Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20240919.Joint MINUTES City of Aspen & Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Joint Meeting Held on September 19, 2024 3:00pm City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall Pitkin County OST Staff Present: Gary Tennenbaum, Liza Mitchell, Jessie Young, Carly O’Connell, Kim Arensdorf, Janet Urquart Pitkin County OST Board Members Present: Wayne Ives, Michael Kinsley, Amy Barrow City of Aspen OST Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Shelley Braudis, Brian Long, Micah Davis, Teresa Hackbarth City of Aspen OST Board Members Present: Adam McCurdy, Dan Perl, Howie Mallory Others present: Bud Tymczszyn of AVLT Approval of Minutes: N/A Adoption of the Agenda: There was no motion or vote to adopt the agenda. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: Toni Kronberg thanked staff for their work on the new Maroon Creek Trail. She commented on alternatives to the transportation corridor between Rubey Park and Brush Creek Intercept Lot and mentioned a potential initial feasibility study for an aerial connection within this corridor. Staff Comments: Gary T: mentioned that an RFP is being developed for the next phase of the Brush Creek to AABC trail project and the possibility of a large infrastructure grant that could pay for 50% of the project. Matt K: provided an update on the new Maroon Creek Trail: a change order is going to Council on 9/24 and the ribbon cutting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, October 29th. John S.: added that the lower section of the new Maroon Creek Trail will be open to the public tomorrow and there will be a soft opening of the trail section between the kiss and ride roundabout to the service entrance at the ARC. Work continues on the section beneath the ARC pedestrian bridge. Jessie Y.: The Aspen Village Bridge is scheduled to be put in place on October 15th; the back-up date is the following week. Board Comments: None. New Business: Smuggler Mountain Open Space management plan update Gary introduced this topic, mentioning that the City and County have owned this property since 2007 and reviewing how unusual this property acquisition was at that time. He commented that Smuggler Road is the most popular hiking trail within the City of Aspen. He provided some background on this unique open space property and mentioned that there is more work to be done to remove the threat of development. In developing the first (2008) management plan, many public meetings were held and much work was done with the community. There has not been a need to update the plan until now; it was very thorough and has been working well during the past sixteen years including large projects like beetle management with closures and helicopter work. He encouraged staff to visit the site and observe results of the forestry work toward diversity, fire breaks, and more. Matt added that this property and management plan exemplify the partnership between the City and County. He expressed appreciation for the staff time and expertise from both entities and acknowledged that this property brings together the two programs in a special way. Carly introduced the purpose of today’s meeting: to gather feedback on the draft updated management plan toward modifications and revisions, and approval to put the draft out for public comment. She provided a map and reviewed the boundaries of the Smuggler Mountain Open Space (SMOS). Two additional parcels in Hunter Creek Valley (Verena Mallory Park and Emily Benedict Park) that were not included in the 2008 plan will now be managed under the updated plan due to their proximity and trail connectivity. This integration provides a seamless management plan and brings in Aspen Valley Land Trust as a new property owner and entity in the partnership. She also clarified the details of the parcel at the bottom of Smuggler Road (including the parking lot and lower switchbacks); this parcel is called Molly Gibson Park and is not part of the SMOS, rather it is a Pitkin County general fund parcel. This parcel was also not included in the 2008 management plan, but there are actions in the updated plan to address this parcel within the new plan. Michael K. asked if AVLT will be overseeing this management plan. Gary clarified that AVLT has had a part in developing this draft update from the beginning; AVLT will not oversee it, rather they will ensure that everything proposed in the plan fits in the conservation easement. Carly added that up until now, rangers have been able to enforce regulations only on the trail easement; by including this parcel in the updated plan, the entire parcel will be under the SMOS management plan. Carly showed a chart and a map summarizing major accomplishments since 2008, including many forest health projects. She pointed out area C which was a former racetrack and noted the trash and remnants of old buildings that were removed in 2006. Michael asked if any of the objects were designated as historical; Carly explained that some objects are now held by the Aspen Historical Society. A dog off leash area was identified on the map; Smuggler Mountain Road and Hunter Creek Cut-off are voice and sight areas. The updated plan extends this regulation to all single-track trails in the SMOS. The 2008 allowed an exception to Title 12, permitting dogs off leash with voice and sight control, but this was restricted to Smuggler Mountain Road and Hunter Creek Cut-off. Gary added that the road is owned by the County, and that the Board will be recommending adoption of this change to the BOCC. About seven miles of trails were constructed or formalized. These trails are within the potential recreation area identified on the map by a dotted line. RFOV helped with about 50 volunteer days in this area. Interpretive signs describe the history of significant mines on the property. City and County teams have done a lot of noxious weed control. Bandit or unauthorized trails were closed and signage was installed. That summarizes the major projects that have been accomplished since 2008. Carly reviewed the Public Process section of the plan, mentioning that pink text within the draft indicates placeholder text that will be updated once the final plan is reviewed for adoption. The public process began with data collection, including natural resource and recreation data, and a site visit last fall. The public outreach process began in May with stakeholder discussions, one- on-one conversations with Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES), Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA), Aspen Historical Society (AHS), Aspen Fire, Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association (RFMBA), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Wilderness Workshop. These meetings were intentionally held prior to a public survey in order to understand stakeholders’ input on the most important issues. The public survey was then written with this input in mind to provide a broader perspective, and the survey period was held from June to July. Staff advertised the survey through three on site efforts, handing out give-away items to entice people to do the survey; a total of 380 survey responses were collected. After the survey closed, the team used survey results as they began drafting management actions; stakeholders have begun to review some of those management actions, and this process will continue as the draft is released for review. Today’s meeting is part of Phase Three, in which County and City teams are receiving the draft for review. The goal is to release this plan for public comment for about a month, and then in November the County OST Board will review and potentially recommend the plan for adoption to the BOCC in a two-step process. The City will have its own separate, similar review process. Carly moved on to the summaries of public comments received, in which hiking and walking were the most popular and most frequently done activities at SMOS. Mountain biking was third, followed by dog walking and wildlife viewing. When asked what they valued most about SMOS, 100% of survey participants indicated the beauty of scenic views and 96% also indicated both scenic views and ecology/natural resources. Full results are included in the appendix. Survey participants were also asked what level of support they had for future recreation management. The team looked to these results as they drafted the management actions that are presented today. Michael asked for clarification of an “advanced trail.” Carly explained that this would be any trail difficulty that is intermediate and above, relating to responses from participants who indicated wanting new advanced trails, likely for mountain biking. Michael suggested using clearer wording or qualifying language. Wayne asked about the recent designation of Hunter Creek as “outstanding” in terms of water quality (p. 41). Liza explained that this change was made after the plan’s language was drafted and that the type is pink to indicate that it may need to be edited pending the approval of this state designation change. The upper portion of Hunter Creek was already designated as outstanding and the recent change was to extend that rating farther down to the Forest Service boundaries. Liza added that this designation provides extra levels of protection in general; the County will continue to work with Roaring Fork Conservancy to monitor water quality. Michael commented that on different devices, the various yellows in Map 10 are difficult to distinguish, suggesting using different colors to make them more visually distinct. Adam asked about the City of Aspen Uphill Economy Recreation Plan mentioned on p. 49 and whether it is still relevant. Matt explained that this plan was approved and that before this is taken out of the plan he would like to check with another department. Michael brought up the topic of bats and a lack of knowledge about their presence in the SMOS area, such as in mine holes; he suggested discussing this offline. He also asked about additional research to find out whether lynx are present. Liza explained that as far as the County and CPW know, lynx are not present there, and that management of snowshoe hare habitat could benefit lynx. Carly moved on to the Management section of the draft plan, starting with broader enforcement regulations. Michael commented that it would be interesting and important to refer to input from stakeholders like CPW and USFS as management actions are presented. He added that the input of Wilderness Workshop based on their work that achieved Wilderness designation for the Hunter-Frying Pan Wilderness carries important weight and that they are especially cautious about the potential for bandit/social trails. He asked Carly to describe what the plan addresses or doesn’t address regarding such stakeholder comments. Carly mentioned that the USFS’s comment indicating no interest in adding new trails pertained to USFS land. She mentioned that both Wilderness Workshop and CPW are less supportive of new trails, and that in representing all perspectives, RFMBA’s input (in support of additional trails) was included as well as other stakeholders who were more neutral. There were also public comments specifically on a portal trail which will be covered in the management actions. Both stakeholder and public comments are considered in these management actions and Carly said that she would point back to how these inputs were picked up. Goals for the area are essentially unchanged: protecting, managing, and enhancing the natural, historical, and visual resources of the area; providing and promoting safe and enjoyable outdoor recreation opportunities, and providing educational opportunities. Management actions are defined with implementation steps; roles and responsibilities are also defined, which is important for the SMOS situation involving three land managers. Carly emphasized that the Regulations and Policies section is very much in draft form. The 2008 management plan applied Title 12 to the SMOS property. The updated plan clarifies the property defined as SMOS with the new boundaries that include the parcels added under the umbrella of the plan. It is likely that Title 12 will apply to everything defined within the SMOS boundary; City Open Space regulations (which are essentially the same) will no longer apply. There are exceptions, however, which are changes from both City and County regulations: dog voice and sight control on an open space and the extension of this to single-track trails within the SMOS. This change arose from the fact that this is how people are walking dogs within the SMOS and there is little enforcement of dogs off leash on the single-track trails. The Hunter Creek Trail will remain a dog leashed area. Adam asked what the leash regulation is where trails connect to USFS land. Shelly explained that dogs may be unleashed until you get to Wilderness; dogs must be leashed in Wilderness. Adam mentioned that prohibition on damaging natural features doesn’t appear to be included in Title 12; Jessie explained that this is included but is not detailed specifically in this summary. Carly mentioned that the dog voice and sight area change is a change from Title 12, and that is in part why BOCC will review this plan. Another change from Title 12 is continuing to allow licensed motorized vehicles on Smuggler Mountain Road. Regarding hours of operation, there are no nighttime closures on SMOS. The plan continues to allow Ebikes on Smuggler Mountain Road. Any potential changes to Ebike regulations at SMOS would be brought back to Boards for review, if there are any future changes with Ebike federal regulations on USFS land. Accessibility is covered by the Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Management Plan for Pitkin County. Staff are working with City and County attorneys to clarify enforcement of Title 12 on the Molly Gibson parcel; this section may change before the draft becomes final and ready for adoption, but the intent will remain the same. Carly described the Molly Gibson management area, encircled by a black dashed line; Title 12 would apply to this area. The manicured park would be maintained by the City of Aspen and City regulations would apply at that park. The issue has been that the lower switchbacks have been a gray area of enforcement for rangers; updating regulations here will allow rangers to ticket in this area at the start of the road where dog waste and parking issues are most challenging. Wayne asked if this parcel can be transferred from the general fund to open space. Carly explained that this is a Superfund site and that they want to avoid potential requirements for open space funds to address the Superfund site. The attorneys are looking at an option where open space could take on this parcel with a caveat that if the EPA ever requires remediation or the like, open space funds would not be used. She emphasized that the intent will remain while the language is configured with attorney’s assistance over the next couple of months. An additional item that will be clarified in this process is that tickets will be Title 12 tickets for all of SMOS; this clarification will streamline ticketing for a single jurisdiction. Wayne asked if language in Title 12 states that these regulations can only apply to County Open Space parcels. Carly said that staff are working on this with attorneys, and the IGA will contain that specific information. Carly described a note on special uses and events, including permits required and group sizes limited for commercial uses. No additional specific regulations pertaining to special uses is included in this management plan as the permit process and regulations would apply. Memorials are not allowed. Liza presented the Natural Resources section of the management plan, beginning with the continuing current management philosophy approach and actions which align with Pitkin County Open Space’s overall approach to managing natural resources now and into the future: to foster resiliency of natural ecosystems so that native flora/fauna and natural processes can persist and adapt in a changing world. The ecological value of SMOS is driven by its size, location, and diversity of habitats. The most important action has been to protect the land from additional development. Next steps are to continue this management. SMOS serves as a buffer between the urban environment and National Forest and it connects vast tracts of federally protected land down to H-82, North Star Nature Preserve, and Richmond Ridge. Action items include a requirement to conduct riparian assessments prior to project implementation toward appropriate actions to protect the riparian zone. Additional actions relate to maintaining healthy forests. The mining-era history of logging affected the entire mountain and now contributes to forest health because of the age class diversity present today. More recent efforts adopt sustainable forestry practices. The 2010 Smuggler Mountain Forestry Management Plan was a 10-year guide; many of the recommendations have been accomplished or initiated. The main themes from that plan are carried forward into this management plan through Action Items 2-5. Action 2 maintains and promotes healthy, resilient forests. Action 3 directs thinning projects in oak shrublands to mimic natural disturbance regimes; this also benefits wildfire risk reduction. Action 4 builds age class diversity and habitat complexity via patch cuts; this habitat mosaic benefits wildlife and wildfire resilience. Michael asked how big a patch is; Liza said patches would be smaller than 5 acres. Action 5 highlights the value of dead wood on the landscape and acknowledging the need for balance between live and dead wood. Actions 6-9 relate to species or elements of conservation concern. Managing habitat diversity is the best way to support the high level of wildlife diversity (140 species) on SMOS. Action 6 directs monitoring of raptor nesting and protection as needed. Action 7 directs maintaining habitat quality for federally protected species. Action 8 acknowledges the conservation value of Hunter Creek, including supporting water quality and quantity and native fish projects. CPW has identified some potential future work on this topic. Action 9 ensures that land managers stay apprised of wolf reintroductions and ready to provide education and other actions as needed. Adam asked why raptors are called out specifically as opposed to ground-nesting and cavity- nesting birds and nesting season in general with regard to protections during projects. Liza said that this was the USFS biologist’s recommendation. Adam mentioned that the USFS cuts off restoration (prescribed fire, etc.) on May 15th through the fall to protect ground-nesting birds. Gary commented that resumption of restoration work usually begins July 15th or 30th depending on species, or surveys are conducted. Mastication usually occurs in fall. Gary and Liza suggested expanding this in the management plan. Jessie presented on the Recreation section. SMOS sees over 100,000 uses per year as a very popular recreation destination; this is concentrated during summer, but winter sees a lot of use on Smuggler Road as well. A counter in Hunter Creek at a pedestrian-only site showed 33,000 uses per year. Howie sent an email pointing out the importance of the fitness element of use; social (families, dogs, etc.) uses are also make this area popular. Hunter Creek also sees diverse ages of users. Jessie pointed out areas in which the Utah State study took place, providing additional data for use in this management plan update. She shared a GIS tracks map showing that the observation platform is the primary destination for users originating at the base of Smuggler Road. Data shows people are generally happy with the facilities on SMOS; there is low trail conflict and user volume falls within what people expect for their experience there. Recreation management actions explore the feasibility of a lower access portal trail. This concept has been a longtime topic, and it is carried forward in this plan because it is outside the scope of this plan alone to fully explore whether this is possible to execute. The public is still interested in a portal trail as it came through in public comments. This would come back to both Boards and AVLT once due diligence and process provide understanding of feasibility. The second action is to designate the lower Hunter Creek Trail for pedestrian use only. A question from Amy about the upper extent of this designation was answered by Carly: this trail designation will extend up to the Benedict Bridge. Action 3 is to explore feasibility of constructing advanced mountain biking trails on the north- facing slope connecting Smuggler Mountain Road to Lollipop Trail. This idea came through in public comments as an important topic. An alignment could be feasible within the former 2008 recreation area boundary. Staff discussed whether this is warranted. Carly shared that public comment is split on new trails (60% in favor), and as land managers staff are undecided on whether this is the right direction to go; therefore, it is a discussion for this group today. Gary added that this idea is for a small trail in a small portion of the SMOS; it would be used by a select group of people, and it would not be in a critical wildlife area. Gary encouraged sharing initial thoughts on whether to have more trails in this area. Michael asked if this area is still considered not to be critical wildlife habitat and whether it is still dark timber. Gary said it is currently not critical wildlife habitat and it is still dark timber. Michael asked what the length of the trail would be; Gary said it would be less than a half mile. Carly added that language is included about ensuring the trail would have minimal impact on wildlife concerns and that the best available science would be used along with CPW discussions with ecologists with regard to wildlife biodiversity impacts. Jessie added that the topic would come back to these Boards for final approval. Wayne commented on length of the potential trail in relation to the area where it would be located; Gary said he would rather not include a specific trail length in the plan, because if it changes slightly the plan would need to be amended. A discussion on how to describe the size of the trail followed; Liza suggested that area impacted might be a more valuable measurement. Dan asked if this management action arose solely from public input; Carly explained that it was both public input and stakeholder input from RFMBA. Carly stated that the desired direction today is whether this action could be included in the draft that goes to the public. Amy commented that she supports including it because it reflects a fair amount of public input and it is simply a relatively short connector between existing trails. Wayne expressed that he supports keeping it in the draft. Action 4 is to add a midpoint recreation destination along Smuggler Mountain Road as an effort to be inclusive of all ability levels or interests. This could be a bench where people could sit and enjoy the views. Amy asked if there would be signage at this spot; Jessie explained that while this is not established as part of the plan, it could be part of the interpretive items in the plan. Action 5 is to install a new kiosk at the Smuggler Mountain Trailhead and update the information at the BTS kiosk, to ensure signage is up to date and consistent (including restroom information for the portapotty at Molly Gibson Park). Amy asked about a permanent toilet. Carly said that public comment expressed the desire for a toilet and staff have discussed the merits of having or not having a toilet. After considering Park Circle and Smuggler Trailhead, staff concluded that the toilet at Molly Gibson Park was sufficient. Gary added that a toilet is expensive and giving up parking space for a toilet is a difficult trade off. Public comment on this was not significant and there have been few requests historically. Gary suggested that better signage could alleviate bathroom concerns and avoid a large expense. Matt commented on the significant maintenance and staff time that would be required to maintain a bathroom there. Gary added that a portapotty at the base of Smuggler would see use levels that companies would not be able to provide maintenance for. Amy commented that this location is so close to town and amenities that a bathroom is not needed or expected by users. Action 6 is to install bike racks at the base of Smuggler Road. Action 7 is to maintain winter access to the huts on surrounding public lands; this is simply to formalize current conditions. Action 8 is to review development agreements for Molly Gibson Park and determine whether additional documentation is required for ongoing maintenance and use. Jessie continued to the Education and Outreach section. Action 1 is to update and install regulatory signage. Action 2 is to replace interpretive signs as needed to educate visitors about the historic and cultural resource management that has occurred. This includes exploring options for interactive or digital historical material that is inclusive to user needs. Action 3 is to continue a campaign to address dog waste and dog owner etiquette on SMOS toward increased dog owner awareness and compliance. Gary commented on the enormous improvements that have been seen in dog waste protocols. Dan asked how the County and City are considering dog waste signage. Jessie said that this is kept intentionally vague at this point because more discussion is needed, adding that the City has taken on signage using their standards on SMOS and that is likely to continue. John mentioned that the City will be reviewing all of its signage in the coming years. He asked if the County provides interpretive signage on SMOS. Liza said that the County has done natural resource signage and that the City created interpretive signage for the historical mining sites. Carly added that a management action item is to create a maintenance plan that will include roles and responsibilities for everything including signs. Gary commented on the need to include roles so staff can reference the plan over time. Micah commented that the observation deck is an example of an item where staff does not know which entity is responsible. Liza suggested that these types of details need to be in a maintenance plan, not in a management plan so that if things change updates can be made more easily. Gary clarified that this action directs such a plan to be created. Michael asked if there is a policy for interpretive signs and whether staff have thoughts on whether to have them or not. Gary said that the County is very careful about signage and it depends on the site. He mentioned the oak mastication work that warranted signage to inform the public about this work. Places with historic elements or structures make sense for interpretive signage. He emphasized that care must be taken in finding a balance and not over- signing places. Michael asked Matt how the City considers interpretive signage. Matt explained that the City evaluates whether to create interpretive signage in a similar way, noting that the City has some 40 interpretive signs within the City of Aspen and they are not actively expanding those. He added that Parks is in the midst of revising and replacing interpretive content in existing locations. Content is more educational rather than project specific, due to the more urban nature of City properties. Matt cited Rio Grande Park as a recent example of a comprehensive interpretive package developed by the City; this signage tells stories of the John Denver Sanctuary, the site’s railroad/mining history, and the stormwater treatment system within the park. Shelley presented on Monitoring Stewardship (p. 62). This section of the management plan addresses the action items listed above and the monitoring work to ensure that they are effective. Action 1 is to continue wildlife and vegetation monitoring that is conducted at regular intervals and to help formalize the types and frequency of the various monitoring efforts. Action 2 is to maintain and improve the collaboration that exists with the partner agencies (County, City, CPW, BLM) managing lands in and around SMOS. Action 3 is to monitor vegetation recovery at reclaimed mine sites and other areas. Action 4 is to conduct a cultural resources assessment to identify and evaluate cultural resources toward ensuring proper safeguards are taken when conducting work in the area. Action 5 is to continue monitoring recreational use. Action 6 is to work closely with CPW to evaluate elk calving in the SMOS. Wayne asked what would happen if it is determined that elk calving is not active in the production area. Liza explained that there are no elk production maps, but anecdotal data indicates elk are using different habitats such as oak shrublands and not strictly aspen groves as they historically have. Liza said that with this information, potential elk calving is a consideration in these habitats within SMOS. Gary added that a large aspen stand in the back of SMOS has been preserved without trails. John presented on Maintenance action items. Action 1 is to maintain Smuggler Mountain Road at its current width and condition. Action 2 is to improve boardwalks on lower Hunter Creek Trail. Action 3 is to create a maintenance agreement schedule with defined responsibilities. Action 4 is to actively manage noxious vegetation to promote the vigor of managed diversity utilizing an integrated approach. Wayne asked how integrated approach is defined. Liza explained that control work is coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries and that integrated methods are used, such as bio controls, hand pulling, and herbicides (integrated pest management). Michael asked if dog voice and sight control is working. Gary said that people are controlling their dogs well enough. Michael asked about dogs impacting wildlife. Gary said that Smuggler Mountain Road is the perfect place for dogs off leash because use is contained; most of the people and dog use on SMOS occurs on the road. Carly added this will continue to be monitored and if it is determined to be unworkable, the plan can be amended by subsequent Board action. The rangers do not believe it is unworkable; Rick said that dog waste abandonment and failure to keep dogs under voice and sight control are the two most reported issues, but rangers have the ability to ticket. This open space allows a maximum of two dogs per person (other open spaces allow three dogs per person). Liza added that on a landscape scale, this decision provides a place for people to go near town where dogs may be off leash on a road which concentrates that use. This allows wildlife to become accustomed to the use and stay away from the area. Michael expressed that he hopes rangers will not hesitate to argue with our policies if they think the policies are not working. Carly explained that several work sessions with rangers were included in developing the management actions. Carly wrapped up with a table indicating the intended time frames and budget and opened the meeting up to general questions and feedback. Adam asked whether monitoring availability of the privately owned parcel that juts into the SMOS, should it ever be for sale toward potentially purchasing it. Gary commented that it doesn’t need to be in the management plan, but if Boards would like to see this included in a general way, that can be done. It could be stated in a specific way if the Boards feel that preventing any future development is extremely important. Carly added that this concept is stated in the management goals and that if such a parcel were to be acquired it could be folded into this management plan. Gary encouraged the Board to read the goals and get a sense of whether any Board members feel more specific or stronger language is desired. Liza mentioned a parcel of interest at Sky Mountain Park as an example of a similar situation in the recent past. Michael expressed his confidence in staff’s judgement and their intent related to the parcel of interest. Gary read a text from Bud (AVLT, attending via zoom) who had to exit the meeting: AVLT has been happy to have been included in the process from early on, and that they are impressed by the quality of the City and County’s work. Bud said SMOS is a prime example of collaboration; ALT is happy with the direction of the plan so far and looks forward to next steps. Carly prompted the County Board for a motion to put the management plan draft out to the public. Howie arrived at the meeting at this time. Michael (County) made a motion to recommend that the SMOS draft management plan be put out for public review. Amy seconded and the vote was unanimous. Howie (City) made a motion to recommend that the SMOS draft management plan be put out for public review. Adam seconded and the vote was unanimous. Carly said that feedback has been captured and will be incorporated into the draft next week before releasing the draft for public comment. Board adoption will be in November. Howie asked how public comment will be gathered and compiled. Carly explained that a link will be made available to the public; this will be advertised on social media and a feedback form via SurveyMonkey. The survey will be open for 30 days. The final plan will then be brought back to the Board at the November 14th meeting. Pending Board approval, it will then go to BOCC on December 3rd. Roaring Fork Outdoor Coalition Selection Committee The Roaring Fork Outdoor Coalition (RFOC) is a group made up of people from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Eagle County, BLM, USFS, CPW, Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt, Glenwood Springs, and we’re working on Carbondale. This group is looking to create a strategic plan for conservation and recreation for the entire watershed. The RFOC wants to create a community advisory group to advise on this strategic plan. The County is looking to tap some selection committee members to pick panelists. The goal is for the advisory group (of up to 40 participants) to meet over two years (about 8 meetings) to provide input on the plan as it is developed over 2 years. The intent is to gather expertise and participation from the community. Carly requested that one representative from the County and one representative from the City be identified to help select advisory group members. For the County, they will return to this task in October. Michael commented that with the County Board being an advisory body, he doesn’t see a compelling reason to create an advisory committee to an advisory committee. Carly explained that the RFOC applied for a grant from CPW to develop this plan, and the planning grant was up to $250,000. CPW did not award the full amount because their scoring committee did not see enough meaningful, coordinated input from community members. It was specifically asked that we create a direct way for community members/organizations to provide input on this plan process. $125,000 of funding was provided for the first year, and the remainder is contingent on setting up this direct path for communication with our community members. Gary added that this feels like overkill to him, too, but it is direct feedback from CPW. Carly commented that the RFOC members are from all of the jurisdictions throughout the valley, but what is missing is members like AVLT, Wilderness Workshop, ACES, etc. Carly said that the panel would formalize the involvement of these organizations. Michael asked how much would be lost if the panel wasn’t created; Carly said that $125,000 would be lost and that RFOC would also be removed from the regional partnership network. Gary said that if the Board is opposed to this, he would like to go back to CPW before making a decision. Amy expressed that having the 40 people who have a schedule and a directive makes sense. Carly explained that it has become apparent that someone (or people) from the community have expressed to CPW that they do not trust that the RFOC is a neutral body. John clarified that this process would create an unbiased appointment. Michael commented that this whole effort arose from trying to address overcrowded trailheads, and from that conversation it was realized that there is a bigger picture to address: how we use the backcountry. Michael asked for a visual organizational chart. Jessie commented that the coalition is all land managers, and that CPW, at the state level, wants to ensure that this is grassroots and involves non land managers as well as land managers. She said that this process would reduce the group to a size (about 40) that can have productive conversations and represent the community’s diverse interests. Carly explained the hub and spoke structure for the panel. Michael commented that the structure is well done, but it is redundant. Carly mentioned that other people from community organizations would also be asked to help select members for the panel. Gary said that these partner organizations are being asked to provide people to help on the selection committee. He added that they had done extensive outreach for partners. Carly commented that the term “collaborators” needs to be retitled “Community Advisory Group.” Michael mentioned that collaborative community decision making came out of a situation 50 years ago when in every jurisdiction, a handful of older white men decided everything in every town around the country. A movement began to genuinely democratize things. He expressed that his process was well intended, but that it has become bureaucratic-democratic. Gary said that the goal is to get this plan done and have near term actions that can be done sooner than later. This process is a way forward, and the grant funding is important because it signals CPW and overall state support which is attractive to partner entities. Wayne asked how big the selection committee is and how many meetings they would have. Carly said that there would be one meeting; applications would be through a Google form and the committee would review them and wrap it up in one 1-2 hour meeting. Dan asked whose idea it was to create a non- biased selection committee. Carly said that it was Pitkin County’s idea. Amy asked if any Board member would like to be on the selection committee. The discussion will resume at each Board’s next meeting. Old Business: None. Next Meeting Date(s): N/A Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: There was no motion to adjourn.