The Forest Service published ten separate notices on September 8 proposing new recreation fee sites, permits and passes across eleven national forests in eight states and Puerto Rico.

Each notice was filed individually, so the batch does not appear as a single announcement anywhere. Together they represent a coordinated push to put fees on more places people camp, park and recreate.

The forests involved

• Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (Colorado) — two special recreation permits
• Ashley (Utah/Wyoming) — two recreation fee sites
• Manti-La Sal (Utah) — several recreation fee sites
• Cleveland (California) — two special recreation permits
• Six Rivers (California) — a new recreation fee site
• Malheur (Oregon) — several recreation fee sites
• Siuslaw (Oregon) — a special recreation permit
• El Yunque (Puerto Rico) — several recreation pass options and a special recreation permit
• Ouachita (Arkansas/Oklahoma) — several recreation fee sites
• Green Mountain and Finger Lakes (Vermont/New York) — several recreation fee sites

What the money is for

Every notice carries the same justification: fees collected would be used for operation, maintenance, and improvement of the sites, and each states that an analysis of nearby recreation fees was conducted.

That phrasing is standard for this kind of proposal, and it points at the underlying problem. Recreation infrastructure — vault toilets, trailhead parking, campground water, road grading — costs money to maintain, and fee revenue collected at a site can generally be spent at that site rather than disappearing into a general fund.

Fee site versus special recreation permit

The notices use two different mechanisms, and the distinction matters for who pays.

A recreation fee site charges for use of a developed site — a campground, a day-use area, a trailhead with facilities.

A special recreation permit covers a specific activity or authorized use, and is the mechanism that commonly applies to outfitters, guides and organised group activities rather than to an individual turning up for the day.

El Yunque’s proposal is different again: recreation pass options, which suggests a structure where visitors buy access across a period rather than paying at a single site.

The context worth holding

This lands in the same season as a run of federal decisions expanding access — the Forest Service proposing to presume roads and trails open, the Park Service streamlining bike route approvals, and the Fish and Wildlife Service opening 1,450 hunting and fishing opportunities.

Expanding access and charging for it are not contradictory. More open sites need more maintenance, and maintenance is what the fee notices say the revenue funds. But it is a fair observation that the same period producing broader access is also producing more places where access costs money.

How to find yours

Each forest filed its own notice, and each names the specific sites involved. Search the Federal Register for “Proposed Recreation Fee Sites” filtered to September 8, 2026, or go directly to the individual notice — for example the Ouachita National Forest proposal or the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes proposal.

These are proposals, not decisions. The forest issuing the notice is the place to ask what is planned for a site you use.

This article was researched and drafted with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed, fact-checked and edited by Leonidas Clark before publication. These are proposals; contact the individual forest for current status and details.