A U.S. senator wants federal agencies to review the operations of reservation systems used for public lands recreation/Kurt Repanshek file

A U.S. senator from California wants a review of how recreation.gov and other reservation systems serve the American public trying to reserve a variety of activities across public lands managed by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other federal land-management agencies.

"As more and more Americans seek out nature and outdoor recreation, it’s more important than ever to guarantee equal access to outdoor spaces,” Senator Alex Padilla said in June when he introduced legislation calling for the Interior Department to work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine, among other things, whether reservation systems are more often used by "wealthier, more highly educated, and more likely to be white" clients. "Reservation systems are a critical tool for conserving our public lands and ensuring visitors have the space to explore the outdoors, but we must ensure they are designed so they can serve as a gateway to the outdoors, rather than a barrier.”

But the senator's legislation casts a larger net beyond simply who uses the reservation systems in the information it seeks.

The study would also investigate the fee structure and transparency of Recreation.gov, the government’s centralized travel planning platform and reservation system for 14 federal agencies. In some cases, visitors pay fees to enter lotteries or use a reservation; however, the website often does not make clear that many of the profits from these fees support private site managers rather than conservation efforts. Many users also report frustration that they do not know their odds of success when entering a lottery for a reservation system. Specifically, the study would examine how revenue from fees for reservation systems is split between and spent by federal land units, federal agencies, and third-party contractors, as well as how this information can be better communicated to users. It would also evaluate ways to improve the dissemination of information with respect to users’ odds of being approved for a reservation. 

How recreation.gov operates has generated countless complaints in recent years tied not just to the fees it charges, but how difficult it is for users to succeed in securing a desired reservation.

In a comment to a previous National Parks Traveler story about the system, Mike B. this past February wrote that, "$10 per each application to be entered in a permit lottery in Yosemite.  Even assuming that the number of applicants hasn't increased since 2016, that means BAH [Booz Allen Hamilton, which operates recreation.gov for the government] is getting over $225,000 in fees for applications for a John Muir Trail permit. Meanwhile, the park is only getting $5 for each permit issued, or approximately $16,000. Does it seem fair to anyone that Booz Allen gets approximately 15 times the money that the park gets for trail maintenance, road repairs, etc. just to run a lottery? As a previous commenter pointed out, these run away fees have priced some people out of visiting our "public" lands.  Just to have a 50% chance of getting a JMT permit, I should expect to enter the permit lottery 10 times for a total of $100 in application fees for a $5 permit. The odds get much worse if I'm trying to get a permit for more than one person."

In January, Debb D. also complained in a comment about the site's fee structure.

"I tried to obtain a backcountry permit in Yosemite that included Half Dome in the permit. I tried 14 times, for $140 to no avail. If that $140 went to the park itself for operations it would still sting, as it's a lot to pay for absolutely nothing, however, it would be going to a good cause (park upkeep, maintenance, etc.)  Instead is lined Booz Allen's pockets even further. When you lose the lottery, you don't even move up the queue to up your chances of winning the next time, or the next, or next.....  $10 each time...  Total scam and ripoff."

Padilla's legislation seeks "[A] comprehensive review of the history of reservation systems, such as recreation.gov, including a review of— (i) the studies that led to the establishment of the applicable reservation system; (ii) the iterations of the applicable  reservation system over time to meet the needs of the applicable Federal agency; and (iii) any visitor feedback provided with respect to the applicable reservation system."

Furthermore, the senator asks:

• What are the benefits and challenges of implementing reservation systems for visitor management and conservation goals for Federal land?
• What data are available to understand demand for recreation on Federal land?
• How can the data be used to balance visitor management and conservation goals?
• What information is available regarding Federal land users and reservation system users?
• What information is available or needs to be collected regarding demographics and characteristics of successful applicants using the reservation systems?
• What best practices should guide reservation system design, including diversity of rationing mechanisms and booking windows, and would promote equal access to recreation activities?
• What metrics can be used to record outcomes of reservation system design?
• How have fees been collected for reservation systems over time to meet the needs of the applicable Federal agency?
• How are the revenues from fees for reservation systems split between, and spent by, Federal land units, Federal agencies, and third-party contractors?
• How is the fee structure disseminated to users?
• How could dissemination of information with respect to the fee structure be improved?
• What are the odds of success with respect to securing a reservation under reservation systems?
• How are the odds of success disseminated to users?
• How could dissemination of information with respect to the odds of success be improved?
• How are data, including data collected by contractors, on reservation systems shared with Federal land managers, researchers, and the public?
• How can transparency be improved to inform the decisionmaking of users of reservation systems?

American Whitewater, which advocates for the protection and preservation of whitewater rivers and works to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely, has gotten behind the legislation and has asked its followers to ask their congressional delegations to support it.

In a comment on American Whitewater's Facebook page, Jocellyn Mullen wrote that, "it took Wreck.gov 2 years to get the Ruby Horsethief River permit system working properly. They don’t care- it’s not their weekend getting screwed up. Many other issues- not being able to change dates without canceling, losing your $, paying twice to get a new date, making BAH rich in the process. Etc etc. Wreck.gov sucks. I want to know how much $ the resource gets, who gets the $ when you cancel and don’t get a refund etc."

Early in 2023 Booz Allen Hamilton was sued over the fees charged on recreation.gov. Seven outdoor enthusiasts who brought the lawsuit said the site was "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."

The filing, which requested a jury trial and sought at least $5 million in damages, raised the question of whether recreation.gov in effect had privatized public lands for the benefit of Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Surprisingly, last September the lawsuit was 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.

Booz Allen officials at the time 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 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 was dropped, U.S. Sens. Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and John Barasso, R-Wyoming, tried to better understand Booz Allen's contract with the government. Yet months after the two wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland with questions about the agreement, they said the agencies "failed to answer six out of eight questions, and it did not dispute reporting regarding $140 million being invoiced to the government."