Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20260115.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on January 15, 2026 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Austin Weiss, Brian Long, Shelly Braudis . Jessie Young - Pitkin County OST Adoption of the Agenda: Ann 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; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Matt: mentioned a history of the Parks and Open Space Department which has been developed and will be a component of the upcoming Strategic Plan. This history document will be provided soon to the Board to review. The February OSTB meeting will likely be canceled. New Business: North Star Management Plan Review John explained that this draft North Star Management Plan has been developed by Pitkin County with some involvement by the City of Aspen. He posed two questions for the Board to guide the work at this meeting: 1. Does the Board have any questions about the plan? 2. Does the Board agree with the level of involvement from the City of Aspen at North Star Nature Preserve? John and Jessie Young, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Planning and Outreach Manager, provided an overview of the plan’s highlights. The land was initially purchased by The Nature Conservancy in 1977-1978 and was formally made part of the County’s open space portfolio in 1989. The City of Aspen became partner in 2001 with the joint (50/50) purchase of the James Smith property. In 2010-2013 recreational volume on the river became an issue at North Star. In 2015, a major update to the management plan addressed some of the commercial uses. With another update to the plan in 2023, commercial use became regulated, capping these users at a total of five via an annual application process. At that time, a structured, timed entry system was implemented for commercial operators. Ann asked how many operators apply for permits. Jessie mentioned that there were about thirteen applicants in the first year; last year there were about ten. Ted asked what proportion of applicants seem serious about operating at North Star. Jessie said that some of the applicants are simply shuttle services and as such they do not score as highly in the application evaluation process. John added that perhaps two or three applicants were probably viable but did not make it into the top five. Adam asked for clarification of user days during the season. Jessie explained that there are three launch slots per hour which are assigned to alternate larger and smaller operators. Currently, there are three commercial operators that are shuttle services and two operators that are instructional. Ann asked if there is pressure from operators to extend usage. Jessie commented that it was very challenging to reduce usage and some operators were upset that they did not receive a permit. She added that it seems to be working better to have a limited number of operators that understand parameters and work well with rangers. Dan asked if there is any language in the commercial application process that addresses guided versus self-guided experiences. Pitkin County desires to have operators that offer educational experiences, although there is greater demand for shuttle services. Operators are required to educate their clients on the rules and regulations pertinent to floating through North Star; this provides a portion of behavior management. Over the years, tickets have been issued more often to private users than to commercial clients. Adam asked if there has been an increase in non-commercial use. Jessie indicated that the County does not have this data. There was a question about special use permits, Jessie explained that the only special use permits allowed by the County at North Star are ones related to education or stewardship (for example, no birthday parties or weddings). Jessie added that data showing use trends is presented on p. 40 of the draft. John commented that this graphic shows a measurable increase in overall river use since 2018 with a spike in 2020 correlating to the COVID pandemic, and an overall slightly decreasing trend. The graphic correlates this user information with weather data to show corresponding water levels and length of season as weather-related factors that influence river user volume. John discussed management zones. The river corridor represents 5% of the total area of North Star. The entire area on the south side of the river, which is a wildlife zone and prohibits public access, represents 77%. The intermediate area that allows limited human access is the space between the river and Highway 82. Dan asked for clarification of the James H. Smith parcel on the map. John pointed it out. Shelley discussed management indicator species. The plan addresses habitat health within the preserve. Shelley explained the use of a management indicator species strategy in which certain species within the habitats are selected and monitored to within a provide information about the health of those habitats. For example, the warbling vireo is the indicator species that has been monitored to assess the health of its aspen forest habitat at North Star. Shelley shared a table of these indicator species and overall metrics which show that habitats at North Star are stable/improving. A detailed wildlife report is embedded in the plan for more information. Jessie added that a new report that was received before developing this draft plan shows positive trends for the bird species at North Star that are sensitive to human activity. John added that the topics discussed are the core of the plan and are the basis for proposed actions. He added clarification on indicator thresholds: indicators are resources and threshold are the minimum acceptable conditions. John asked the Board if there are any concerns or additional opportunities they would like the City to be involved with pertaining to the management plan. John gave an overview of these items: supporting invasive species management (monetary and staff time), water quality (with the City’s engineering team), ranger work (safety, limited ranger work for compliance and enforcement), Nordic operations, and trail counter monitoring. Howie asked about ranger scheduling at North Star. County or City Rangers are on duty for 4-hour shifts in the morning and afternoon; the City provides 16 hours per week. Howie added that due to the pressure on North Star, ranger work is crucial. John commented that the rangers frequently work at the parking areas to monitor loading/unloading activities. Ann asked if there is any tally of hours provided by the City. John commented that this work is tied to the City’s co-ownership of the Smith property and partner role in the management of North Star. Ann asked about whether the City’s strategy related to the tasks it takes on at North Star is re-evaluated periodically. Jessie said that this is tracked independently and that City rangers spending more time at North Star is fairly new. Brian added that Simon has a plan for comprehensive ranger coverage. John added that there is increased coordination between County and City rangers. John discussed the Goals and Actions Table (Table 11) which highlights the City’s participation in yellow. Many of these items reflect the City’s financial support as a partner with the County. Regarding enforcement and compliance, the City contributes man hours. John went through the list of goals and actions. Landscape level conservation deals with partnerships beyond the boundaries of the preserve and is a good example of the City’s participation as a partner. Control noxious vegetation is primarily contracted work which the City helps support financially. Regarding aquatic nuisance species, the City is interested in the monitoring of these species in the Roaring Fork River downstream of the preserve. Monitor overall native plant biodiversity and avian and mammalian species diversity represent contracted work which the City supports financially. Prioritize habitat protection and enhancement activities in known biodiversity hotspots relates to contracted work that may take place following biodiversity studies. Jessie added that County staff do some of the field work themselves, but the majority is contracted. Other goals and actions include: impediments to wildlife movement, encourage in-stream and near-channel habitat complexity, and macroinvertebrate monitoring, all of which the City is happy to partner on. Monitoring water quality and continue efforts to maintain and/or increase water quantity in this stretch of the RF River involve the City Engineering Department more so than City Parks and Open Space. The City partners on protect beaver complexes across the preserve. Monitor terrestrial wildlife species, avian, and indicator species all represent contracted work for habitat evaluation studies. The City supports and partners on facilitate and support educational programming and volunteer opportunities in the preserve and develop and implement education and communication initiatives. Coordinate commercial river use is one action item that the City has participated in, with staff sitting on the committee that selects commercial operators. Explore potential expansion of Nordic loop on James H. Smith: if approved, the City would do the trail grooming. Regarding trail safety of East of Aspen Trail, City rangers work at North Star and contribute to trail safety ideas. Ranger safety involves City ranger work time mainly at take-out and put-in areas. Ann asked about congestion at Wildwood and USFS ranger staff. Jessie said that the USFS district has one ranger. Ann asked how the cost of contractors appears in the budget. Matt explained that these expenses are not tracked per property, but could be audited fairly easily. Currently the City is not contributing funds directly toward North Star. If budget preparation for 2027 indicates a certain level of expenditures for North Star, a capital maintenance item may be created. Adam asked how cost share is determined for partner projects. Jessie said that partner cost sharing would probably relate to the James Smith property. Ann said that it is important to have capacity to provide this data if needed at any point. Howie mentioned the cost of mosquito mitigation that is paid for by The Preserve HOA. Howie commented that this nature preserve is subject to an agreement with these neighbors that involves eradicating mosquitos which are part of the base of the food chain. Dan asked about the potential land exchange with the USFS. Jessie explained that this is slowly moving forward. The County submitted a proposal last January, and the County is paying for consultants to advance the project. John explained that the draft plan is out for public comment through February 4th. After that process, the draft will come back to this Board in the spring for comment and/or recommendation for Council approval. John asked the Board for questions and comments. Ted commented that the draft is impressive and that he is heartened to know the level of management this plan exhibits. Adam echoed these comments on the detail and thoroughness of the draft. Ann added her support for the draft and commented on the improvements to river user management. Dan asked if the plan discusses considering lottery or reservation systems for river use. Jessie explained that these ideas are included in the plan, if, in the future, such a system is warranted from natural resource standpoint and if the property ownership ability exists to implement it. Dan commented on the parking improvements. Julie suggested reading the community feedback in the draft to understand the proportion of the community that supports a permitted system; she expressed her support for the steps taken for managing use on the river while keeping it accessible during non-peak times. Howie commented that County staff time has been significant toward this plan, and that management will continue to evolve over time. Howie suggested paid parking as another management approach. Howie added that changes in wildlife use have occurred over time, including movements of the elk herd, and that traffic on the river does impact animals and the feeling of wildness at the preserve. Howie asked if there is capacity for additional beavers. Jessie said that this depends on vegetation and a balance of management for a variety of species; the beaver population is currently healthy, and they are doing valuable ecological work. Austin asked about issues with people dismantling beaver dams to allow watercraft passage. Jessie said that cameras show this hasn’t been happening in the past few years. There is a plan to provide portages around dams on the east side of the river. Adam asked if the partnership feels good to both the City and the County. John commented that the City can and should be more involved at North Star based on the shared ownership of the Smith property, while recognizing that the majority of the work is handled by the County. Jessie mentioned that past handshake agreements are beginning to be formalized via the management plan. Dan asked if there have been any discussions of swapping land. Matt mentioned that the City likes being partners at North Star and that the City would like to increase partner work there. Adam expressed that increased City involvement would be good here as well as at other joint open space properties. Julie expressed that more City involvement would be good, but that current arrangements seem fine. Howie expressed that flexible arrangements are important. Old Business: N/A Board Comments: Julie: asked about Nordic trail conditions. Matt said that the golf course melted out on December 23rd and resumed January 6th. The golf course and high school trails are now in good condition. Howie commented on future snow-making for Nordic. Matt mentioned that this winter has been unusual in that it has been both warm and dry; snowmaking could provide a more stable snowpack, but in a year like this, December would have been too warm for snowmaking. It will always be a question of when/whether to start snowmaking, not knowing of the potential for future warm spells. Julie mentioned decisions about making snow for events during an exceptionally dry season. Matt explained that all of the water used for snowmaking on Aspen Mountain is from Aspen’s municipal supply (whereas raw water is used on the other mountains), and this is the same water used for snow polo. The volume of water used for snowmaking for an event like snow polo is very small compared to the amount used by Aspen Skiing Company on the mountain. Matt added snowmaking for special events is carefully considered. For snow polo, snowmaking protects the park, and the amount of water used is roughly equivalent to a night’s irrigation on the golf course. This snow will also melt directly back into the river and will be held longer into the season in the form of snow. He added that the snow surface and snowmaking for Palm Tree Festival is a current discussion, and this event will be using the snowpack that currently exists. Matt mentioned that City Council reviews all snowmaking uses in public parks. Ted: asked if events like the Owl Creek Chase could be supported by using snow from other previous events. Matt said that trucking snow is inefficient and the snow gets dirty (not good for a skiing event), although creative approaches such as snow storage will be needed into the future. Howie: asked if a handrail, such as a rope railing, could be helpful for the Clark’s Cutoff Trail. Matt said that a handrail would require ADA specifications, and that the current unmaintained approach will continue. Adam: commented on the good plowing on the bike pedway in the West End during the recent storm. Ann: complimented Brian on his PSA (about preserving the Nordic ski tracks) on Aspen Public Radio. Dan: commented that Nordic snowmaking will contribute to the reason why snowmaking is needed. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting March 19, 2026. Adjourned: Howie made a motion to adjourn; Julie seconded, and the vote was unanimous.