Alpern v. Ferebee

Alpern · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · February 7, 2020 · No. 19-1086

Summary

The Tenth Circuit held that the Forest Service could charge Thomas Alpern a recreation fee for parking in developed Maroon Valley parking lots under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. The court interpreted the statutory prohibition on fees charged solely for parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking along roads or trailsides as not applying to designated developed parking areas containing the statutory amenities, and affirmed the district court.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Phillips, Circuit Judge; Lucero, Circuit Judge; Moritz, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
February 7, 2020
Docket number
19-1086
Procedural posture
Alpern appealed the district court's rejection of his as-applied challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to the Forest Service's Maroon Valley recreation-fee program.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the district court's decision de novo under the Administrative Procedure Act and applied the law to the facts of Alpern's concrete case.
Precedential value
Published Tenth Circuit decision; precedential.
Parties
Thomas Alpern v. Brian Ferebee, in his official capacity as the U.S. Forest Service Region 2 Acting Regional Forester, United States Forest Service
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative lawstatutory interpretationplain meaning rulenational parks

Practice areas

administrative lawstatutory interpretationpublic landsnational parks

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 16 U.S.C. § 6802(d)(1)(A) prohibits the Forest Service from charging a fee to a visitor who parks in a developed parking lot solely to access trails, even when the lot contains all six amenities identified in § 6802(f)(4).
  2. Whether the phrase "along roads or trailsides" modifies each item in the series "parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking" in § 6802(d)(1)(A).
  3. Whether a visitor who parks in a developed lot necessarily uses or benefits from the lot's security services for purposes of the REA.

Holdings

  1. The Forest Service may charge a standard amenity recreation fee to a visitor who parks in a developed parking lot containing all six amenities listed in § 6802(f)(4), even if the visitor claims not to use most of those amenities.
  2. The phrase "along roads or trailsides" modifies each term in the series "parking, undesignated parking, or picnicking." Section 6802(d)(1)(A) therefore prohibits fees for parking along roads or trailsides, not for parking in a developed parking lot.
  3. Parking in a developed lot with the statutory amenities does not constitute parking along a road or trailside merely because the lot provides access to trails.

Key quotations

Section 6802(d)(1)(A) prohibits charging fees “[s]olely for parking . . . along roads or trailsides[,]” something Alpern does not do. (at 2)
For these reasons, we conclude that the statute prevents charging a visitor “solely for parking . . . along roads or trailsides.” (at 7)
Because Alpern parks in § 6802(f)(4) parking lots, the Forest Service has authority to charge him the user fee. (at 12)

Factual background

Maroon Valley in Colorado's White River National Forest contains three developed parking lots, each with designated parking, permanent toilets, trash receptacles, interpretive signs, picnic tables, and security services. Visitors generally pay a $10 fee to enter and park in one of the lots, while persons merely driving through or briefly stopping at a scenic pullout are not charged. Alpern paid the fee to park while accessing trails and wilderness areas, although he asserted that he did not use most of the listed amenities.

Procedural history

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado rejected Alpern's challenge to the fee program as applied to him. Alpern timely appealed, and the Tenth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court and dismissed the case.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…