 6, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Obviously I'm on board with you here Todd.
Since this transgression on the part of the Forest Service was revealed, I'm in strong opposition to them charging a fee in this area unless they take over maintenance of the road from the state. If I find cause to drive up that road I will make a point of letting the collection agent know that they are in violation of FLREA. The forest service seems to be moving in the direction of a a for profit agency and its a concerning trend. There is an enormous difference between the quality of the experience in a National Park and what is experienced in a National Forest or BLM district. Its not that I'm saying the NF and BLM lands have failed provide great backcountry recreation experiences, but they are simply not equivalent to the system of National Parks.
I have been getting the National Parks pass for a number of years. Now that the Parks Pass has been replaced with the federal lands pass, the trip up Mt. Evans is no longer an issue, but I must say that I would prefer it if the parks pass were still available separately. For the time being, I just don't visit BLM or National Forest fee areas (other than campgrounds which are not covered) frequently enough to warrant the extra $20 per year. However, with the way the Forest Service is moving, I can see that this might not be the case in 5 years.
Posted by Michael Renner on September 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Dang Todd - I guess you were serious when you said it was a topic for another thread. I agree that the fee is BS. And after seeing it spelled out more completely, I am mad I paid $10 Sunday. If I recall, they installed a new sign that specifically says that you are required to pay the fee if you leave the main road, including parking areas and pull offs. I *think* it was that specific in terms of the pull offs - and clearly they are misrepresenting the intent of the FLREA. I was in a hurry and it was still dark, so I may be off on the specific rules on the sign...
I knew that there was some controversy over this, but I wasn't aware of how specific the rules were in the FLREA. I would love to know where they are spending the money up there. Even though the little visitor center near the bristlecones is nice and all, it probably does not come close to equaling the big bucks they have been collecting. This article states they collect upwards of $300K a year from the program!
If this money were being used for real tangible improvements, conservation, etc in other areas, I might give them a break. But given the decline of our National Parks, forests and BLM areas, I can't say that is happening...
Although I can't do it in the next couple of weeks because I'm otherwise overwhelmed with business matters, I wouldn't mind working with a small group of folks who are interested in getting some clarification on this matter.
We could draft a query letter to be sent to the Office of the General Counsel for the USFS at the 6th & Union office (where I interned during law school a few years back) asking them to clarify the Forest Service's position on the matter. Because nothing moves quickly in the federal government, if we disagree with their response we may be able to effect change by the time the road re-opens in the spring.
Due to my experiences with the federal government and the law in general, I've got some pretty good ideas how to go about this knowledgably and effectively.
Any interest Todd? Is there anyone else with any particular input?
Posted by Don Grall on September 6, 2007 at 11:50 PM
The FS is looking at Mt Evans as a cash cow because the dead end road makes for easy collection of fees. They are purposely overlooking the conditions of the FLREA to facilitate the collection and are determined to continue. A class action lawsuit is probably the only tool the public could use to change their agenda. There was an article in the Denver Post about this issue last spring where the DOT was going to put up a sign stating you did not have to pay a fee to use the road. The sign was put up, and a short time later was removed, probably by the FS. So from all this, I assume the FS is very resistant to letting go of this cash cow.
Posted by Michael Renner on September 7, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Don - I reference that article above in my post. If anyone cares to read the whole thing...
Posted by Rick Dunn on September 7, 2007 at 7:46 AM
What happens if you don't pay the FS fine - do they send a bunch of guys to your house to cut down your trees? Seriously - anyone know what the legal consequences are of just ignoring the fine the way that they're ignoring the FLREA?
Posted by Mel Ladewig on September 7, 2007 at 12:14 PM
The next time they find your car in a campground, you get the boot.
Rick, I don't think anything would happen.
Posted by Todd Caudle on September 10, 2007 at 10:32 PM
I've actually thought about going up there with the intention of pulling off onto a pull-out, and getting ticketed, and then fighting it in court with the FLREA on my side. If I won, it would be legal precedent, and no more charging for pulling off to the side of the road to take pictures. But I don't know how I'd finance such a thing.
Here's another wrinkle: Ever notice that when you pull into the parking lot at Summit Lake, the signs state that you're entering a part of the Denver Mountain Parks?
Discussion
11 replies"(f) Standard Amenity Recreation Fee.--Except as limited by subsection (d), the Secretary may charge a standard amenity recreation fee for Federal recreational lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Forest Service, but only at the following:
(1) A National Conservation Area.
(2) A National Volcanic Monument.
(3) A destination visitor or interpretive center that provides a broad range of interpretive services, programs, and media.
(4) An area--
(A) that provides significant opportunities for outdoor recreation;
(B) that has substantial Federal investments;
(C) where fees can be efficiently collected; and
(D) that contains all of the following amenities:
(i) Designated developed parking.
(ii) A permanent toilet facility.
(iii) A permanent trash receptacle.
(iv) Interpretive sign, exhibit, or kiosk.
(v) Picnic tables.
(vi) Security services. "
See, an area must contain ALL of the amenities spelled out in D. No place on Mt. Evans qualifies. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that if you consider disparate sections of road as one entity, and combine a permanent outhouse here or picnc table there, then it might comply. Probably not, but let's say it does for argument's sake.
Now consider the part of the FLREA that specifies where fees cannot be charged:
"(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.
(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."
This seems pretty clear cut to me. Note "A" "F" and "D." The booth person at the entrance station will now tell you that you can drive up the highway for free, as long as you don't stop and get out of your car ("D"). However, if you pull off to the side of the road to take pictures (or hike, or picnic, or whatever - "A" and "F"), they will ticket you. Seems like a blatant contradiction of the policy to me.
Plain and simple, if you want to drive the Mt. Evans Highway and stop along the way to take pictures, but don't want to stop in the designated parking lot at the summit or Summit Lake, but instead just use a roadside pullout, you do not have to pay an entrance fee to do so! The greenshirts who work the road don't believe this, but it is clearly stated as such in the FLREA. If you are hassled by a USFS employee for parking along the road and not paying, they are hassling you for no legitimate reason. Abuse of power.
Before anyone says, "Yeah, well, I don't mind paying the fee because it goes to a good cause, etc.," keep in mind we already pay for that road. Any payment to the USFS is paying for access to that road twice. And sure, in a perfect world, it would be nice to give public lands more money and spend less on bombs and bullets, but these funds are fungible. Once they get into the govt. coffers, they're not coming back dollar-for-dollar to our national forests.
Discuss.
Seriously, ive never been up Evans so not familiar with the argument. Presumably people have pointed this out to the USFS, so how do they respond? what's their argument?
If they have none, then i dont see any controversy--just don't pay, and if they harass you, sue the pants off everyone.
I don't know about others here, but I really don't have the time nor the money nor the inclination to pursue a lawsuit in court against a departement of the federal government.
I make a point to head up to Mt. Evans at least once a season. Everytime I've been up there its been well before sunrise or close to sunset and the entrance booth has never been manned at those times. In the past I had the Golden Eagle sticker on my NP Pass so I just continued on my merry way. I guess with the new Federal Lands Pass (or whatevers its called now) that does the same thing, I still can access the area without paying a fee. But that doesn't diminish what Todd has said. Folks who don't carry the aforementioned Pass and who have no other desire but to drive the highway and stop at a scenic pullout to enjoy the view and cool air should not have to worry or deal with a FS ranger or whomever looking to collect a fee where they have no authority or jurisdiction to do so. As long as the citizenry does not mandate that USFS abide by these regulations, we are in effect granting them power and authority they don't have. Would you allow me to charge you a fee for walking down the sidewalk in front of my house no matter how beautiful the architecture was. The sidewalk is within the city right-of-way and is paid for with my taxes already. Maybe not the best of analogies, but I hope you get my point.
It would be a class action, Doug, no money and little time needed on your part.
Since this transgression on the part of the Forest Service was revealed, I'm in strong opposition to them charging a fee in this area unless they take over maintenance of the road from the state. If I find cause to drive up that road I will make a point of letting the collection agent know that they are in violation of FLREA. The forest service seems to be moving in the direction of a a for profit agency and its a concerning trend. There is an enormous difference between the quality of the experience in a National Park and what is experienced in a National Forest or BLM district. Its not that I'm saying the NF and BLM lands have failed provide great backcountry recreation experiences, but they are simply not equivalent to the system of National Parks.
I have been getting the National Parks pass for a number of years. Now that the Parks Pass has been replaced with the federal lands pass, the trip up Mt. Evans is no longer an issue, but I must say that I would prefer it if the parks pass were still available separately. For the time being, I just don't visit BLM or National Forest fee areas (other than campgrounds which are not covered) frequently enough to warrant the extra $20 per year. However, with the way the Forest Service is moving, I can see that this might not be the case in 5 years.
I knew that there was some controversy over this, but I wasn't aware of how specific the rules were in the FLREA. I would love to know where they are spending the money up there. Even though the little visitor center near the bristlecones is nice and all, it probably does not come close to equaling the big bucks they have been collecting. This article states they collect upwards of $300K a year from the program!
If this money were being used for real tangible improvements, conservation, etc in other areas, I might give them a break. But given the decline of our National Parks, forests and BLM areas, I can't say that is happening...
We could draft a query letter to be sent to the Office of the General Counsel for the USFS at the 6th & Union office (where I interned during law school a few years back) asking them to clarify the Forest Service's position on the matter. Because nothing moves quickly in the federal government, if we disagree with their response we may be able to effect change by the time the road re-opens in the spring.
Due to my experiences with the federal government and the law in general, I've got some pretty good ideas how to go about this knowledgably and effectively.
Any interest Todd? Is there anyone else with any particular input?
Rick, I don't think anything would happen.
Here's another wrinkle: Ever notice that when you pull into the parking lot at Summit Lake, the signs state that you're entering a part of the Denver Mountain Parks?