Roaring Fork Safe Passages proposes two wildlife crossings on Highway 82 to reduce collisions

Roaring Fork Safe Passages unveiled a phased plan Dec. 15 to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions on Highway 82, telling Aspen’s City Council the Airport–Woody Creek segment is a priority because collisions in that stretch account for a disproportionately high share of local crashes.

“Wildlife vehicle collisions have been a leading cause of reported crashes and actually account for 30% of all crashes in this valley on Highway 82 and 133,” said Julia Kinch, a road-ecology expert who presented the group’s analysis. Kinch said the group’s watershed-wide study identified six priority areas and that the Airport–Woody Creek stretch alone shows collision concentration that jumps to about 55% for that segment, with elk involved in roughly 34% of those collisions.

The group proposed near-term, lower-cost measures and longer-term structures. Near-term work would fix and improve existing fencing, which the presenters estimated could cost about $500,000 to $725,000. Phase 1 infrastructure recommendations include enlarging an undersized box culvert near Sky Mountain to make an underpass suitable for elk, and building an overpass at Brush Creek, linked by continuous fencing up to Smith Hill Road.

“We’re looking at a phased wildlife mitigation strategy that allows us some flexible implementation,” Kinch said, noting near-term improvements can both reduce collisions and support later construction of crossings.

Tucker Vespertin of Roaring Fork Safe Passages described local public support: a July–September survey of 732 local respondents reported 96% overall support for wildlife crossings and 85% of respondents said the project would improve their quality of life. Vespertin also flagged a federal proposal: the Wildlife Road Crossings Program Reauthorization Act of 2025, which the presenters said would authorize $200 million a year for crossings but would require state and local matching funds.

Council members welcomed the analysis but raised practical questions about timing, jurisdiction and payors. Council Chair Rachel said Aspen has limited land interest in the first two priority sites and that initial work may require collaboration across jurisdictions. Several council members urged the airport and Pitkin County to participate in fencing and mitigation because portions of the problem involve airport-adjacent land; one councilor suggested a small countywide property-tax measure to seed matching funds for larger grants.

Presenters emphasized regulatory steps that will affect timing. The group said NEPA reviews and FAA coordination would be required for work partially on airport property, making it unlikely construction could be perfectly synchronized with any separate airport build-out. They also recommended local seed funding to improve eligibility for grants from organizations such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, GOCO and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Councilors praised the concept and encouraged continued coordination. Ben Anderson, the city’s community development director, and other staff offered to stay engaged on feasibility and funding conversations. The presentation concluded with council thanks and no formal motion or commitment at the meeting; presenters said Aspen’s future financial role would depend on feasibility studies and partner agreements.