In 2014, in
Fragosa v. Moore, 17 F. Supp. 3d 985 (C.D. Cal. 2014), a federal district court in California considered a challenge to a Forest Service recreation fee program and said the following regarding the Ninth Circuit's ruling two years earlier in
Adams v. U.S. Forest Service:
Adams is quite clear. The Forest Service is prohibited from charging a fee solely for parking. If a visitor does nothing other than park, the fee is solely for parking and is, therefore, plainly prohibited by the REA.
So, while some might argue that the
Adams decision is ambiguous, at least one federal district judge thinks otherwise. It doesn't matter whether the 6 required amenities are present at the trailhead. If a hiker parks without using them, no fee is required.
As for me, while I strongly believe Forest Service should follow the law, I also don't think $30 is much to pay for a year of parking at trailheads. And I want to feel free to use the porta-potties without guilt. So, after a couple of years of passive resistance, I buy my NWFPs now.