America's public lands are priceless, but they shouldn't be profit centers for corporations/Rebecca Latson file

It shouldn't require a lawsuit to provide some transparency into the inner workings of Recreation.gov, but now that one has been filed it hopefully will reveal how much it costs Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., to operate the national portal for recreating on public lands, the process it follows to set its add-on fees, and how much it is earning from the public's desires to enjoy their federal lands. 

Whether the fees for processing campsite reservations, for changing or canceling those reservations, and for lotteries to allow you to try to land a long-cherished permit to climb a mountain or raft a river are reasonable or are "junk fees" as the lawsuit claims remains to be seen. But without some sunlight on the costs of running Recreation.gov and the revenues those fees generate and even how they are set, the public is left in the dark and rightfully frustrated.

But from what can be seen, it certainly appears that Booz Allen is greatly benefitting from this monopolistic system for enjoying national parks, national forests, Bureau of Land Management lands, and national wildlife refuges.

Think not? Did you see the arrival a year ago of the "early access lottery" created on Recreation.gov to allow you, for a $10 nonrefundable fee, to get a jump on the rest of the general public in landing backcountry reservations in Yellowstone National Park. If you win the lottery, and then land your desired backcountry reservation, you're then assessed a $5 per night per person fee. If you don't win a lottery spot, you're out $10 and you have to try again when the permits are released to the general public.

Is there any need for such a lottery other than to generate additional revenues for Booz Allen? A similar $10 lottery exists for sites at the North Pines Campground in Yosemite National Park as well as for Half Dome permits, and there likely are others. How difficult is it to think up new fees? Can it sell advertising on Recreation.gov? It seems so, with a display ad that leads you to off-site websites for renting camping gear and even RVs. Is that an add-on revenue source for the corporation?

On the Traveler's Instagram feed, Iron Hip Hiker said the recreation fees have gotten outrageous. "...when a permit I used to get for free for over a decade all of the sudden costs me $45 over night? I’m all for paying a reasonable amount for a wilderness permit, but Rec.gov had so many extra fees I ended up not even going on the trip I planned."

"The fees on that site are bonkers! $20-30 per night for a backcountry site with zero amenities?!?!," added thehikermama.

What does the National Park Service think of these add-on fees? Efforts by the Traveler to discuss them with the Park Service were rebuffed. Is Recreation.gov discriminatory, as a University of Montana professor contends? The National Park Service doesn't want to discuss that, yet it wants greater diversity in the parks.

Whether or not you agree there should be fees for camping, paddling, or climbing in the National Park System, there's no doubt that Recreation.gov has benefited the land-management agencies. It's helped generate billions of dollars that go towards enhancing the visitor experience on public lands, as required. How much Booz Allen is collecting for its work isn't publicly known.

What also seems missing, as the Traveler's story on the lawsuit pointed out, is public participation in the setting of add-on fees charged by Booz Allen. Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which drives the revenues generated from federal lands, agencies are required "to provide for public participation when establishing new recreation fees and changing existing recreation fees." As our story noted, a federal judge ruled last year in Nevada that a “processing fee” charged by Recreation.gov to access the reservation system to visit a national conservation area managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was improperly administered because the public hadn’t been given an opportunity to review and comment on the fees when they were proposed.

The Traveler's efforts to get some clarity on fees from the Park Service, which in Fiscal Year 2020 took in nearly $250 million in FLREA fee revenue, resulted in a referral to the Forest Service, the point agency for the Recreation.gov contract. Forest Service personnel also have not answered our questions. For agencies that manage public lands held in trust for the American public, that's not just disappointing but greatly concerning.

The poor performance of Recreation.gov is disappointing, as well, though it's a separate topic beyond the add-on fees that needs to be addressed.

Is Booz Allen profitting handsomely from our rush to the outdoors, or just covering its costs with a percentage or two of profit? Is there a ceiling on how much it can earn from Recreation.gov, or is the sky the limit?

If the pending lawsuit doesn't answer those questions, perhaps Congress can track down the answers.