The U.S. Forest Service says it can no longer manage a popular recreation area near Aspen in Western Colorado. The agency is hoping that Pitkin County will take over management of the Maroon Bells Scenic Area for five years under a special use permit.
The Maroon Bells Scenic Area draws over 100,000 visitors to the White River National Forest each year.
In a meeting with the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, May 12, representatives from the Forest Service said there was an almost $300,000 gap between what it costs to manage the Bells and the revenue the agency brings in, and it's not sustainable for the agency.
Kendra Head, the developed and dispersed recreation manager for the White River National Forest, explained the situation to the commissioners.
"The White River National Forest has been subsidizing the Bells for years from other programs across the Forest," she said. "Budgets are tight across the Forest and we need to change management strategies. Deferred maintenance needs have accumulated and it's difficult to hire staff with the cost of living and various hiring freezes."
As a federal agency, she said, the Forest Service is limited in how much it can raise fees for these recreation areas. She said the county will have a lot more leeway to set prices through the special use permit.
Gary Tennenbaum, the director of Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, said that under the current operations plan from the White River, about 18% of the fee revenue would go back to the U.S. Forest Service.
"Since we're a nonprofit, we're not looking to profit on the management of the Bells," he explained. "We would use all of that for deferred maintenance. So if it's $300,000, we'll plan for $300,000 worth of deferred maintenance. If it's more, everything that we get from the Bells, goes back into the Bells."
"Imagine this place came up for sale tomorrow," he said. We would do everything in our power to buy it, because it is such a special resource."
Tennenbaum emphasized that the land would remain under Forest Service ownership, and the agency would approve management plans, fee structures, and would continue to be responsible for capital improvements. However, the ongoing federal situation with public land management hung over the conversation.
"I know a lot of people are talking about, 'oh, the Forest Service is getting cut, cut, cut,'" Tennenbaum said. "But one day, maybe, they'll magically get some money and they'll be able to do this. Well, if the county does this, we can give it back."
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which houses the Forest Service, announced a major reorganization of the agency. It plans to move its headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City, Utah, and consolidate all of its research facilities in Fort Collins, Colorado.
USDA said that was to put more boots on the ground in the West, closer to the majority of the national forest land it oversees. But environmental and public lands advocates say it's an attempt to sow more chaos at an already-struggling agency.
"Once you dismantle the agency, you introduce chaos," said Josh Hicks, conservation director at the Wilderness Society in April. "The Forest Service is not able to do its job and serve the public as well, and that can foment frustration and lead to selling off and selling out our public lands."
Hicks said there's a precedent for uprooting public lands agencies. During the first Trump administration, officials relocated the Bureau of Land Management's headquarters from Washington D.C. to Grand Junction, Colorado. According to the Government Accountability Office, 87% of the employees slated to move West chose to retire or quit—many of whom had decades of service under their belts.
"They need to be investing at the agency, not continually hacking away at it, forcing people to lay off, forcing people to move into places that don't make sense," Hicks said. "Invest in the agency, create some stability, create some stability instead of continuing to create chaos within the infrastructure here."
During the Pitkin County meeting, White River National Forest officials told commissioners that they were able to hire seasonal workers for this summer season, both through normal channels and interns through the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps, and estimated that they had about two-thirds of their seasonal positions filled. They did not provide numbers on permanent staff
"Although we are not fully staffed, we have more boots on the ground this year than we did last year," said Kendra Head.
In response to questions from the commissioners, Brian Glasgow, the acting supervisor of the White River National Forest, said that the White River and other forests are planning for the restructuring of the agency to go ahead as has been outlined in documents released by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.
The biggest change, he said, is that instead of Colorado being grouped in with Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, and South Dakota in one big region, there will be a Colorado state director at the Forest Service, meant to oversee the agency's work in the state.
"That might actually be to our net benefit: a little closer tie to our local politicians and all the rest," he said. "Beyond that, there's not a lot of near-term immediate impact to the White River National Forest."
"It's going to be difficult for a lot of people in the Forest Service," he added. "There are regional offices and research stations that are closing altogether. A lot of people are going to get directed (to) reassignments. We expect that we will probably receive some of those refugees as new employees on the Forest. But beyond that, for the foreseeable future, we're not expecting net change on the Forest."
Copyright 2026 Rocky Mountain Community Radio. This story was shared via Rocky Mountain Community Radio, a network of public media stations in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including Aspen Public Radio.
Copyright 2026 Aspen Public Radio