Don’t Rush the Maroon Bells Handoff. Comments Close Oct. 9

The Forest Service says it can no longer afford to run the Maroon Bells and wants Pitkin County to take over in 2027, with the car fee going from $10 to $30. Critics call it a test case for handing off underfunded public lands. Here’s what’s changing, why, where TNS stands, and how to comment before Oct. 9.

One of Colorado’s most famous views is about to get a new operator, and the public has 15 days to weigh in.

On Sept. 25, the White River National Forest opened a public comment period on a proposal to let Pitkin County run the Maroon Bells Scenic Area under a special use permit. County commissioners had already approved the deal unanimously two days earlier. Comments close Thursday, Oct. 9.

It’s also one of the clearest signs yet of what happens when a public land agency runs short of money and people, and public lands advocates are watching closely how this one gets done.

What the Forest Service is proposing

Under the proposed permit, Pitkin County would manage the scenic area’s day-use sites, campgrounds, trails, roads and facilities. The Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness is not part of the deal, and the Forest Service keeps ownership of the land and oversight of how it’s managed.

The county’s release says the permit runs five years, renewable for five more, starting with the 2027 season. The $10 day-use fee hasn’t changed since 1997, according to the county’s permit FAQ. Here’s what the county proposes for 2027, as reported by Aspen Journalism:

• Private vehicle day use: $10 now, $30 proposed
• Motorcycle or e-bike day use: $5 now, $10 proposed
• Campsites: $15 a night now, $33 proposed

The county says some cheaper options stay: the $16 adult shuttle fare, $10 East Maroon portal access with no reservation, free library passes, free parking and shuttle from the Brush Creek park-and-ride, and free access by bicycle. It also proposes a new $30 annual e-bike pass.

Fee revenue would go into a county enterprise fund dedicated to the Bells. The county projects about $1.3 million in revenue against roughly $1.1 million in expenses, with the difference building a two-month reserve. “There’s a change in the operator, but there is no change in operations,” Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director Gary Tennenbaum told Aspen Journalism.

Why the Forest Service wants out

The short answer is money. “We run in the red there,” White River Forest Supervisor Brian Glaspell told county commissioners, “by a significant margin, [$300,000-plus], and that’s not sustainable.”

Forest Service spokesperson David Boyd told the Denver Gazette that annual costs run about $600,000 while revenue comes in around $220,000, even as roughly 191,000 people visited between May and October 2025. Pitkin County puts the area’s deferred maintenance backlog at $5 million to $7 million. White River recreation manager Kendra Head told KUNC the forest has been “subsidizing the Bells for years from other programs.”

The longer answer is people. The White River’s year-round workforce fell from 169 to 111 employees since 2024, according to High Country News, and the forest filled only about two-thirds of its seasonal jobs this summer (KUNC). Nationally, the Forest Service lost about 16% of its workforce in 2025 (KUOW), and the president’s 2027 budget request would cut the main National Forest System account by 24% and the agency’s capital improvement and maintenance account by 28% (Taxpayers for Common Sense). That pressure shows up on trails too, as we covered when Forest Service trail maintenance hit a 15-year low.

None of that is inevitable. When House and Senate negotiators finished the 2026 Interior spending bill in January, they rejected a proposed $1.4 billion cut to the Forest Service’s non-fire budget. Funding is a choice Congress makes every year.

Is this new?

Partly. Colorado already leans on local partners at some of its busiest federal sites. The City of Glenwood Springs has run Hanging Lake’s reservations and shuttle since 2019, local governments run reservations and shuttles at Quandary Peak, and Sweetwater Lake became what Gov. Jared Polis called “the first of its kind partnership in Colorado to create a state park on U.S. Forest Service land” (Colorado Newsline). The county points out that federal agencies “routinely use partnerships and special use permits to support high-use sites.”

What’s different here is scale and process. This would be a county running an entire flagship scenic area, campgrounds included. And Sweetwater Lake is going through a full environmental impact statement with public scoping, while the Maroon Bells permit is moving forward under a categorical exclusion, as Westwise points out.

A test case for underfunded public lands?

A categorical exclusion is a shortcut in federal environmental law for actions an agency considers minor, like picking a concessionaire for a single campground. It skips the detailed review bigger decisions get. Glaspell argues it fits because the county isn’t changing how the area runs. University of Colorado law professor Mark Squillace called the idea “laughable,” writing that a categorical exclusion can’t cover “the wholesale transfer of management responsibility over the entire Maroon Bells Scenic Area” (Aspen Journalism). The 15-day comment window exists only because advocates pushed for it, and Aaron Weiss of the Center for Western Priorities noted the Forest Service hasn’t released maps showing exactly how much land is involved.

The bigger worry is what comes next. “Because the Trump administration wants to do privatization anywhere it can, it’s going to need test cases,” Weiss said, “and the mechanism here by which they’re doing the privatization is what’s so problematic.” He called it “the camel’s nose under the tent” in High Country News. Former White River Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams worried the deal “is going to be used as a model... to demonstrate that we can just have counties or states do this. That’s a slippery slope.”

That worry has a paper trail. The administration’s 2026 budget proposal called for transferring “certain properties to State-level management” within the National Park System (National Parks Traveler). Critics see a pattern: cut the budget, point to the deficit, then hand the site to someone else.

Pitkin County argues it’s the safer option. County Attorney Ry Neiley said that if the county doesn’t step in, the Forest Service will issue the permit to a private concessionaire, and “it will never come back to public management. And the fees will go up... with the goal of profit.” Tennenbaum has said plainly that “we do not want the privatization of public lands” (Denver Gazette), and that the county would hand management back if federal funding improved (KUNC). The catch, as Wilderness Workshop’s Will Roush told Aspen Public Radio, is that the Roaring Fork Valley has the resources to do this. Most places that end up in the same squeeze don’t.

Where TNS stands

We think Pitkin County is acting in good faith, and it’s likely a better steward of the Bells than a for-profit concessionaire. That isn’t the question in front of the public right now.

The county’s plan builds on the 2023 Maroon Bells Comprehensive Recreation Management Plan, which drew roughly 8,000 survey responses. That was a real public process. It was also a plan for how to manage the Bells, and it came before anyone proposed handing the operation to someone else.

We oppose rushing a decision this big through a categorical exclusion and a 15-day comment window. A place that drew roughly 191,000 visitors in a single season deserves the same full review Sweetwater Lake is getting, with maps, alternatives and enough time for people to actually weigh in.

And the root problem isn’t in Aspen. As Roush put it, “Congress must fully fund the Forest Service and restore the federal government’s commitment to managing our shared natural heritage.” If land agencies had the staff and budgets to do their jobs, the Forest Service wouldn’t need to hand off one of its best-known sites to keep it running.

How to comment on the Maroon Bells plan by Oct. 9

Comments go through the Forest Service’s online comment form. A useful comment is short, specific and in your own words:

• Say who you are. A local, a regular visitor, someone who has never been but plans to go. Your connection matters.
• Ask for a full environmental review. Request an environmental assessment with maps and alternatives instead of a categorical exclusion, plus a longer comment period.
• Ask for protections in writing. Affordable access options, public reporting on fees and spending, and a clear path for the Forest Service to take management back.
• Then call your members of Congress. The permit is local, but Forest Service funding and staffing get decided in Washington.

The Bells will look the same next summer either way. Whether the next underfunded trailhead gets this much scrutiny may depend on how many people speak up for this one.

Reporting from the U.S. Forest Service, Pitkin County, Aspen Journalism, the Denver Gazette, KUNC, High Country News, KUOW, Westwise, Wilderness Workshop, Taxpayers for Common Sense and National Parks Traveler. Photos: The Next Summit / Alex Derr, file photos from 2024 and 2026, not taken for this story. Want to back more reporting like this? TNS membership details are here.