In the middle of Washington state, a hiking utopia of glacial-blue lakes surrounded by polished granite peaks rises out of the Wenatchee River. Travel blogs describe this region of the Central Cascade Mountains as “otherworldly.” Even its name—The Enchantments—evokes storybook beauty and misticism. Somehow, I had never heard of this area until moving to Oregon a year ago. When locals asked me what sorts of outdoor things I liked to do and backpacking was part of my answer, that destination was one of the first to roll off their tongues. “Oh, you have to visit the Enchantments,” they gushed.
After telling me about the stunning 18-mile point-topoint hike past stegosaurus-shaped ridges and wildflower-sprinkled meadows, they’d inevitably add a crucial caveat: I’d need to snag a sought-after overnight permit if I expected to spend much time within in the boundaries.
Like dozens of other coveted adventure destinations in the U.S., anyone looking to spend a night in this Eden would need to play a competitive game of Powerball. Ever since the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (which contains the Enchantments) instituted a permit system in 1981, restricting access to 60 backpackers at a time in the “Core Area,” entry has been limited to the winners of this mysterious lottery draw. In 2022, 36,827 people applied, according to the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the Alpine Lakes, and only 2,528 permits were awarded—a mere 6.8% of total applicants.
Numbers like that make you wonder if this place is actually real, or just a fantasy imagined by the other 93%. I marked my calendar for February 15, when the lottery opened for the 2023 season. That morning, my husband and I submitted our names and two dates in June through the national booking platform Recreation.gov, which consolidates permits and entry fees for thousands of recreation areas managed by 13 agencies including the National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and more.
Our chances were slim to none, but why not try. For a $6 reservation fee, we figured we’d toss our name into the hat. If we won, we’d pay another $20 in use fees ($5 per person for two nights) to secure our spot for the summer bucket-list adventure. If as many people apply to the Enchantments this year as they did last year, this lottery’s reservation fees alone will generate nearly $221,000.
That nearly quarter-million-dollar haul represents only this one hike. On Recreation.gov, you can find more than 4,200 facilities and 113,000 individual reservable sites across the country. Up to a year in advance in some spots, you can reserve campsites and picnic shelters, obtain permits to cut down a Christmas tree or go deer hunting, enter lotteries to run a river or hike in places like the Enchantments, get tickets for ranger-led talks, and more. Some tickets and permits can be obtained in person, and a chunk of campsites can be snatched first come, first served. But for advanced planning, Recreation.gov is the primary way to guarantee your spot in the parks. Every transaction, even free activities, has some sort of reservation fee. With 9 million online transactions in 2021, those fees obviously add up to a pretty penny.
Great for the parks, right? Not quite. Sure, the use or recreation fees—the $20 we’d pay only if we got picked to hike—would eventually be funneled to the Forest Service. But those little reservation fees that we paid just to apply are actually pocketed by a government contractor who was hired to build and operate the website. Although the exact dollar figure is kept a secret, according to documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal, that contractor charged the government more than $140 million during a 4-plus year period between October 2018 and November 2022.
Of course, profit is part of public-private deals— someone has to pay to keep the website running, process all those entries, and more. But at a time when barriers to exploring our public lands are already great, it didn't feel fair that taxpayers like me are burdened with higher fees for lesser access while a giant corporation gains. Given that management agencies have been stripped of funding for decades (with the $20 billion infrastructure backlog as proof), maybe that money could be better used elsewhere.
THE FOUNDATION FOR TODAY’S Recreation.gov dates back to 2002 when the Bush administration officially created what’s still known as Recreation One Stop, or R1S. The program combined the reservation systems of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service to bring their booking experiences into the 21st century.
Initially, there were a limited number of destinations, including developed campgrounds and tickets for a few locations like the Washington Monument and Mammoth Cave.
Because the government didn’t have the internal expertise or capacity to manage a website of that caliber, they brought in private industry, as they often do. These outside experts would be expected to protect the financial information of user transactions, support reservations in six time zones, add new facilities every year, and so on. Data sharing was also a major piece of the R1S software, allowing third parties to bulk download recreation data out of transparency.
“It has always been that government experts like myself work side by side with that contractor to make these online reservations available,” said Janelle Smith, the strategic communications lead for R1S and a 30-year employee of the Forest Service.
Naturally, the program has evolved and changed significantly over two decades. Around 2016, the government realized that the ‘90s-era website wasn’t cutting it and that they’d needed a drastic overhaul to keep pace with the public’s demand. What started as an online campground booking tool grew into a comprehensive travel planning and recreation reservation service.
After a national search and a congressional hearing, in May 2016 a D.C. consulting firm named Booz Allen Hamilton got the job of modernizing and consolidating the management platform. Some news outlets around the time of the deal reported that the 10-year agreement was valued at $182 million and that after $1.5 million was paid to Booz Allen to kick off the project, the contractor would then earn revenue from transaction fees charged on the site. But the financial terms and price proposals of the contract aren’t officially public.
The way Booz Allen tells it, the project was “at no cost to the federal government.” Rather, the reinvention of the website was an investment by themselves.
“Instead of a traditional cost structure, the unique contractual agreement is a transaction-based fee model that lets the government and Booz Allen share risk, reward, results, and impact,” Booz Allen writes on its website. “This is a true public-private partnership— it uses no government money.”
Visitors would use Booz Allen’s website to pay use fees for entry, day use, and amenities toward the federal lands for maintenance and other experience enhancements. This money, as well as funds from the $80 Interagency Pass, or America the Beautiful Pass, would go back to the government to help maintain the otherwise massively underfunded lands.
“With declining appropriated dollars, [recreation fees] have become crucial to providing the service and facilities citizens seek at developed recreation facilities,” reads one recreation fee site accomplishment report.
But then under Booz Allen’s model, visitors would also be asked to pay reservation fees to, in essence, fund the public-private contract. These are also often referred to as cancellation fees, service fees, or transaction fees. Smith said these fees were allowed as part of the open competitive bid process to reimburse Booz Allen for their investment in the project.
Smith could only divulge that the government's contract with Booz Allen, which began in 2016, outlines a five-year initial term with five one-year renewal periods based on performance after that. At the end of 10 years, Booz Allen will be eligible to compete with other third parties for the next go-around if their contract isn't ended early. At that point, another proposal process would begin.
There’s a reason Booz Allen rings a bell. The American government and military consultant versed in intelligence and cybersecurity famously employed Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency in 2013. That same year, Bloomberg named Booz Allen “the world’s most profitable spy organization.”
In 2022, the publicly-traded corporation’s $9.06 billion revenue came primarily from government contracts. Government oversight organizations have sharply criticized this Fortune 500 company over the years for its cozy relationships with American political leaders, many of whom accept financial donations from the company.
But, according to Smith, throughout the bidding process, Booz Allen, the incumbent ACTIVE Network (who still operates reservations for some state parks under Reserve America), and other competitors, were assessed equally and competitively according to specific criteria.
“It really boils down to what was the best proposal?” said Smith, who was on the team that chose Booz Allen. “Who really got it? Who really understands what it is we’re trying to accomplish here with this next generation of Recreation.gov? And what was the best value to the government?”
Today, Smith said, Recreation.gov is designed to be a one-stop reservation service for all visitors of public lands.
“That’s the vision,” she said. “Booz Allen helps us realize that vision.”
SOMETIME DURING 2020, mandatory $2 timedentry fees started popping up on Recreation.gov for visits to national parks and other federal sites across the U.S. Among those destinations was Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, outside Las Vegas. Adding these fees and online obstacles deterred some would-be visitors and therefore helped with crowd thinning during the pandemic, but it also had longer-term implications.
Avid hiker Thomas Kotab was skeptical of the process and challenged the new fee’s legality by suing the BLM for violating the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA).
FLREA essentially authorizes five agencies to charge and collect recreation fees in very limited circumstances— like for entrance and amenities—and to reinvest the funds into the parks. It also requires a public participation process through Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (Rec RACs). These Rec RACs—10 across the country representing different regions, such as the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, and Alaska—provide recommendations on different use fee proposals for lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM.
The BLM responded that the $2 reservation fee is exempt from the recreation fee requirement because it’s paid to Booz Allen for managing the reservation system, per the government’s contract with the private company. The agency also revealed in court filings that it “has no involvement in deciding the amount of processing fee charged per reservation.”
Ultimately, Kotab won. A District Court in Nevada ruled that the BLM violated FLREA by not complying with public participation requirements. “Because I find that this processing fee is a recreation fee under the FLREA, and it is undisputed that BLM bypassed the public participation process in implementing it, I grant Kotab's motion,” wrote Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey.
The case answered a specific question about when the public comment process was required, but it didn’t address where the fees end up or whether or not they fit the required “specific circumstances”—the other important components of FLREA. As a result of the case, the region’s Rec RAC opened a public comment period on the matter, then approved the fee despite public outcry against the proposal. Nobody in that case got their money back.
Now, another lawsuit unfolding in federal court hopes to address the other points of FLREA and is questioning the fees at not just one location but thousands across the country.
Lodged directly against Booz Allen this January, seven outdoor enthusiasts allege that the government contractor is collecting possibly illegal “Ticketmaster- style junk fees” and privatizing public lands for its own profit. Through the class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs, on behalf of all users of Recreation.gov in the U.S., are seeking a jury trial and repayment in the hundreds of millions of dollars for any processing, lottery, and cancellation fees charged through the site that were paid to Booz Allen.
They believe that the “junk” reservation fees attached to the millions of transactions over many years are disproportionate to what it costs Booz Allen to actually operate the website and “are charged in violation of FLREA, which was specifically passed by Congress to avoid burdening federal lands with unnecessary and duplicative fees,” said Wesley M. Griffith, who is representing the plaintiffs.
Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that Recreation.gov users are deceived into believing that their money goes to the land managers. “Type ‘Booz Allen’ in Recreation.gov’s search bar, and you get the message ‘no matching results found,’” said Griffith.
We could only find Booz Allen’s name once on the website, buried on the disclaimers and liability page. The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that it is all part of Booz Allen’s operation of “Recreation.gov to create the false impression that it is run by the Federal Agencies, and not Booz Allen.”
IN MARCH, Booz Allen asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it, in fact, doesn’t charge any fees to users of Recreation.gov. Instead, they argue that it operates under direction of the government and is paid in accordance with terms of their contract. Therefore, since the lawsuit is against Booz Allen, they say the government is immune from the claims and the company is immune from the suit.
“The Complaint paints a vivid, albeit fanciful, picture of a ‘multibillion dollar’ company attempting to ‘line its own pockets’ by charging so-called ‘Junk Fees’ to the American public through Recreation.gov,” their response begins.
Even though the contract’s fee structure isn’t public, Booz Allen’s lawyers say the claims are “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Recreation.gov actually works” and that the government has “sole discretion at applying fees.” The plaintiffs intend to oppose Booz Allen’s motion.
Outside of lawsuits, FLREA, which is only authorized until October 1, 2023, could land back on the desks of lawmakers in Congress within the next few months. Some observers are hopeful that legislators could find a way to stop Booz Allen, but little attention has been given publicly to altering or renewing it and inquiries about the law’s status sent to the appropriate committee went unanswered. President Biden could also add reservation fees to his crackdown on junk fees. He has already called on Congress to pass a Junk Fee Prevention Act to “save Americans billions a year, but make our markets more competitive.”
But after two decades of fighting against junk fees, Kitty Benzar isn’t hopeful they will end. She is one of the co-founders of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, which started in 2001 when the Forest Service proposed a toll for a road leading to a high alpine area in Ouray, Colorado. Back then, she and the other co-founders warned leaders that even marginal fees would lead to the commercialization of our recreation.
“If they can look at a sunset over a beautiful lake and only see dollar signs, then we have no point of communication to start from,” she said.
The coalition isn’t as active anymore and the baton has been passed to others like Matthew Mioduszewski, an outdoor enthusiast based in Oregon who has been pushing for more public participation into proposed fees since 2007. Public participation—which is one of the more obvious systematic ways to stop these fees—is woeful, he said, because meetings are so in-the-weeds that they stay off people’s radar. According to him, not many people have time for hours-long meetings and bureaucratic systems to keep the government accountable, especially if they’re going to rubber stamp a fee regardless.
“Now we’ve got a private entity making money off the public’s access to public lands,” he said. “They would not do this, not even touch it, if it didn’t make them money.”
NOT LOST IN THIS CONVERSATION is the intersection of fees with equity.
Many outdoor enthusiasts interviewed for this piece say price increases of any kind directly contradict the countless efforts to diversify outdoor participation. Thanks to permitting and other financial and logistical barriers, getting outside is even more complicated and unaffordable than ever before.
But due to the severe lack of funding for public lands, land managers have been forced to pass fees onto visitors to fund upgrades to bathrooms, trash sites, buildings, and more failing infrastructure. The additional reservation fee being routed, at least in part, to Booz Allen only compounds that problem.
Others, however, see Recreation.gov as not perfect but a major upgrade from the fragmented and archaic systems of the past. You know the kind: illegible fonts, broken hyperlinks, harsh contrast. Beyond the fickle user interface, users of prior versions had to navigate dozens of different websites and booking platforms to make reservations at campgrounds or apply to river rafting lotteries across the country.
With almost every federal land destination now in one place, Sarah Dodge said she can discover new recreation experiences she didn’t know about when they existed on separate websites. “I would much prefer to use the current platform than to go back to what it was,” said Dodge, a rafter who grew up in Colorado.
Making parks, monuments, and other federal lands— and therefore, the website that promotes them—more accessible and equitable for everyone is at the top of the government’s agenda, said Smith. Both federal and contract employees are reviewing user feedback on Recreation.gov and working together daily to improve the user experience, she added.
Recently, Recreation.gov added a wheelchair filter to show accessibility features at campgrounds, such as the height of picnic tables or wheel-friendly pathways, which according to Smith, has been very popular. These are the kinds of UX buttons and bonuses that a specialized contractor like Booz Allen has the expertise to modify. Even so, I think it’s critical that we know, at what cost?
AT 2:38 A.M. ON MARCH 17, my husband got the email from Recreation.gov with the results of the Enchantments lottery. We read it over coffee the following morning: “The lottery drawing recently took place, and, unfortunately, your application wasn’t selected for a permit at Enchantment Permit Area. Although you weren’t initially successful, keep an eye out for other opportunities to secure a permit for this popular location.” The email encouraged us to look for more experiences through Recreation.gov and to apply to the Enchantments lottery again next year.
We weren’t the only ones. A few hours later, my friend chimed in on our group chat. “Did anyone get the Enchantments lottery? I did not,” she wrote. This was her sixth time applying to the lottery, a total of $36 over the years, all for naught. Even after reporting this story, I’m still not sure how the workers behind Recreation.gov draw names.
I used to think it was a waste of money to buy lotto tickets for the Jackpot or Powerball since the odds of winning are 1 in 6 million. Perhaps applying to one Recreation.gov lottery for $6 year over year is its own kind of cash suck. The prize is just access to public lands instead of getting rich.
But now I see an important distinction: At least when I buy scratchers for the Oregon Lottery, I know that some of that money actually winds up funding state parks.
Illustrations by Latasha Greene
