Recreation.Gov Lawsuit Withdrawn

A lawsuit challenging the fees users must pay on recreation.gov to reserve campsites, climb mountains, and paddle rivers has been withdrawn without explanation by the plaintffs. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures say such dismissals usually are made without prejudice, meaning the action can be brought back up, in this case the plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice, effectively blocking its revival.

The lawsuit filed earlier this year claimed that the many user fees charged on recreation.gov, which is managed by Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., were unauthorized and possibly illegal “junk fees."

In response to the dropping of the lawsuit on September 21, Booz Allen officials said they were "pleased with the plaintiffs’ appropriate decision to withdraw this matter after learning about Booz Allen’s important role supporting the Recreation One Stop program. We are immensely proud of how Booz Allen has developed and supported Recreation.gov, and of the significant value that the Recreation One Stop program offers to the public in preserving our national parks. Booz Allen continues to bring value across the entire platform, replacing time-intensive manual processes and helping the program to equitably accommodate Americans’ growing demand for visitation to national parks."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, seven outdoor enthusiasts, declined to explain why they decided to dismiss the lawsuit. However, court records in the case indicate that Booz Allen had sought to seal some of the records relating to their contract with the federal government sought by the plaintiffs under rules of confidentiality. Whether that played a role in the dismissal is unknown.

While the lawsuit has been dropped, two U.S. senators continue to try to better understand Booz Allen's contract with the government.

Yet months after Sens. Chuck Grassley and John Barasso wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland with questions about the agreement, they have yet to receive answers to all their questions.

In their May letter, the senators asked "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," the senators pointed out in that letter. "As such, they deserve to know who is profiting from the fees associated with their use and enjoyment and the extent of that profit." 

While the senators received a reply from the Agriculture Department, which manages the contract, in early August, in their own follow-up letter on August 24 they said it "failed to answer six out of eight questions, and it did not dispute reporting regarding $140 million being invoiced to the government."

While U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore told Grassley and Barasso that the website "is not funded by taxpayer dollars," the senators noted that "taxpayers pay surcharges when ordering tickets on Recreation.gov, which are ultimately paid to Booz Allen through the U.S. Treasury as part of its contractual agreement with USFS. We would therefore appreciate clarification with respect to the statement that Recreation.gov 'is not funded by taxpayer dollars.'"

The Forest Service chief also failed to provide records showing the dollar amounts recreation.gov users pay in fees, the fee schedules set by agencies that use the portal, the amount of fee revenues collected, the amount sent to Booz Allen Hamilton, and the amount sent to the land-management agencies.

"It appears that the rest of the outstanding questions were simply ignored. The American people have a right to know the answer to each question we asked because the answers involve their parks and their money," wrote the senators, who asked for a response by September 7.

So far no further explanation has been offered, according to Grassley's office.