Challenge to national park camping fees under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA or the Act) (16 USC § 6801 et seq.); Kentucky Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rowlette; The Administrative Procedure Act (APA); 5 USC § 706; § 706(2)(A); Failure to publish “notice” in the Federal Register & local newspapers; 16 USC § 6803(b); §§ 6812–13; Statutory interpretation in agency guidance documents; Christensen v. Harris Cnty.; The Act’s “public-participation” requirement (§ 6803(a)); The Park Service’s internal fee-collection manual; Principle that agencies are bound to follow their own regulations; Wilson v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec.; Reich v. Manganas; Non-binding nature of the manual; Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke; Wilderness Soc'y v. Norton (DC Cir.); Whether the Park Service’s decision to modify its plan before the public-engagement process was “arbitrary or capricious”; National Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife; Harmless-error review applicable to claims of noncompliance with administrative procedures; Rabbers v. Commissioner Soc. Sec. Admin.; Denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the record under the APA; Sierra Club v. Slater; Latin Ams. for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Administrator of the Fed. Hwy. Admin.

The defendant-National Park Service did not violate the FLREA by imposing a new fee on backcountry campers at Great Smoky Mountains National Park to fund its on-line reservation system. Plaintiffs-Southern Forest Watch and three individuals challenged the fee, claiming that the Park Service did not follow the proper procedures required under the FLREA when assessing the fee. The court held that the Park Service was not required to publish a notice in Federal Register before assessing the fee. Because the park was already “charging recreation fees when it sought to impose the backcountry fee, Great Smoky Mountains was not a new recreation fee area subject to the requirements of § 6803(b).” The Park Service also did not violate the Act’s public-participation requirement when a fee has been developed or changed. The procedures outlined in its internal fee-collection manual were not “binding,” and “the Park Service fulfilled its duty to solicit public input.” Further, its “decision to modify its plan in advance of the public-engagement process was not arbitrary or capricious.” There was “no reason to believe that the Park Service deceived the public when it said it would hire rangers.” Additionally, the Park Service substantially complied with the Act’s publication requirement in § 6803(b) where “it widely disseminated its proposal and the Great Smoky Mountains fee plan was widely reported in the local media.” Plaintiffs also appealed the district court’s denial of its motion to supplement the administrative record. However, the court found that the evidence requested was not “relevant or deliberately excluded.” It affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.