Adams v. United States Forest Service
671 F.3d 1138
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- REA prohibits standard amenity recreation fees for certain activities, including parking, picnicking along roads/trailsides, and camping at undeveloped sites.
- Forest Service designated Mount Lemmon area near Catalina Highway as a High Impact Recreation Area (HIRA) and imposed a standard amenity fee there.
- Plaintiffs—recreational visitors—sued alleging the Mount Lemmon fees exceed the REA’s authorizations and sought declaratory and injunctive relief and reimbursement.
- District court granted the Forest Service’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Count I, leading to this appeal.
- The court reverses the district court, holding the REA unambiguously prohibits the Mount Lemmon fee structure for parking, hiking through without using facilities, picnicking on roads/trailsides, and camping at undeveloped sites.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does REA prohibit fees for parking and hiking through Mount Lemmon? | Adams asserts REA bans fees solely for parking or for hiking through without using facilities. | Forest Service argues its interpretation is reasonable under Chevron, allowing fees in an area with amenities. | Yes; REA unambiguously prohibits these fees. |
| Is Forest Service's interpretation entitled to Chevron or Skidmore deference? | Plaintiffs contend the statute’s plain text forecloses deference here. | Forest Service seeks Chevron deference; district court applied Skidmore if ambiguity existed. | REA bars deference; statute unambiguous; no deference warranted. |
| Does REA prohibit fees for picnicking on roads/trailsides within an area with amenities? | Fees charged for picnicking on roads/trailsides within Mount Lemmon HIRA violate prohibitions. | Forest Service contends fees align with broader area amenities and use. | Yes; prohibited when charged for picnicking on roads/trailsides within an area with amenities. |
| Does REA prohibit fees for camping at undeveloped sites lacking minimum facilities? | Fees for undeveloped campsites violate the minimum-facilities requirement. | Forest Service asserts authority to charge for camping within the area. | Yes; prohibited for undeveloped sites lacking minimum facilities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scherer v. United States Forest Serv., 653 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (facial challenge to HIRA not warranted; as-applied may be)
- Scherer v. United States Forest Serv., 653 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (facial challenge to HIRA not warranted; as-applied may be)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes two-step deferential review of agency interpretations)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (U.S. Supreme Court 1944) (deference based on analysis and expertise when statute is ambiguous)
- Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (limits on agency or statutory interpretation and deference)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (statutory ambiguity depends on context)
- Scherer v. United States Forest Serv., 653 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (as-applied challenge to HIRA implementation)
- Scherer v. United States Forest Serv., 653 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (relevance to REA interpretation and parking/through-activities)