Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20251120.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on November 20, 2025 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss, Brian Long, Shelley Braudis Adoption of the Agenda: Ted made a motion to approve the agenda; Adam seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Adam made a motion to approve the minutes; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: The Farm Collaborative is very close to receiving their CO for the learning center. New Business: N/A Old Business: Roaring Fork Safe Passages (RFSP) Cecily DeAngelo, director of RFSP, provided an informational update on the mitigation plan RFSP developed for the upper Roaring Fork Valley. From the prioritization plan, six locations were identified as the most appropriate places to begin mitigation planning work. In most cases, these locations have some of the worst wildlife-vehicle conflict and are places that may currently allow for connections via over- or underpasses. The Airport-Aspen Village location was chosen to begin with first; this location is the longest stretch of highway and has greater potential for connectivity due to proximity to open space, land with conservation easements in place, and private land not slated for development. Planning for the next three locations will follow. Goals for RFSP’s projects: 1- Reduce vehicle-wildlife conflict and improve driver safety, 2- Improve and preserve long-term wildlife connectivity across Highway 82, and 3- Support landscape-scale habitat connectivity for wildlife. In many cases, the highway is a bottleneck between areas of quality habitat. Partners involved with studying mitigation alternatives include City of Aspen Parks and Open Space. Julia Kinch developed a mitigation plan for the Airport-Aspen Village location. RFSP is now looking at next steps, including feasibility work to help with value engineering and to determine if the plans are spending funding in the right ways, in the right places, and with the right/feasible structures. More than half of wildlife accidents reported to the authorities take place in the Airport-Aspen Village area, and 34% of those accidents involve elk. The Cozy Point Ranch location was removed from the project because of the high level of human activity that made it feel inappropriate for mitigation. Cecily shared a map of the five current locations recommended for mitigation. RFSP proposes breaking the process up into phases, with phase one being the Sky Mountain Underpass, a site that involves FAA and CDOT land as well as Pitkin County Open Space. At this location, wildlife use the existing chute to cross the highway, but at times animals get confused, resulting in conflicts with vehicles. Another recommendation involves an overpass at Brush Creek; this location is ideal because wildlife frequently cross here, however value engineering is important to determine whether other approaches could be more effective. Considerations for this location also include buried utilities, a great deal of human activity, and development pressure on the Intercept Lot. Discussions about potentially skipping these two locations have taken place, as well as conversations with CPW staff about potential implications for wildlife if these sites are skipped, such as creating a very long fenced section which could result in other issues for wildlife. Near-term improvements have also been identified: for example, adjacent to the AABC near the RFTA facility where animals come up from the Roaring Fork River gorge and enter the highway, and angler gates in the shale bluffs area that are stuck in an open position. These are relatively simple and inexpensive recommendations that would close off imperfect connections that are not working well for people or wildlife. Proposals for these near-term improvements would cost $500,000-725,000. RFSP would try to raise local momentum as well as applying for grants from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, in addition to CDOT. The cost estimate for Phase One is $22-32.5 million, depending on the design of the overpass. Phase One also includes fencing from the Airport to Smith Hill Way. Dan asked for clarification of the bridge underpass concept. Cecily explained that it is a buried bridge; it has an open feel so that elk will walk through it. There are several examples of these on the Front Range, such as several bridge underpasses and one overpass on I-25. Cecily explained that the current small box culvert below Highway 82 near the end of the airport runway is used by bears and bobcats, but an elk herd would not use it due to its being dark and enclosed. CPW monitors wildlife use of this box culvert underpass. At the location for the proposed Brush Creek overpass, videos and Ecoflight images provide wildlife use information. RFSP consulted an engineering firm that looked at this location and suggested that an underpass is also a viable option there. Howie asked if an expansion of the existing underpass for human trail users could be an option, as a retrofit. Cecily said that the heavy human use could likely be too great for elk to use a shared, expanded underpass. Both approval of the project (and ideally also funding) from CPW and CDOT are needed for this project, and when these entities allocate funding for construction, they examine the proposal to make sure there is no human conflict. Retrofitting existing structures would be ideal, but wildlife and human uses must be separated. Three further recommendations in Phase Two of the project include a buried bridge at Woods Road, and overpass at Wildcat, and an overpass at Aspen Village. Private land adds complexities for both the Wildcat and Aspen Village locations. Aspen Village is the highest priority in Phase Two due to the potential to connect high quality habitat and the high volume of elk conflicts. Estimated cost for Phase Two is $35-50 million. The total estimated cost of Phases One and Two together is $80 million. Cecily shared renderings of the proposed infrastructures. She added that no funding is being sought from the Parks and Open Space Department at this time. RFSP is looking to begin on near-term improvements; engineering design will cost $75,000, and it is hoped that the community will help provide some of these funds. The feasibility study for Phase One will cost $275-300,000 and will help determine the best infrastructures for the Phase One locations. A public survey promoted by Open Space, Ecoflight, ACES, and others was open during July and August 2025. More than 725 responses were received; results showed strong support for wildlife crossings in the Roaring Fork Valley. “Strong support” was expressed by 85% of respondents, and when added to “support,” they total 96%. Many respondents expressed that collisions with animals is an important concern for the valley. Two deputies expressed that there are far more collisions that those which are reported. Adam asked how important connections across the highway are from an ecological standpoint when resources the animals need exist on both sides. Cecily shared that the local CPW team does not see the need for connectivity, however no collar studies have been conducted to explore movement patters across the highway. She explained that individuals and groups of animals do cross the highway and that this supports genetic mixing. The ability for animals to move across the landscape can only be a positive factor, and preserving/enhancing existing crossings is important. Austin asked if CPW has commented on a comparative use of $80 million for other uses that would gain potentially greater benefit for elk than this project. Cecily said that possibilities have been mentioned. CPW has also commented that the land in this valley is too valuable and will eventually be fully built out; CPW has also asked RFSP to help repair/improve wildlife fencing where CDOT funding has run out. Cecily added that large philanthropic donations often fund such projects, for example Highway 9 and other projects in the Los Angeles, CA area. The question for this community is whether we are willing to lay groundwork to connect lands and preserve them for wildlife use, and that private funds could be matched by state and/or federal funds. The Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program is being reintroduced for permanent funding currently; this is a popular and solvable issue. The funding that is currently being sought by RFSP will lay groundwork and show the community’s commitment to the project and will support further philanthropic funding. Howie asked if the auto insurance industry is willing to help fund this type of project and whether RFSP has approached this industry. Cecily explained that she participates on the Wildlife Transportation Alliance Board, which is essentially CDOT and CPW making decisions together at a state level. Another interested group is the Pew Charitable Trust. Both of these groups have approached the auto insurance industry on this question, and there is currently no interest. As well, another bill is being introduced at the state level for road safety; this is a fee on insurance and would be an ongoing source of revenue for wildlife crossings in the state. There are people trying to bring insurance companies in on this topic. Dan asked what the construction timeline would be for the entire project in terms of impacts to highway 82. Cecily said that actual construction timelines are not yet known, impacts to traffic flow on Highway 82 would be limited to temporary lane shifts. Ute Properties Management Plan Staff seeks a Board recommendation to move this management plan forward for approval and adoption by City Council. Feedback has been received by the public and by stakeholders. Given that these properties are not highly visible, public turnout for the survey was low. John reviewed Management Actions and Historic Resources presented in the last draft. Howie asked about playground work five years ago in Ute Park; John noted that this management plan incorporates all three Ute properties, including Ute Park where the playground was recently replaced. Ann asked if removal of aspen trees is an intent of the plan; John explained that the plan allows for some aspen removal but not wholesale removal. Ann expressed support for minimal interpretive signage; John said that this is the plan. Ann asked for clarification of the plan’s intent for addressing fencing around the cemetery. Neighboring property owners expressed that they did not want a fence installed around the back portion of the cemetery; the language in the current draft indicates “repair/maintain and extend fencing.” John and Austin have been discussing a possible middle ground solution, such as posts that indicate property corners. Adam expressed support for this, given the unknown underground history as well as the neighbors’ preferences. John shared feedback on whether milkweed was a viable or necessary planting for this location, given that monarch migration routes do not go through this area. John commented that this is a general concept in fostering pollinator habitat. USFS had no constructive comments on the plan. The Historic Preservation Commission mentioned that the cemetery is a designated property and therefore falls under their purview; this has been noted. The Benedict Building association provided feedback about their preference for management actions to be conducted by professionals (such as for fuel management) and their preference for not expanding parking capacity at the base of the Ute Trail. Ute Place HOA expressed opposition to fencing around the back of the cemetery. John then asked the Board if they would like to suggest any changes before taking the plan to Council. Ted commented that the plan seems accurate, and feedback is as expected. Ted made a motion to recommend the Ute Properties Management Plan for Council adoption. Adam seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Ann asked for clarification of the thistle pictured in the plan; it is an invasive species, and correlates to plan language addressing invasive plants. John explained the theme of that plan section and photo, as illustrating things that need attention. Howie asked if Parks and Open Space uses the same liquid herbicide mix as the County uses. Shelly explained that these mixes are specific to target species, and are the same ones used by the County. Howie asked if there is a plan to redo signage; John said that the regulations sign will be re-made and an interpretive panel would be a new sign. John added that all interpretive panels (36 in total, including two new ones at Burlingame) in the City’s portfolio have recently been replaced and that QR codes provide Spanish translations. Mike added that the signage at Rio Grande Park/John Denver Sanctuary also includes QR codes for access to further information as a strategy for keeping signage to a minimum. Howie asked if this has been successful; Mike said that use is tracked and people are using them. Adam asked if the signs at Jennie Adair Open Space were replaced; yes they were. Howie asked if Ben Dodge’s feedback about fuel management was incorporated into the plan; yes it was. Board Comments: Adam: thanked John and Shelley who assisted when the contractor working at Jennie Adair Open Space hit the water line going to Hallam Lake. Howie: asked about land ownership along the Rio Grande Trail between Grindlay Bridge and Picnic Point. Staff replied that it is County land. Howie asked for an update on the year’s bicycle incidents. Brian said that there were two incidents that rangers responded to this year, although many incidents go unreported. Staff is preparing a report on approaches to bicyclist education and etiquette. Howie asked if staff is happy with the Hallam Bike-pedway; yes they are, and uprights and speedbumps are planned to be installed. Ted commented that most popular mountain bike trails in Moab now allow class one e-bikes, as a reference for trends. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting December 18, 2025. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Adam made a motion to adjourn; Howie seconded, and the vote was unanimous.