UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SOUTHERN FOREST WATCH, INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
CIV NO. 3:13-cv-116
)
(HOOD/GUYTON)
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
)
SALLY JEWELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO ORDER DEFENDANTS TO
PARTICIPATE IN DISCOVERY
Come plaintiffs, through counsel, and file this brief in support of their
motion to order defendants to participate in discovery and shows as follows:
I.
Facts
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges different causes of actions, including
violations of laws respecting proper administrative process and review of the
administrative record surrounding the backpacker tax.
Plaintiffs complaint goes beyond a review of the administrative record
surrounding the backpacker tax.
This case includes defendants’ illegal practices of allowing one (1)
private resort and associated individuals exclusive access to
portions of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
This case
also involves defendants illegally closing camp sites and moving a trail away
from a former politician’s home adjacent to the national park’s boundary and
possibly illegally conveying property rights and interests from within the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park to this former politician.
The case involves allegations that the defendants may be illegally
allowing certain companies or individuals to have preferential access to the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Plaintiffs also seek to discovery backcountry usage details that will
reflect the defendants’ backpacker tax have in fact illegally impaired citizens’
use and enjoyment of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
This case also involves the defendants using misrepresentation,
disinformation and fraudulent representations to try to encourage public support
of the new backpacker tax. In other
words, defendants have lied, cheated and stolen from citizens of the United
States of America.
There are other causes of action, including declaratory relief.
Attached as an Exhibits hereto are drafted requests for admissions which
reflect the dishonest public misinformation campaign put forth by the
defendants. Plaintiffs plan on
starting discovery with these requests for admissions.
Counsel for the parties in this case have conferred on several occasions
about the case; however, plaintiffs understand the defendants’ contend absent
dismissal of this case, this case is only a record review case of the federal
administrative record and thereby exempt from the rules of discovery.
Defendants will not agree to a discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26.
II.
Law and Argument
Rule 26(d) is titled “Timing and Sequence of Discovery”, and it sets
forth the outline for discovery in cases pending before this court.
Part of that rule provides:
“...(1) Timing. A party may
not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required
by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under
Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court
order...”
Subsection (f) provides the party are required to participate in a
conference and provide a plan for discovery.
Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants have had a number of phone
conferences which included discussions about discovery.
Defendants contend this case is simply an administrative record review
case, and plaintiffs contend it is much more.
Plaintiffs assert it is not the function of the Courts to protect the
government from claims of its citizens, but to protect the citizens from the
taking of rights held by the citizens.
How does the Court know what has been deleted from and/or added to the
federal administrative record maintained by the government, particularly in the
time frame the issues arose?
Plaintiffs show there is no basis or distinction between the general members of
the public as plaintiffs to this suit and those with political influence able to
received benefits from the National Park Service.
To assert what the facts of this case show are merely an administrative
hearing is to cut off basic facts that show improper discrimination against
these plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs request a ruling from the court that this is not merely an
administrative review case, but a case to be fully adjudicated.
Respectfully submitted this19th day of December, 2013.
/s/ J. Myers Morton
J. Myers Morton
BPR#: 013357
MORTON & MORTON, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1518 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee, 37917
Telephone: (865) 523-2000
Facsimile: (865) 546-4860
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been furnished
to William C.Killian and Loretta S.Harber, US Attorneys by the Court’s
electronic system and email from the undersigned.
This19th day of December, 2013.
/s/ J. Myers Morton
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT
KNOXVILLE
SOUTHERN FOREST WATCH,
INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
CIV NO. 3:13-cv-116
)
(HOOD/GUYTON)
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
)
SALLY JEWELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MOTION
Come plaintiffs, through counsel, and move this court to order defendants
to participate in discovery.
Defendants assert this case involves exclusively an federal
administrative record review, and no discovery whatsoever is allowed.
Plaintiffs assert it is not the function of the Courts to protect the
government from claims of its citizens, but to protect the citizens from the
taking of rights held by the citizens.
How does the Court know what has been deleted from and/or added to the
federal administrative record maintained by the government, particularly in the
time frame the issues arose?
Plaintiffs show there is no basis or distinction between the general members of
the public as plaintiffs to this suit and those with political influence able to
received benefits from the National Park Service.
To assert what the facts of this case show are merely an administrative
hearing is to cut off basic facts that show improper discrimination against
these plaintiffs.
Additionally, there are causes of action alleged beyond the
administrative review.
Plaintiffs request a ruling form the court that this is not merely an
administrative review case, but a case to be fully adjudicated.
Plaintiffs are filing a brief in support, and attached to the brief are
requests for admissions plaintiffs want to serve on defendants.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs move the Court to order defendants to participate
in discovery.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of December, 2013.
/s/ J. Myers Morton
J. Myers Morton
BPR#: 013357
MORTON & MORTON, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1518 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee, 37917
Telephone: (865) 523-2000
Facsimile: (865) 546-4860
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been furnished
to William C.Killian and Loretta S.Harber, US Attorneys by the Court’s
electronic system and email from the undersigned.
This 19th day of
December, 2013.
/s/ J. Myers Morton
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT
KNOXVILLE
SOUTHERN FOREST WATCH,
INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
CIV NO. 3:13-cv-116
)
(HOOD/GUYTON)
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
)
SALLY JEWELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS TO ADMIT
Comes plaintiff, through counsel, and request defendants admit the truth
of the following facts and genuineness of the purported statements of defendants
on various media:
REQUEST 1:
That on or about July 27, 2011, the defendants made the statement,
pronouncement or press release set forth on Exhibit 1 attached hereto on the
defendants’ Great Smoky Mountains National Park website,
www.nps.gov.
REQUEST 2:
This July 27, 2011, statement or pronouncement set forth on Exhibit 1 is
defendants’ first public announcement, pronouncement or press release of this
new backpacker tax or fee.
REQUEST 3:
Admit the genuineness of the following described document,
A “United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, Southeast
Regional Office” “Memorandum” “F5419(5072)” that is undated and is attached as
Exhibit 2 hereto is genuine.
REQUEST 4:
Exhibit 2 predated July 27, 2011.
REQUEST 5:
A “United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service”
response “Memorandum” “F5419 (2608)” that is dated August 16, 2011 and is
attached as Exhibit 3 hereto is genuine.
REQUEST 6:
The nature of Exhibits 2 and 3 limits defendants’ authority to raise
overall annual revenue sufficient to simply cover the reservation service fees.
REQUEST 7:
Exhibit 3 is defendants’ final, administrative approval of the backpacker
tax or fee.
REQUEST 8:
Backcountry camping within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park peaked
in the 1990s and has declined dramatically since that time, leveling out in
recent years at under 80,000 total camper nights annually.
REQUEST 9:
Defendants’ campsite data 2009 reflects that backcountry sites actually
average less than 2 people per night.
REQUEST 10:
During 1 of several conversations about purported justifications for the
backpacker tax or fee with Southern Forest Watch board member Frank Whitehead,
defendant Superintendent Ditmason told him in uncertain terms “Overcrowding was
the wrong argument to use.”
REQUEST 11:
For a period covering 2009-2111 there were precisely 15 total complaints
on backcountry matters, with five coming from a single individual and most
dealing with trails and issues not directly related to campsites.
REQUEST 12:
Members of Southern Forest Watch offered defendants to provide adequate
personnel to successfully work the then-functioning reservation system.
REQUEST 13:
At the July 27, 2011, and August 18, 2011, public meetings, those
attending were assigned to groups of no more than 2 or 3 with a National Park
representative.
REQUEST 14:
No notes or minutes were taken and no effort was made to record the
comments of attendees.
REQUEST 15:
Kurt Repanshek quotes defendant Ditmanson in a news article that can be
found at
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/02/great-smoky-mountains-national-park-looking-
backcountry-user-fee-improve-services-protect-resources9454.
The content of the article is also attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
Admit that Mr. Repanshek quotes defendant Ditmanson accurately.
REQUEST 16:
Kurt Repanshek quotes defendant Ditmanson in a news article that can be
found at
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/03/great-smoky-mountains-national-park-institute-
backcountry-fees9579. The content
of the article is also attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
Admit that Mr. Repanshek quotes defendant Ditmanson accurately.
REQUEST 17:
That on or about March 7, 2012, the defendants made the statement,
pronouncement or press release set forth on Exhibit 6 attached hereto on the
defendants’ Great Smoky Mountains National Park website, www.nps.gov, and this
press release can be seen at http://www.nps.gov/
grsm/parknews/bc-camping-fee.htm.
The content of the press release is also attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
Admit that defendant Ditmanson is quoted accurately.
REQUEST 18:
Morgan Simmons quotes Bob Miller in a news article that can be found at
http://www. knoxnews.com/news/2011/dec/04/avid-smokies-
hiker-seeks-access-to-comments-over/?print=1, The content of the article is also
attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
Admit that Mr. Simmons quotes Bob Miller accurately.
REQUEST 19:
Joel Davis quotes defendant Ditmanson in a news article that can be found
at
http://www.thedailytimes.com/Local_News/story/Smokies-to-charge-backcountry-shelter-fee-id-021402.
The content of the article is also attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
Admit that Joel Davis quotes defendant Ditmanson accurately.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of December, 2013.
/s/ J. Myers Morton
J. Myers Morton
BPR#: 013357
MORTON & MORTON, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1518 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee, 37917
Telephone: (865) 523-2000
Facsimile: (865) 546-4860
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been furnished
to William C.Killian and Loretta S.Harber, US Attorneys by the Court’s
electronic system and email from the undersigned.
This 19th day of
December, 2013.
/s/ J. Myers Morton
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT
KNOXVILLE
SOUTHERN FOREST WATCH,
INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
CIV NO. 3:13-cv-116
)
(HOOD/GUYTON)
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
)
SALLY JEWELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
EXHIBIT 1 TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
“Backcountry
Office & Permit System Restructuring Proposal
July 27, 2011
Introduction
Park management is considering a proposal to improve visitor services by
restructuring the park’s backcountry reservations and permitting processes as
well as assisted backcountry trip planning services. The purpose of this
document is to brief park partners, cooperators and stakeholder representatives
and to solicit feedback on this proposal.
Background and Scope of Problem
• The park consistently receives complaints about the amount of time and
effort it takes for visitors to get a backcountry reservation and/or acquire
backcountry planning information. This is a reflection of insufficient staffing
for the volume of customers, both call-in and walk-in, requiring reservations
and/or trip planning information.
• The park also frequently receives feedback from the public that they
desire to see more rangers in the backcountry to address problems such as dogs
on trails, and permit and camping violations. This includes overcrowding of
backcountry campsites by nonpermitted campers. A greater National Park Service
presence is also desired in the Backcountry Information Office to provide trip
planning services.
• Non-reserved sites currently comprise over half the park’s backcountry
campsite inventory. Because they are non-reserved, capacities are frequently
exceeded, which results in food storage violations, increased wildlife
encounters and the need to close campsites to protect visitors and wildlife.
When the park needs to close one of these sites, staff must rely on closure
signs at permit stations and at the sites themselves to notify campers, but this
is not a reliable method of notification. A reliable system of notification is
vitally important when closures are due to bears or other safety reasons.
Proposed Solution and Outcomes
1. Contract with Recreation.gov, an online and call-in reservation
service, to which customers will have 24/7 access and can print their
backcountry permit prior to arriving in the park. Recreation.gov is the official
centralized reservation service used by all U.S. Department of Interior and U.S.
Forest Service recreational areas offering camping reservation services. These
options will reduce the number of reservation calls to the Backcountry
Information Office and allow staff to spend more time assisting customers with
high-quality trip planning services, both walk-in and by phone. Although park
research suggests that 80% of reservations will likely be made online and almost
20% by phone, there will also be an opportunity for customers to obtain
reservations or permits on a walk-in basis at the Backcountry Information Office
and potentially at one or two other select visitor contact stations in the park.
The reservation system will dramatically increase reservation/ permit customer
service and ensure customers have greatly improved access to high-quality trip
planning information, both through personal contacts and improved on-line
planning tools. Customers will be able to make reservations and obtain permits
at their convenience.
Page 2 of 2
2. Create a cost recovery fee structure for reservations that will
generate revenue to cover both the contractor cost of the reservation system and
support an increased National Park Service presence in the Backcountry
Information Office and in the park’s backcountry. Although Great Smoky Mountains
National Park has been offering free backcountry permits for years, the park is
in the minority when compared to other parks with comparable backcountry
operations. Most other parks with similar backcountry operations charge between
$10 and $30 per reservation, and many have additional per person or per person,
per night fees. Parks use these fees in support of their backcountry operations
programs and, in turn, offer improved services to the public. Similarly, beyond
providing access to a more convenient reservation/permitting service, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park proposes using these fees to increase ranger
presence in the backcountry and improve customer access to trip planning
services through the Backcountry Information Office.
Alternative fee structures that would allow the park to meet these
objectives include:
o $10 per reservation + $5
per person; or,
o $10 per reservation +
$2.25 per person per night; or,
o $4 per person per night.
3. Require reservations for all backcountry sites. The reservation system
will have the capability of notifying reservations holders of site closures,
safety issues, or emergency information via phone calls, text messages or
emails. The park will be aware of,
and have contact information for, users at each site. The park will be able to
reliably contact each reservation holder with timely information about closures,
safety issues and other important backcountry information. By placing all sites
on the reservation system and having an increased ranger presence in the
backcountry, negative impacts to both the natural environment and to the visitor
experience from overcrowding and other conflicts will be reduced.
Conclusion
Implementation of this proposal will result in an improvement to customer
service that will make obtaining backcountry reservations quick, easy and
convenient for customers, as well as increase their access to Backcountry
Information Office personnel for trip planning. Additional rangers in the park’s
backcountry will improve visitor experience by actively addressing commonly
reported backcountry camper concerns.
Additional Information & Comments
• Written comments regarding this proposal may be addressed to the Park
Superintendent by August 26th. Comments may be submitted via email to
grsmcomments@nps.gov or by mail to Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 107 Park
Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738.• The park will also hold two
informational open houses regarding this proposal to which partners,
cooperators, stakeholder representatives and the general public are invited.
o Tuesday, August 16: Old
Oconoluftee (sic) Visitor Center 5:30 – 7:30 pm.
o Thursday, August 18:
Headquarters Lobby 5:30 – 7:30 pm”
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT
KNOXVILLE
SOUTHERN FOREST WATCH,
INC.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
CIV NO. 3:13-cv-116
)
(HOOD/GUYTON)
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
)
SALLY JEWELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
EXHIBIT 4 TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
On the following website,
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2012/02/great-smoky-
mountains-national-park-looking-backcountry-user-fee-improve-services-protect-resources9454,
there appeared the following article quoting defendant Ditmanson.
The title of the article is “Great Smoky Mountains National Park Looking
To Backcountry User Fee To Improve Services, Protect Resources” and it states:
“Editor's note: The
issue of fees in the National Park System comes up from time to time, with some
park users in favor of them and others feeling they're unjust and unequally
levied. At Great Smoky Mountains National Park officials last summer proposed a
fee for backcountry use that brought outrage from some who enjoy the park. The
following story examines that issue and how Park Service officials utilize
public comment in making decisions.
In a day when a cup of
coffee can run you $4, how much pushback should you expect if you were charged
that much to spend the night in the woods of Great Smoky Mountains National
Park?
Surprisingly, quite a bit.
Pinched by an inadequate
budget and unable to charge an entrance fee for any of his roughly 9 million
yearly visitors, Great Smoky Superintendent Dale Ditmanson sees no way of
improving visitor services and protecting backcountry resources without charging
users who spend the night in the woods.
“I’ve certainly been quoted
as saying that I don’t have the same tools in my toolbox that the
superintendents of Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon have. Especially when
the (fee) legislation authorizes 80 percent of that money to stay within the
park," says the superintendent in reference to those other parks that are able
to charge entrance fees and keep most of the money. "We could do some really
great things at the Smokies, but I just don’t have that tool at this time.”
What Superintendent
Ditmanson does have, however, is a skeleton staff of volunteers who run his
backcountry reservations office three hours a day, five days a week, and a
backcountry that in places and at times is overcrowded and too often trashed. A
fee system, he says, would extend the park's backcountry office to five
eight-hour days, enable two rangers to patrol the backcountry daily, and provide
users with an on-line reservation system.
The over-riding situation
-- too many demands and needs, and precious few dollars -- is commonplace
throughout the National Park System. There have been opinions voiced that the
problem with the National Park Service budget is that it's top-heavy and thus
denies precious dollars to flow down to the park level. Regardless, more and
more parks are turning to fees -- backcountry fees, interpretive program fees,
entrance fees and more -- to maintain the parks.
While fees have never been
charged at the Smokies for overnight backcountry stays, outside of a bed at
LeConte Lodge, there has been a reservation system on and off for campsites over
the years, one that has its own nuances.
"As recently as the
mid-1980s, all overnight backcountry campers were required to make a reservation
for all sites in the backcountry, either in person at a reservation booth near
park headquarters or the Oconaluftee Visitor Center in North Carolina, or by
telephone through the same office," says Great Smoky spokesman Bob Miller. "In
the late 1980s the park decided to eliminate the 'all campsite reservation
requirement' and scaled back to a system that required reservations for the most
popular or heavily used campsites/shelters, which is comprised of 24 sites and
the 15 shelters.
"Backcountry users are
currently required to contact the park by phone or in-person to make
reservations for these sites, and upon arrival, they must fill out a free
self-registration permit that they carry with them," Mr. Miller continued. "We
refer to these as 'rationed' sites. The other 65 sites are 'un-rationed,' but
users are still required to self-register and fill out the permit. All sites
(rationed and unrationed) have capacities which specify the number of campers
permitted, per night, per site."
New fees and higher fees
are seldom popular, and so it wasn't surprising that when Superintendent
Ditmanson proposed a fee for overnight use in the park's backcountry that it was
met with much condemnation when the public was asked to comment on the proposal.
Part of the concern was
that the proposed fees, which range from a low of $4 per person per night to a
high of a $10 registration fee plus $2.25 per night per person, could eclipse
front-country campsite fees, which range from $14-$20 per night, depending on
how many are in your group. Other issues raised in the comments were complaints
that day hikers would not be charged a fee, that those who traveled the
backcountry by horse would not see a higher fee to help repair the damage hooves
do to trails, that motorists traveling through the Smokies do so for free.
"I am in favor of reducing
poaching and improving backcountry campsites. However, the benefit to flora and
fauna benefits ALL who use the Smokies, not backpackers alone," "KTW" wrote in
commenting on the fee proposal. "If backpackers, whose impact is minimal are
charged, then day hikers and motorized vehicles should also be charged and an
entrance fee should be charged. The AT (Appalachian Trail) through the Smokies
is rutted. Will AT hikers be charged? If all those charges are in place we no
longer have 'wild' acreage available to all.
"Having backpacked
extensively across the country for about 40 years, I believe that those of us
who choose to walk and carry our belongings should be allowed to do so freely."
Jennifer Kelley added: "In
my opinion, as the park cannot charge an entrance fee as (Route) 441 is a major
U.S. highway, is that the Park Service needs to up front-country fees (where 99
percent of your tourist traffic goes). I also encourage entrance fees for Cades
Cove, as you're only going one place if you're going there. I feel this would
make much more money than a backcountry fee. If the Park Service is dead set on
a backcountry fee, why not charge horse campers per horse? Every horse camp I've
been to has been in terrible shape and I always pack out at least a pound of
trash. All trails in the park that allow horses are badly eroded and are mostly
in terrible shape, as well."
Others feared the fee
system would price them out of the backcountry.
"As a long-time visitor to
Great Smoky, I am opposed to all the fee-based aspects of your proposal," wrote
James Johnson. "Your proposed fee rates would make backcountry camping more
expensive than your campgrounds, and that is not how it should be. I would not
object as much to a per-reservation fee, but a nightly per person fee would make
it difficult to take my kids and visit the backcountry in the park. If this
proposal is implemented, my family would be more inclined to take them to one of
our great national forest areas which are much closer and still free, thus
avoiding Great Smoky. Not only will the park lose my money, but so will the
towns and businesses that are in close proximity to the park."
Not all comments were
against the proposal, though. Christoper Wieland expressed a viewpoint that was
shared by more than a few of the 230 comments (including two petitions)
submitted during the comment period.
"I whole-heartedly support
the proposal to provide a reservation call center and a fee structure for
backcountry camping sites," he wrote. "A call center will eliminate the hassle
of getting reservations by phone or in person, and the fees will help with trail
maintenance and patrols. I personally have had reservations at shelters and
found that the bunks were taken by campers without reservations, a problem that
can be mitigated by more rangers. I also would hope that some portion of the
fees will be reserved for trail maintenance."
Carol Anderson also
endorsed a fee system.
"The backcountry office has
provided excellent service, but is understaffed and overworked," she wrote. "The
backcountry areas need more ranger patrolling, assistance, and support. The
honor system for backpackers and horsemen is definitely broken. Your plan to
charge fees for usage is excellent."
Fees often are a
controversial issue in the National Park System, even though they've long been
associated with gaining entrance to the parks. Great Smoky has never had an
entrance fee, however, due to a quirk of history tied to the park's creation.
When the state of Tennessee transferred ownership of Newfound Gap Road to the
federal government in 1936, it stipulated that “no toll or license fee shall
ever be imposed…to travel the road.”
While Superintendent
Ditmanson points to that language in saying a blanket prohibition against an
entry fee doesn't exist, he did say trying to get the necessary authority to
implement one would not come easily.
"I guess you would refer to
it as the political third rail, because of that handed down history," he
explained. "It is very powerful, and a lot of the elected officials in my mind
would be very apprehensive to even consider that conversation. ... It would take
the Tennessee General Assembly to reconsider that deed in order for us to
consider an entrance fee.”
While fees have been
introduced to the park -- fees to use front-country campgrounds, fees to get
married in the park, fees to fish, fees to commercially guide hikes -- there
never has been a fee tied to strapping a pack on your back and disappearing down
one of the 800 miles or so of trail in the Smokies.
Superintendent Ditmanson
and his staff, though, are not venturing into uncharted territory with their
proposal to assess backcountry fees. Among the parks that already charge some
form of fee, whether it's a "reservation" fee, an "overnight" fee, or both,
include Yellowstone (a $20 reservation fee), Grand Teton ($25 reservation fee),
Yosemite ($5 per confirmed reservation plus $5 per person), Olympic ($5 per
group to register, then $2 per person per night), Mount Rainier ($20 reservation
fee), Zion ($5 reservation fee), Grand Canyon ($10 permit fee, plus $5 per
person per night below the rim, $5 per group staying above the rim), and Glacier
($30 per reservation).
These fees generate a
reasonable amount of income for the parks that charge them. According to Park
Service officials, in 2005, backcountry fees generated $1.3 million for the
parks that collected them. By 2011 that sum had risen to $1.5 million. If Great
Smoky gains permission from the director's office to institute a backcountry fee
of $4 per person per night, it would generate at least $300,000, according to
estimates.
"And the three places that
funding could be spent is on an on-line system, whether it’s recreation.gov,
which has a fee that we pay based on the national contract, or, if that is not
servicable, we would have some funding to develop our own system,"
Superintendent Ditmanson says. "And then staffing in the backcountry office to
extend those hours from three hours to a full day operation, and two backcountry
rangers. So that I think is getting a lot of mileage out of that.”
But that "mileage" might
not come without a good measure of resentment. John Quillen, a Tennessean from
Knoxville who fought to have the public comments on the fee proposal made
public, says that by his calculation the comments were "almost 20 to 1 against
the fee." Mr. Quillen's breakdown of the comments shows 827 opposed to the fee
and just 45 in favor of it.
"Superintendent Ditmanson
hasn't reached out to any of the actual user groups since receiving the public
input, so the perception is full steam ahead, 'let them eat cake!'" Mr. Quillen
said in an email. "Many of the large user groups such as the Appalachian Trail
Conservancy with untold membership, Southern Appalachian Backountry Horsemen,
the Appalachian Long Distance Hikers with 1,500 members, all count as one vote.
That really lowballs the 20 to 1 estimate, since the public comments period was
very short to begin with.
"It is more than apparent
that this has become a foregone conclusion and that Ditmanson is more interested
in attracting corporate sponsorship of the Smokies e.g. Friends groups,
concessionaires, and others who wield cash," he went on. "It is like the scene
from History of the World when the King said, 'I love my people," before raising
the shotgun to shoot one that was thrown across his target range like skeet.'"
At times during his
conversation with the Traveler the superintendent sounded as if instituting the
fee was a done deal. He acknowledged as much when it was mentioned that the Park
Service stance on public comment periods is that the comments do not equate to a
vote, and so cynics might assume that the fee was going to be implemented
regardless of the number of comments against it.
“Well, I guess that’s a
good point," said Superintendent Ditmanson. "When I was at a public meeting
talking to people, I admitted that we wouldn’t put the idea forward if we didn’t
think we couldn’t improve service to the public and protect the resources. So
from that perspective, have we put ourselves on a road to that kind of decision?
Yeah, I can see how that can be interpretted."
At the same time, he added,
if issues raised through the comments show that a fee system is untenable, "then
certainly we would not pursue it beyond that point."
While the fee proposal is
being reviewed by officials in the Park Service's Washington office, and, if
approved, won't take effect before 2013, the superintendent said there are
issues that need to be resolved before a fee is levied. Perhaps foremost
surrounds the use of recreation.gov, a website where reservations can be made at
many front-country and backcountry campsites across the federal landscape. More
than a few of the comments complained about the system.
"It gets a lot of
criticism," Superintendent Ditmanson said of the on-line reservation system,
"and in fact there are some things in there that are untenable under the current
practice that would make me go down a different road. ... if we can’t get past a
48-hour cancellation fee, because spontaneity of backcountry campers is really
important.
"I’m still working through
things internally to make sure what the contractual issues are with
recreation.gov and, well, we want to work with that site, because it is a
one-stop shopping for the Park Service and other federal agencies," he said.
"But at the same time, if we can’t figure out the mechanics of it in a way that
serves our visitors, then I won’t have achieved what I set out to do. So we’ve
said if that’s the case we’ll work to come up with our own software system.”
Another issue is how to
deal with Appalachian Trail thru-hikers, a gypsy-like group of backpackers
accustomed to traveling at their own pace, with a willingness to speed up, slow
down, or layover when the desire and need strikes. How they would reserve
campsites for specific dates could be problematic, the superintendent
acknowledged.
“There’s comments on both
sides of the equation about how we deal with thru-hikers on the Appalachian
Trail. It’s a real big question, and some of the folks who camp in some of the
more traditional campsites are, ‘don’t treat them any different than us. We
should all be treated equal,'" said Superintendent Ditmanson. "And then
thru-hikers are ‘we should be treated different because we are different.’ And
so we’ve actually had a couple of follow-up meetings here with a group of people
representing the thru-trail people to really understand what that is. We want to
address those kinds of concerns that are out there.”
With a surge of thru-hikers
coming through the park in April, that, too, could present a problem for other
backcountry users hoping to enjoy the spring and early summer in the
backcountry. Might thru-hikers leave others with few backcountry sites to
reserve?
“Well, there is that rush
of people when they start out in Georgia and they start hitting us, usually in
April, and how do we manage those numbers and how do we identify them?" said the
superintendent.
A problem that can affect
both thru-hikers and weekend hikers is the unexpected: What happens if heavy
rains or a twisted ankle force some to stay over an extra night in a shelter? In
such situations, he said, it wouldn't be unreasonable for rangers to excuse the
layover.
“We recognize that there
can be those situations where people can’t get to where they thought they would
be on that next night," Superintendent Ditmanson said.
If a fee program is
instituted, Superintendent Ditmanson said it will underwrite two rangers whose
sole responsibility will be patrolling the backcountry.
"I’ve made it very clear to
my chief ranger that these are not rangers that are one day a week driving the
roads and two days a week in the park. These are rangers that are going to hike
in on their Monday morning and they’re going to be in the backcountry and then
they’re going to hike out," he said. "Whatever it turns out, three or four
nights, four 10-hour days, or however we manage to schedule it. But they’re
going to be physically out moving around."
While two rangers working
40-hour weeks might not seem like much in a park with roughly 800 miles of
trails, the superintendent pointed out that their presence will be aided by the
Appalachian Trail Ridgerunners and other volunteers.
In the end, some see the
fee proposition as a way to gain better control over what goes on in the park's
backcountry.
"Our entire staff at A Walk
in the Woods not only welcome these proposed changes, but are very excited about
them," wrote Vesna and Erik Plakanis, owners of a guide service that operates in
the park. "We are happy to pay more to fund backcountry rangers and are also
looking forward to tighter regulations in the beautiful and worn backcountry.
"Too often we have come
upon people abusing the resources, too many people at a tent site or shelter,
folks cutting down trees to burn, burning garbage, leaving food out, feeding
wildlife, bringing dogs on the trails. Not all the problems will go away, of
course. Eight-hundred miles is a lot to patrol, but with fees and required
reservations at all sites, the issues will certainly be mitigated."