| WESTERN SLOPE NO-FEE COALITION |
|
|
|
Use this link to suscribe or edit your profile.
|
|
|
THE FEE-FREE PRESS
DEAR PUBLIC LANDS SUPPORTER Kitty Benzar ,
This Memorial Day holiday marks 15 years since the first Fee Demo protest in Colorado, a convoy to Yankee Boy Basin, near Ouray, on a county road where a Fee Demo toll had been introduced. That protest was where the founders of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition gathered and decided to form an organization.
We were pretty sure that Fee Demo was such a dumb idea that ridding the country of it would be easy and quick. We soon learned we were up against some formidable adversaries with plenty of money and plans to privatize and commercialize all recreation on federal lands. We had little or no money, and only the power of ordinary citizens, but we were determined and we have persevered.
Fifteen years later, the WSNFC is the principal champion of ordinary citizens who just want to go for a walk or ride in a National Forest or on BLM land. These are places that our forbears wisely set aside for public use in perpetuity, and which have been funded by the American people for generations.
Thanks to each and every one of you for continuing to support us with your energy, determination, action, and funding. Here's news on the latest developments.
|
|
|
PARKING AND HIKING FEES PROPOSED FOR POPULAR SALT LAKE CITY AREA TRAILS
 Despite a growing body of legal precedents establishing that fees for parking and hiking without using facilities are illegal, the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah is proposing a whole new program charging exactly those kind of fees. This would be the biggest new fee program of its type in several years. At ten popular trailheads in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, the forest wants to charge $6 per vehicle just to park and go hiking, a fee that is clearly prohibited by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. The proposal will ultimately need to be approved by the Utah Resource Advisory Council. They, in turn, are required by law to ensure that it has "general public support." The best chance of stopping this misguided proposal is to clearly demonstrate general public opposition!TAKE ACTION! Send an email comment now voicing your opposition to trail fees. Comments are being accepted at [email protected] until September 9, but don't wait, do it NOW. More info at THIS LINK.
|
|
IF THE PUBLIC WON'T SWALLOW IT ALL AT ONCE, CAN CONGRESS FEED IT TO US ONE BITE AT A TIME?
We alerted you last fall to a "discussion draft" of a bill that would be a top-to-bottom revision of current fee law. It would eliminate nearly all fee prohibitions on the federal land management agencies and allow them to charge anyone to do anything, anywhere. That bill has still not been introduced in its entirety, but parts of it have started showing up in other legislation.
Is Congress trying to pass the bill as stealth legislation, feeding us, a little at a time, provisions that we would never swallow if we saw the whole thing?
For example, Rob Bishop (R-UT) has introduced HR 4680, which deals with the National Park Service's Centennial. But slipped in amongst the language about the Parks is a provision that would change the price of the popular Senior Pass, available for $10 to those age 62 and older. The Senior Pass covers the passholder and all occupants of the same vehicle for most federal recreation fees, not just at National Parks but also National Forests and BLM lands, for the rest of their life. Lots of people have long wanted to raise the price, but fear a backlash from seniors. HR 4680 would establish two Senior Pass options: a $20 pass good for one year, or a lifetime pass for the price of an annual America the Beautiful Pass - currently $80 but subject to change at any time. That would be an 800% increase for no additional benefits, and no guarantee the price would not continue to skyrocket!
HR 4680 would also change the way Senior Pass revenue is allocated. Currently the entire amount paid stays at the Park, Forest, or BLM site where it is purchased. Under this bill, only $10 would stay at the local unit, while all revenue in excess of that would go into a National Parks Centennial Challenge Fund, to benefit the Parks only. The Forest Service and BLM, already struggling to find sufficient funding for their recreation programs, would have to turn over most of their proceeds to their sister agency, the much better-funded National Park Service.
Another bill to watch is HR 5129, introduced by Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA). It is mainly concerned with revisions to the way commercial outfitter-guide permits are issued. But hidden among provisions to streamline permitting for outfitters is stealth language that would authorize charging ordinary, non-commercial visitors a special recreation permit fee for all use of "special areas." Since neither "special" nor "area" is defined this would open the door to declaring everyplace "special" and requiring everyone to have a permit, and pay a fee, just to be there.
Last year's "discussion draft" contained many other objectionable provisions, such as making private concessionaire management the preferred model for all federal lands. We are watching closely for those other provisions to show up in seemingly unrelated legislation, and will alert you if we see more of that happening. You can follow these bills at the Library of Congress legislation tracking website at THIS LINK.
TAKE ACTION! Contact your U.S Representative and ask them not to support HR 4680 or HR 5129 unless language is removed from them that would allow the federal agencies to exceed and evade the current legal restrictions on federal recreation fees. Let's stop this piecemeal approach to legislation that affects millions of citizens, and have an open, public debate about what recreation fees are appropriate - and which are not.
|
STEALTH FEE INCREASE AT MT EVANS 
Many visitors to Mt Evans, the highest paved highway in North America, automatically pay the Forest Service a fee of $10 without understanding that they could easily and legally avoid incurring any fee at all if they understood their options.
These folks are about to get hit with a 50% increase, from $10 to $15, in a fee that they could easily avoid. How could that happen?
Here's how:
In 2012, a settlement was reached in a landmark legal case challenging a Forest Service fee that was being charged for all travel on Colorado State Highway 5 to the summit of Mt Evans.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Forest Service stopped charging their $10 fee except for those who park close to two specific developed sites - the nature center partway up the mountain, and the interpretive site at the very top. General travel on the road, including roadside parking outside those two sites, became free. The FS also agreed to establish a "thru lane" for visitors who don't plan to park at either fee site and thus have no obligation to pay a fee and don't need to stop at the fee-collection booth at the bottom of the highway.
That system is going into its third summer, and more and more visitors have figured out that they don't have to get in line for the fee booth, they can just proceed up the mountain using the thru lane. If they change their minds later and decide to park at one of the fee sites, they can pay the fee on-site at that time. (See instructional illustration above.)
Now the City of Denver wants to get in on the fee action and is imposing what amounts to a stealth increase of $5 on top of the $10 that the Forest Service collects. Denver owns a piece of land partway up the mountain called Summit Lake Park. The City Council has authorized a $5 fee for the park, and a fee payment tube is in place there. But many people, understandably, and especially if they already paid the $10 FS fee, haven't been complying.
So Denver and the Forest Service have reached an agreement that the fee collectors at the bottom will collect an extra $5 from those who plan to visit the city's park in addition to the federal sites. There is nothing illegal about this, but it is complicated and confusing to explain to the average visitor, especially as traffic backs up behind him.
What's likely to happen is that uninformed visitors will pull up the fee booth, be told "That will be $15 please," and will pay up, without fully understanding their options.
So if you plan to visit Mt Evans this summer, know your rights. You only have to pay the Forest Service if you park within the two signed fee sites. You only have to pay the Denver fee if you park at Summit Lake Park. It you just want to enjoy a beautiful drive, take photos from the many roadside pullouts, or walk or ride your bike into one of the fee sites, you don't have to pay anything! |
|
A VICTORY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS IN ARIZONA
 By law, all new or revised recreation fees must undergo review and recommendation by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RRAC). These Committees' organizations vary. In Arizona, the RRAC operates as a Subcommittee of the BLM's Resource Advisory Council (RAC).
The Subcommittee reviews fee proposals and makes a recommendation to the full RAC. That means that the RRAC Subcommittee is where the details of the fee proposal are presented, evaluated, and a recommendation is formulated. Final approval by the RAC is required but is essentially pro forma; the RRAC Subcommittee is where the rubber meets the road. The RAC has never failed to adopt the recommendation of its RRAC Subcommittee.
So when the Arizona BLM changed their procedure in 2015 to exclude the public from meetings of the RRAC Subcommittee, that raised a huge red flag. In that year and again in 2016, we were told that meetings of the RRAC Subcommittee are closed to the public, and WSNFC President Kitty Benzar was prohibited from attending or even observing those meetings, despite having traveled a considerable distance to do so.
After the second incident, we submitted a formal objection to the BLM Arizona State Director. To his credit, the response was positive. Director Raymond Suazo agreed that both full Council and Subcommittee meetings should be noticed in advance in the Federal Register and should be open to public observation and public comment, and in future that will be done.
Thank you, Director Suazo. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.
The WSNFC letter of objection is posted HERE, and Director Suazo's response is posted HERE.
|
|
|
|
|
The Western Slope No-Fee Coalition is a broad-based organization consisting of diverse interests including hiking, biking, boating, equestrian and motorized enthusiasts, community groups, local and state elected officials, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, and just plain citizens.
Our goals are:
- To eliminate recreation fees for general access to public lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
- To eliminate backcountry fees and interpretive program fees in National Parks
- To require more accountability within the land management agencies
- To encourage Congress to adequately fund our public lands
Thank you for your support!
Sincerely,
Kitty Benzar
Western Slope No Fee Coalition |
|
|
|
|
|
