Senators: Why Is A Private Company Managing Recreation.Gov?

In the wake of articles by the National Parks Traveler and the Wall Street Journal, two U.S. senators are wondering why a private company is being paid millions of dollars to manage the website that serves as a national portal for accessing recreational activities on federal lands.

For years there have been complaints about recreation.gov and the challenges of reserving a campsite in the National Park System or landing a permit for river running or climbing a mountain. There also have been many complaints, and at least one lawsuit, about the fees that one can encounter at that portal.

Back in February the Traveler reported on the lawsuit filed over how recreation.gov operates and the many fees it charges. The lawsuit alleged that recreation.gov is cluttered with unauthorized and possibly illegal “junk fees” that potentially generate hundreds of millions of dollars for a government contractor hired to operate the site. Booz Hamilton has asked that the lawsuit be dismissed. 

Not only did the Wall Street Journal mirror the Traveler's story a month later, but U.S. Sens. Charles Grassley and John Barasso saw those stories and in late May wrote both Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to inquire about the financial aspects of recreation.gov. (Their letter is attached below)

"The FY 2023 appropriations for the National Park Service was $3.475 billion and of that amount, over $2.923 billion was reserved for 'management, operation, and maintenance of areas and facilities' administered by the National Park Service," the Republicans wrote. "The FY 2023 appropriations for the U.S. Forest Service was $10.08 billion. This does not even include the funding of the other 11 agencies using Recreation.gov. With so much money already paid by the taxpayer for public lands, and to your departments, one must ask why a private company is needed to manage the website and why they’ve been allowed to extract these fees from visitors.

"Our country’s great sights and parks belong to the people. As such, they deserve to know who is profiting from the fees associated with their use and enjoyment and the extent of that profit," the senators wrote in asking the secretaries to detail:

• How much Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., is paid to manage the web portal; 
• Whether the fees added onto reservations are specified in the U.S. Forest Service's contract with Booz Allen; 
• How much Booz Allen has charged the public in transaction fees; 
• Whether the agencies and bureaus approve individually the amounts Booz Allen charges for each transaction fee. If not, how have the agencies and bureaus overseen the determination of the amounts to be assessed for transaction fees?
• And what steps the two agencies have taken to inform the public about the fee structure "Booz Allen benefits from."

The senators also pointed out that the, "Recreation.gov construct also appears to harm special guests who are statutorily afforded use without charge. Important, active-duty military and their dependents, veterans, Gold Star Families, and people with disabilities are entitled to National Parks and Federal Recreational Land Passes 'without charge' and at “no cost.” As such, unnecessary fees that flow to a private entity appears to violate that promise."

While the senators asked for a response by June 8, it doesn't appear as if one has been made yet, according to a U.S. Forest Service staffer who works with the web portal.

A footnote in the letter referenced both the Traveler's and the Wall Street Journal's stories.