Safe Passages Recommends Projects Near Airport

With high-dollar priorities identified in its mission to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions, the organization Roaring Fork Safe Passages is looking for public feedback on underpass and overpass plans.

The coalition’s latest report, “State Highway 82 Wildlife Mitigation Strategy: Airport to Aspen Village,” drills into mitigation strategies in the high-priority stretch of Highway 82, identified in earlier studies as the best stretch of regional highways to invest in terrain mapping and infrastructure feasibility. It runs from milepost 32.5 to 37.3.

Phase 1 of mitigation work recommendations include extending an existing wildlife fence, replacing an existing box culvert with a new underpass bridge and a new overpass bridge.

The design and construction of the projects is estimated to cost $22.4 million to $32.5 million, excluding recommended property protections.

The overpass would be 120 feet wide by 115 feet long with a 16-foot vehicle clearance at milepoint 35.4, the north side of Shale Bluffs. Constructing the overpass would require land protections on CDOT property between the highway and Mills Open Space.

There is an existing box culvert near milepoint 36.2, just north of the airport. Measuring 16 feet wide by 12 feet high and 100 feet long, it is insufficient for elk passage as they prefer more open passages with clearer sight lines, according to the report.

sky mountain underpass

The proposed Sky Mountain bridge underpass at milepost 36.15 is more open than the existing culvert, which was constructed in 2000.

Courtesy of Chinook Landscape Architecture

The underpass replacement would be 80 feet wide by 16 feet high and 90 feet long. The report states that major considerations with the construction of this piece are impacts to vehicular traffic on the highway. The report suggests the best time to construct the Sky Mountain underpass would be in concurrence with the anticipated nine-month closure at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport to accommodate runway reconstruction.

Fence extensions further south to the Aspen Airport Business Center also are a Phase 1 priority.

This location is the first priority because of its high share of wildlife involvement in collisions: 55%. It’s also relevant to flight safety, because carcasses attract large birds — a maintenance and operations challenge for the airport.

Cecily DeAngelo, executive director of RFSP, said the organization plans to team up with partner organizations to kick off a public feedback campaign to identify community priorities and design concerns to help direct funding campaigns.

“We really want to take the temperature of how enthusiastic the local community is to see this happen,” she said. “I think [being able to build] all of those, especially in the near term, is pretty low, but we can pick and choose, like which suits the community the best.”

With the feedback they gather, DeAngelo plans to bring forth a funding request to Pitkin County around September. The funding request would come from the Open Space and Trails budget, she said, but the amount is still undetermined.

Still, she said funding will be solicited with the idea in mind that the overpass and the underpass both get constructed.

“We are, in fact, doing an underpass and an overpass,” DeAngelo said. “If we were to drop one of the two of them, we would have to go back internally and review the elk migration patterns and be sure that we weren’t eliminating access or prior migration patterns, which we’ve been observing by fencing those off.”

Colorado Parks and Wildlife has identified two herds, the Avalanche Creek herd and the Frying Pan River herd, of which two Game Management Units are relevant to the airport-area migration corridor. They are facing calf recruitment issues.

The funding will likely come together between a mix of local, state and private partners. They are not counting on federal funding, she said.

Phase 2 recommendations in the area from Cozy Point to Aspen Village include underpasses and two overpasses — specifically near Aspen Village and Wildcat Ranch. The estimated cost for those projects is $34.5 million to $50 million, according to the report.

DeAngelo recognized that it was unlikely that much of the recommended work could be done in the near term, but said the report’s findings will serve as a guide for funding for years to come. The biggest hurdle is preventing development in the areas highlighted as appropriate for wildlife crossings.

“There’s going to be places along these corridors where there’s potential for development, and I think we need to be really cognizant of that … as we move forward and make choices that potentially enable humans and wildlife to live alongside one another in a very cohesive way,” DeAngelo said. “We still have that option between Aspen Village and the airport.”

Post in the Aspen Daily News.