Wiechers v. Moore
| Decision Date | 09 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00223-LJO-JLT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | PETER WIECHERS, Plaintiff, v. RANDY MOORE, in his official capacity as Regional Forester for the Pacific Southwest Region of the United States Forest Service, and the UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Federal Defendants. |
25); AND MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC.
29).
Plaintiff Peter Wiechers brings this challenge to implementation by the U.S. Forest Service ("Forest Service" or "Federal Defendant") of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act ("REA") fee program in the Sequoia National Forest, located in the southern Sierra Nevada in California. See Doc. 1, Complaint, at 2. Among other things, REA permits the Forest Service to charge users a "standard amenity recreation fee," but only at cites providing certain amenities. 16 U.S.C. § 6802(f). REA also explicitly prohibits charging fees "[s]olely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trail sides." 16 U.S.C. § 6802(d). Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges the Forest Service improperly charged an amenity fee at several locations within Sequoia National Forest without providing the required amenities listed in REA in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (). Doc. 1 at ¶ 37. The second cause of action, also arising under the APA, alleges that the Forest Service improperly charged an amenity fee to enter certain sites, "regardless of whether [the visitor] use[s] the developed facilities and services." Doc. 1 at ¶ 39.
Before the court for decision are cross-motions for summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff's claims. The parties filed a joint statement of undisputed facts. Doc. 25-1. Plaintiff filed his opening brief on October 11, 2013. Doc. 25-2. Federal Defendants filed a combined opposition and cross-motion on November 22, 2013. Doc. 30-1. Plaintiff filed a combined opposition and reply on December 18, 2013. Doc. 33. Federal Defendants filed a reply on January 14, 2014. Doc. 37. Plaintiff was granted leave to and did file a sur-reply addressing a narrow issue. Doc. 43, filed Jan. 29, 2014. Federal Defendants were, in turn, granted leave to and did file a brief response to documents attached to Plaintiff's sur-reply. Doc. 44-1, filed February 3, 2014.
To provide adequate time for the Court to review the voluminous materials submitted, the hearing on the cross-motions, originally set for hearing on February 20, 2014, was vacated. Doc. 47. Having thoroughly reviewed the papers and those portions of the extensive Administrative Record ("AR") cited by the parties, the Court believes that the issues are sufficiently developed so as to obviate the need for oral argument. The Court therefore issues the following decision based upon the papers without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
Under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Congress permitted federal land-management agencies to charge fees for recreating on federal lands when certain facilities were provided by the agency to the public. In 1996, Congress created the "Recreational Fee Demonstration Program." Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 315, 110 Stat. 1321 ("Fee Demo Program"), which required the Forest Service and three other federal land management agencies to develop a pilot program to "charge and collect fees for ... [the] use of outdoor recreation sites." Id. at § 315(a) & (b)(1). The stated purpose of the Fee DemoProgram was to shift more of the operational costs of public lands onto the agencies managing those lands, and also to address the need for funds to reduce an extensive maintenance backlog on public lands. Id. at § 315(c)(3). The Fee Demo Program provided that eighty percent of the generated revenue would be returned to the national parks, national forests, and other public lands where the fees were collected. Id. at § 315(c)(1)(A) & (c)(2)(A).
Response to the Fee Demo Program was not entirely positive. Prior to renewal of the Program in 2003, Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon introduced an amendment to limit the Fee Demo to National Parks, and eliminate it on lands managed by the Forest Service and other agencies. Representative De Fazio stated:
[There are] those of us who feel very strongly that levying these fees indiscriminately across the Forest Service and the BLM, to nondeveloped areas in particular, is of great concern. Basically, if you want to drive your car around a park and go hunting or go fishing or just walk with the kids or the dog, you have to buy a pass for nondeveloped sites, and a lot of us have strong concerns about that.
149 Cong. Rec. H7025-06 at H7033, 2003 WL 21673066 (daily ed. July 7, 2003). In response to these concerns, the chairman of the House Committee on Resources, Representative Richard Pombo of California stated:
Id. at H7034.
On December 8, 2004, Congress passed the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act ("REA"). 16 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq. REA specifically repealed the Fee Demo Program, 16 U.S.C.§ 6812(b) & (e)(3), and authorized the Forest Service to establish, charge, and collect recreation fees on the National Forests in accordance with specific criteria, including the following:
16 U.S.C. § 6802(b).
REA specifically prohibits charging an entrance fee for recreational use of lands managed by the Forest Service. 16 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(2). However, the Forest service may impose a "standard amenity recreation fee" ("SARF") or an "expanded amenity recreation fee" ("EARF") if certain conditions are met. A SARF may be assessed only at certain specific sites or sites providing specified amenities as follows:
16 U.S.C. § 6802(f). Areas where SARFs are imposed are referred to as standard amenity fee areas ("SAFAs").
An EARF may be imposed by the Forest Service as follows:
***
16 U.S.C. § 6802(g). Areas where EARFs are imposed are referred to as expanded amenity fee areas ("EAFA").
Both fee provisions are subject to the limitations set forth in, 16 U.S.C. 6802(d):
To continue reading
Request your trial