presidential holding from adams we u s forest service to find the fee structure at maroun valley in violation of the recreation unhandsome act because they're the forest service is charging  entrance gate survey you win and i would say hi i'm here to hike and they would say well ok you may proceed correctly  or as i said if i decide to put my backpack on the bench so read the signs so let's stop or take a picture of the bells that vantage point you can is an overlocker parking area within the valley passing mention station the forest service allows them free passage and so just like those users the forest service could similarly allow free passage rally the forest service charges a fee for all users who enter the valley and subsection f of the area it does allow the forest service to charge a standard amenity fee at an area where there are all these or applying standard amenity fee at an area they are prohibited from charging a fee to the users who soley engage in those activities one of which is soley parking and doesn't need a parking or picnicking the other is hiking and what i'm looking at is the r e a subsection d ok and as you say there is that language soley for parking that are for a service or bureau of reclamation can't charge be solely for i don't agree that that is how it is read it i think that's magically incorrect but even if that weren't quite as a grammatical incorrect doesn't doesn't the scalia book the last in a series rule else a parking lot counts i'm just looking at the language and the language as least by my reading and i don't think it's a poor grammatical one soley for parking along roads or trail sides and ground parking lots are going to be somewhere near a trail side you're not going to put a parking lot miles from the trailhead but if you say soley for parking along roads or trail sides it does not include a parking lot then do you lose your question is if if the feet prohibition only provides a parking on trail sides only include can you rephrase your question is sure what i'm talking about as of course we have the two sections and right now we're just talking about d yes and d is the pro have been on when you can for a service be and it doesn't speak about a parking lot instead it's as you can east soley for parking and then i'm going to but the end of the sun and right with that so i'm going to say soley for parking along roads or trail sides and then i'm going to say i know what that means because i parked along the roadside and i know what parking on a parking lot means because  in a parking lot and they're not the same and so if that were the prevailing view of the corridor and we shall see then would you lose based on that interpretation no your honor because m is going also to hike through without using facilities and services and so when we look when we take a step back from the statute we know that and judging from the legislative history we know that congress wanted to ensure and they were concerned with the forest service doing exactly that pigeon holing people into charging a standard amenity fee when all they wanted to do was access the undeveloped federal lands and so on and i don't think your answering this question though which is if we interpret this to mean soley for parking long roads or trail sides does not mean developed parking with security with all the other amenities you lose it's that simple yes your honor but we also have to remember that subsection d want to a says parking along roads or trail sides and so mr albritton is parking along a trail side because he is parking at a trailhead and there is no other scenario that would exist that would allow him where he that he would want or need to park along a trail side unless it was to access the trailhead so he is indeed parking along a trail side which under that interpretation is the forest service is prohibited from charging a fee for so every parking lot count every parking lot counts but no matter how many amenities or how few amenities every parking lot counts and therefore the forest service can never charge a fee there's your position no your honor our position is that tell me when you the forest service could charge a fee to the forest service can never charge a fee fo you would have to have all the amenities present and one location a parking lot i don't know how many miles down the road from the trailhead and then they could charge a fee for blood for the amenities for th to just hike or hike through they literally have to walk five miles before they before they are allowed to park in it were correct correct there is no highly developed scene scenic a day use area that is the main tourist attraction that includes a trail head the other two trail heads and the other two parking areas that exist in the area called the east and west our own portals and as the name and the forest service suggest those are exactly that an entrance station into the maroon wilderness and so when the area was inactive the forest service outfitted those two sites to include all the standard amenities and so under their theory break it continues to charging a fee at the entrance station for all users who access the valley because the only possible place to park is  but well that was my point i mean yes my point is there is no parking other than those two trailheads correct there is parking at all three all three of them or any of the three  at a trailhead and i'd like to point this court to this court's opinion and sure which address a facial challenge to the fee implementation plan at mt evans where exactly like good afternoon your honour's may it please the court my name is current's now i represent the united states so i think we're actually in agreement about a lot of what's at issue here today that the maroon bells areas have all of the section for  is and that if you have those amenities you can charge the standard reclamation fee unless you specifically fall into one dollar of the exceptions in subsection d and so what could i go to look at the big picture here with you please the the purpose of the section that allows hikers in d hike through types and other pure recreation users to park their cars along at trailheads a contemplates places all over the county that have places to pull over along independence pass for example park their cars and go hiking no fee correct that's correct your honor now let's assume that the forest service decides to provide amenities everywhere in the forest service the forest service of colorado and wyoming in the th circuit and say ok no places to park unless you pay the forest service  that would not be proper correct i think that's right your honor and that's not what we have here sacked lee but what you have is a one area the maroon bells were there is no off the road parking at trailhe there's no way somebody can lawfully go hiking and do what is complained about here with up tithing to the forces well i say a couple things to that your honor st we're only talking about five specific portion it's been closed to roadside trafficking since the one thousand nine hundred and seventy s since long before the aria a and this is on the record because of concerns about pollution and traffic congestion so this is a specific part of the road that for those limited those important reasons the forest service has closed the specific section now it's provided a number of other alternative ways for people to get into the wilderness through other trails  and sixty of the appellant's appendix you can see a map of part of the area you can see there are a number of trailheads going into some of the wilderness areas the mr pearn talks about winning this means are necessary d to these wilderness areas what do you mean trails there's over two thousand miles of trails in this forest a number of trailheads outside of these fieri and so your honor you're right there there could be a situation where the court might need to be more concerned if it looked like the forest service was trying to make it so that nobody could ever use the the trails in the wilderness without having to go into some sort of area and was forced into the paid parking situation but that's what or the other more room bells wilderness area which is being complained about here that is exactly the dog no your honor there's there are other trailheads so what mr alpert is really saying is that he can't access the specific trailheads five seven miles he could take the bus and he could have someone drop him off there's a number of alternative ways that he could reach this area i don't say as a as a legal matter nothing in the r e i requires the forest service to provide an alternative free parking situation for every single trailhead where somebody might not want to use the amenities the r b a was set up as a balance where if the forest service was going to invest in the standard in minute ease they could charge a nominal fee for areas where they aren't going to do that they can't charge and this is a really prescriptive statute as a number of courts have noticed have commented in the past and if this was a situation where they wanted free parking to be available at every trailhead they certainly could have said so they could have said you can have your designated developed parking if someone uses out of the other amenities they have to pay the fee but you always have to make way for fairness that's not what they're and that's not what appellant or s right they're not asking for free parking at every trailhead what they're asking is for the ability to park for free in the maroon bells area that's correct your honor and it's and the way the present situation exists it's impossible for them to do so if they wish  to approach the hiking trails in a vehicle and leave the car there go hike it is not possible for mr al pern to get to the trailheads in the exact manner he would like to and not pay a fee that's correct now is it correct that they can go to the to the entrance spot and say i want to go to such and such scenic overview and come back and  pay a fee that's correct so scenic overviews are another subsection d carve out and so in compliance with the aria a before service the last people to go park there for fifteen minutes max and then move on that's obviously a different situation from multi day parking especially in a place where you're trying to limit the traffic because of these historic concerns you have hundreds of thousands of people coming through every year i would also just say as to the argument on whether or not this is also in the subsection d exceptions this part of the r e a talks about three different types of parking so designated developes parking is under subsection f or and it's one of the f for required a minute e s and then it talks about two different types of parking and subsection b which are the undesignated parking along roadsides and the just plain parking along roadsides in congress must be meaning three different things by these three different types of parking and so that's why the only reasonable reading of the statute is that what mr alpert is doing here is using the designated developed parking which is one of the standard a minute he's for which he can be charged because as nobody here contest he's within a standard immunity area i'd also just like to briefly address his argument about the fact that the fact that the forest service lets people who are biking or walking in without paying if he somehow means that the aria is violated with regard to him i just say that it is very possible that the would allow for service to charge folks who are biking or walking and if they decide to use  restroom or use a trash can but the fact that the forest service has not decided to charge every single person of the that they could or go to the maximum limits of their such tory authority doesn't mean that they're violating the r e a with regard to mr  in means that they are trying to have a reasonable way of implementing this fee and do so in a way that really addresses the primary concern a maroon valley which is this vehicle traffic which has historically been a problem in a certainly a problem with a high level of is a taishan the folks get and also just take a minute to address the argument why is that role it why is it relevant that they don't charge everywhere decision whether this is a high traffic area that or etc etc and we need to check pollution and all kinds of understandable reasons as to why you're trying to control traffic but that doesn't mean you had to control traffic in this way i mean you could presently as i understand the situation from briefs entrance is entirely prohibited during certain certain hours they can't even get there so closed i have to correct your honor i believe that they're allowed to drive then and even park overnight but you just have to leave your payment there isn't someone there to collect it so there's on the lips instead i believe that's the case i don't think it matters at all to the the statutory a legal question before this court but to the extent your are you had concerns about the fact that this road didn't allow for parking along along the road i didn't say there was no free option i just wanted to explain a little bit of the context right about the way that they've tried to implement the statute that i think is both in keeping with the pla language but also is is trying to make for the best as it or visitor experience possible so with regard to the the argument that mr opera makes in his reply brief about the settlement the white churches and for gosa case just a couple of points st of course any decision to appeal or not appeal or any settlement is never an admission of liability and that's even more the case here with the settlement itself says that the forest service doesn't admit to any of the allegations in either of the two cases and the settlement itself caused the parties to ask for for go which which would be the decision in favor of the appellant's here to be vacated whereas white churches remains good law so there's nothing in that settlement that would suggest that the reasoning in white churches is not so good or that it isn't good law in addition  settlement it still does not allow for anyone to park for free in the designated developed parking what it allows for is in certain situations parking along roads or tree excuse me trail sides m you're reading two different sections with that section that covers parking only it's what i was joking around with going to the restroom and leaving your backpack on the  bench if hiker truly goes in and merely parks and leaves to go hiking they want to be part of the tourist mass as a matter of fact this precisely why they want to go hiking is to get away from  not left that area were you were they have parking soley a parking lot i mean the erotically it would be a great thing if it existed it does it therefore he says in order to accommodate the provisions of the section that i just read to you they've got to drop a statute this way rather than the other section of the statute separately charged again for parking that he suggested that that would always be a violation of the statue and that's not what is happening here so yes i'd agree in a situation when you pay your standard reclamation the and then there is a separate fee for directly no that's correct but again i'd say that there are thousands literally thousands of miles of road in this forest that he could park for free alongside again this is this is really just a complaint that any of the free alternatives that the forest service have tried to provide for him are less convenient than the option that he'd like to choose  ing and i'm designated parking and parking along a road a road side is by definition and doesn't need parking is by definition parking along road side so it isn't logical to think that the congress would want to include both to read both along the road sides at parking and as in a parking and picnicking and so all mr albritton is asking is this court