Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roaring Fork Safe Passages asks Pitkin County for $350,000 to design near‑term wildlife crossing work
Summary
Roaring Fork Safe Passages presented its Highway 82 (Aspen Airport to Aspen Village) mitigation plan to the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and the Open Space & Trails Board and requested $350,000 to complete near‑term design work and a structural feasibility study for proposed wildlife crossings and connected fencing.
Roaring Fork Safe Passages on Sept. 9 asked Pitkin County elected officials to help fund design and feasibility work for wildlife crossing projects on Highway 82 between the Aspen Airport and Aspen Village.
The nonprofit presented results from a watershed‑scale prioritization and a follow‑up feasibility screening that identified six candidate crossing locations and recommended a three‑phase mitigation plan. The group asked the county to contribute $350,000 next year to complete engineering design for near‑term improvements and to pay for a $275,000 structural alternatives and feasibility study for Phase 1 crossing structures, which the presenters said would enable a later construction fundraising campaign.
The presenters emphasized that wildlife vehicle collisions are concentrated in the priority segment, and that elk account for roughly a third of reported collisions in the study area. Roaring Fork Safe Passages described a phased approach: near‑term improvements (fence repairs and incremental measures, estimated $500,000–$725,000 to implement), Phase 1 (two major crossing structures tied to continuous fencing — a Sky Mountain box‑culvert upgrade and a Brush Creek overpass — with design and construction estimated at $22.4M–$32.5M), and Phase 2 (up to three additional crossing structures, estimated $34.5M–$50M).
Presenters said the Sky Mountain underpass lies on airport property and that airport operations view removal of carcasses and wildlife incidents as a safety concern for aircraft. Roaring Fork Safe Passages reported 730 public survey responses (about 95% supportive) and said the project has private donors interested but needs engineering deliverables before pursuing major construction funding. Board members and Open Space & Trails (OST) trustees asked about phasing, fundraising prospects, impacts to county open‑space covenants (Cozy Point South and Brush Creek parcels were discussed), and coordination with CDOT, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the FAA. OST members expressed stronger willingness to consider funding the near‑term design and fence improvements than to underwrite large‑scale construction; several OST trustees said facility/construction funding should come from a broader mix of state, federal and private sources.
County staff said legal and covenant issues (GOCO funding and conservation easements on some parcels) may limit how open‑space funds can be used, and recommended additional staff work to clarify whether open‑space dollars can cover planning versus construction on specified parcels. Commissioners and trustees directed staff to return with clarifications on property covenants, CDOT right‑of‑way issues and airport land constraints before the BOCC would make a final funding decision. Presenters said they would continue design work and public outreach and pursue other valley segments in future phases.
The group provided cost ranges, likely locations and a proposed work plan; no formal county appropriation was approved at the session.
Ending: County staff will investigate funding‑eligible activities for the Open Space & Trails fund, constraints tied to specific parcels (Cozy Point South, Brush Creek Park & Ride, airport property) and CDOT/FAA coordination. Roaring Fork Safe Passages will continue design development and fundraising outreach pending the feasibility study.
