Page 8 - the NOISE APril 2013

Another lawsuit has been waged against the United state Forest ser- vice over recreation fees. In California, Pe- ter Wiechers filed suit against the Sequoia National Forest in central California which challenges the implementation of the southern sierra Pass, a recreation pass similar in nature to the red rock Pass here in Sedona. This is the third lawsuit to be waged in recent months that calls into question the USFS’s implementation of recreation fees. A suit challenging Cali- fornia’s Adventure Pass and one that con- demns the USFS’ use of concessionaires to circumvent fee restrictions have also been filed.
Mr. Wiechers’ complaint states that he has paid a fee on numerous occasions to simply park his car and go for a hike and to enter areas that do not contain the six amenities required by the Federal lands recreation enhancement act for stan- dard amenity Fee areas (SAFAs – more or less what the USFS previously defined as HIRAs or “High Impact Recreation Areas,” a term that has fallen out of use since the recent court decisions). He has also re- ceived a “Notice of Required Fee” (NRF – an unenforceable ‘ticket’ used by the USFS to extort fees from forest visitors) when he did not use any services or amenities pro- vided. The suit proclaims that “he has paid to enter these sites even though the Forest Service has not provided all six of the re- quired amenities at each of these sites. He is injured by the challenged policy both monetarily and otherwise: when he does visit, having to pay makes his visits less en- joyable, and having to pay decreases the number of recreational visits he makes to the Sequoia National Forest.”
Since May 2012, the USFS has had an
official policy of not enforcing fees at recreation sites that are being examined for removal from the current fee system. But forests around the country, including the Coconino National Forest’s red rock ranger district in Sedona, continue to charge fees in areas where those fees are prohibited by federal law.
In February 2012, a unanimous three- judge panel of the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reached a decision in the Mt. Lemmon case that determined that fed- eral law means what it says with regard to recreation fees. It was judicially affirmed that the law prohibits fees for general access, parking and/or passing through without using facilities and services, or camping in undeveloped areas. In spite of this ruling, foresters in Sedona continue to deny its application to the RRP “areas” that were officially restructured just days prior to the Circuit Court’s decision. Signs stating that parked vehicles must display a recreation pass still abound throughout the RRRD and no effort has been made on the part of the USFS to accommodate those who wish to simply park a vehicle to access forest lands.
It is evident that, if the USFS continues to selectively apply the interpretation of the law only to those areas in which suits were filed, additional lawsuits will contin- ue to mount. In a release by the Western slope no Fee coalition out of Durango, Colorado, Kitty Benzar stated that “when a federal agency is violating federal law, you can’t just call the sheriff and have the district ranger arrested. As a citizen, your only recourse is to file a lawsuit. And that is what a number of concerned and commit- ted citizens have done.”
The best recourse for forest users is to know the law and only purchase fees when engaging in activities for which they can be required. If you go to a trailhead and simply park your car to go for a hike, the law does not allow the USFS to charge you a fee. On the other hand, if you pull into that same area for a picnic and use the restrooms, provided picnic tables, and/ or trash receptacles, you should pay the required fee.
“Despite persistent citizen action, nega- tive publicity, and as a last resort, litigation, the Forest Service has yet to get all their fee programs into compliance with the law or to notify the public that they have stopped enforcing fees at many sites, even if the “fee required” signs are still up, says Ms. Benzar. “While the pending lawsuits run their course, here is something you can do: Learn what the law says and don’t buy passes or pay fees for activities that the agencies are not authorized to charge you for.”
tWo WronGs still don’t MaKe a riGht
In refusing to make adjustments to its current fee system and comply with the current legal status regarding recreation fees on forest lands, the RRRD is serving as a bad example for another Arizona forest that is considering fee changes. The ton- to national Forest based out of Phoenix is the 5th largest forest in the USFS system. Its northern boundary extends into the Payson area and it includes portions of the Salt and Verde Rivers and Fossil Creek. It is also the most expensive forest to visit in the United States.
Recreation on the Tonto requires the purchase of an america the Beautiful an-
nual interagency pass at a cost of $80 per year and then an additional $15 “upgrade” for access to Tonto’s day use sites. The $95 total is the highest annual fee for access to public forest land in the country. To boot, TNF has a number of sites that are man- aged by a private concessionaire that re- quire additional fees on top of the annual pass “upgrade.”
In December 2012, the TNF announced that it would be holding a “series of public long-term recreation sustainability plan- ning meetings.” Forest Supervisor neil Bosworth stated that “it is imperative that we look at our long-range recreation man- agement program in terms of sustainabil- ity – social, economic, and ecological.” At a meeting of the arizona resource ad- visory council in November, representa- tives from TNF said that they intended to use the RRRD as a model for their public outreach efforts and fee system restruc- turing. Since the RRRD is still operating outside the law according to the Mt. Lem- mon decision, maybe it’s not the best role model for Tonto.
The first evidence that TNF would use the RRRD as their model came in the form the public meetings took that TNF held in January and February this year. The pub- lic “meetings” weren’t really meetings at all. In fact the TNF took a direct cue from the RRRD and held “open houses” instead.
In early 2011, the RRRD held an actual meeting with the public to begin address- ing the need to change the RRP system following the Smith decision. The meet- ing was facilitated by professionals that attempted to mitigate any opposing views raised by members of the public and kept the meeting moving in a pre-ordained di-
8 • APRIL 2013 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
NEWSfeAture