ARTICLES

OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD OF TRUSTEES Feb. 1, 2018 Aspen City Hall

Newspaper Articles/ Letters to Editor/Public Comment:

Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail Planning Project County commissioners, open space board brainstorm on Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail, 1/17/2018, ADN Pitkin County commissioners give OK to start Crystal Valley Trail draft plan, 1/17/2018, AT Caucus want more influence on Carbondale to Crested Butte trail, 1/22/2018, Aspen Times

Biodiversity Region-wide bioldiversity inventory gaining steam, 1/26/2018, Aspen Daily News

Great Outdoors Study finds Great Outdoors Colorado gives state $507 million economic boost, 1/16/2018, DP

Water issues New water agreement for Crystal River could open door to boost Colorado River, 1/24, 2018, AT

BLM Planning process for newly acquired Sutey Land Exchange parcel to begin soon, 1/18/2018, Aspen Daily News

Biking Skico eyes new biking ‘flow’ trails, other summer amenities on Aspen Mountain

Opinion Column-Slippery slope with Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, 1/20/2018, Aspen Times

County commissioners, open space board brainstorm on Carbondale-to-Crested Butte Trail

M. John Fayhee, Jan. 17, 2018, Aspen Daily News

Even though the planning process for the Pitkin County portion of proposed 83-mile Carbondale-to-Crested Trail (C-CBT) has been ongoing since December 2016, fundamental issues are still being sussed out.

At a joint work session Tuesday between the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Open Space and Trails Board, such fundamental components of the trail-planning process as whether to establish a budget before proceeding further or to get a draft plan and then see how much that plan would cost were still on the discussion table.

Ditto whether the trail should be built in segments and, if so, which segments ought to be constructed first.

County Commissioner Steve Child even tossed out the possibility of building two trails — one for more serious users and one for people who prefer to lollygag. Child also floated the notion of bypassing McClure Pass — long considered the midway point of the C-CBT — and instead route the trail over Schofield Pass, which he considered more direct and easier because existing tread could be utilized.

Child furthermore floated the notion of building a spur off the C-CBT to Marble, which, he said, would benefit the local tourist industry.

There has also been considerable heartburn regarding how public input has been solicited and integrated into the C-CBT planning process.

In Gunnison County, where more than half the C-CBT would be located, things are both more chilled and further along.

Of course, things are simpler in Gunnison County. Their portion of the C-CBT does not snake up a tight river valley while following a major state highway. And the amount of private land impeding the planning process is negligible compared to Pitkin County.

Those are not the only factors working in Gunnison County’s favor.

“The general route for the Carbondale-to-Crested Butte Trail in Gunnison County was included in the 2010 Travel Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest,” said Hilary Henry, open space/creative district coordinator for the town of Crested Butte. “This has streamlined our process considerably in comparison to the White River National Forest, where the Carbondale-to-Crested Butte Trail is not included in their most recent version of travel management.”

In addition, the C-CBT in Gunnison County takes advantage of existing forest trails.

“From the top of McClure Pass to Erickson Springs, the trail will follow the existing Raggeds Trail,” Henry said. “The trail also makes use of several historical sections of trail. From Crested Butte, the trail will make use of the Old Kebler Wagon Trail to the top of Kebler Pass.”

Very little of the C-CBT in the Crystal River Valley will follow existing trail.

Two alignments up the Crystal River Valley are being considered, though there is a critical caveat.

Alignment A, which in its entirety would cost about $110 million — almost half of the county Open Space and Trails (OST) Department’s projected budget over the next 20 years — basically sticks to the right-of-way of Highway 133.

Alignment B, which is estimated to cost about $20 million, wanders farther afield.

As Dale Will, OST acquisitions and special projects director, stressed that the proposed trail has been further broken down into 11 segments. Thus, whatever route is ultimately chosen could include, say, five segments from alignment A and six segments from alignment B.

“There are two different possibilities, times 11,” Will said in December.

‘A different animal over here’

There are still gaps in the C-CBT in Gunnison County.

“We have sections that are flagged and looked at,” said Kay Peterson-Cook, a long-time trail volunteer with the Paonia Ranger District of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest. “We still have GPS work to do on some sections. We spent seven days on the ground this summer and fall and we had some good ideas about where we can piece together some sections. I don’t know the exact mileages.

“It’s a different animal over here,” Peterson-Cook continued. “Our part of the trail will be soft- surface singletrack that is not ADA compliant. It’s a lot easier than what they’re looking at in Pitkin County.” This is not to indicate that Gunnison County is ready for a ribbon-cutting ceremony. There is still much work to be done.

“We expect to construct the trail in Gunnison County piece-by-piece as the on-the-ground route is finalized, NEPA approval is granted and resources — volunteer or paid — become available for construction,” Henry said. “At this point, we do not have a firm end date for construction, though we could see volunteer construction on pieces of the trail beginning as early as this summer. We hope to hold an open house about the alignment of the trail in Crested Butte in the first part of this year. We will release a map after the open house.”

Gunnison County has also been working on its section of the C-CBT for a long time.

“The Gunnison Trails Commission began working on the Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail in the early 2000s, commissioning a study from Tom Newland to study potential alignments,” Henry said. “Since then, the Gunnison Trails Commission has worked on making the trail a reality, most recently having been awarded funding from the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund in 2015 for the construction of a bridge over Anthracite Creek.”

While Pitkin County is tossing around numbers like $110 million, the C-CBT in Gunnison County is a far more-humble affair.

“We would be ecstatic with $200,000,” Peterson-Cook said.

Pitkin County OST had a budget of $300,000 just for the initial planning of the Crystal River Valley phase of the C-CBT. A third of that came from a grant from the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO) and the remainder came from the Pitkin BOCC.

“Gunnison County and the town of Crested Butte supported Pitkin OST’s application to GOCO for a planning grant with letters and have coordinated with them on big-picture timelines and plans,” Henry said. “However, as our construction costs are expected to be much lower and our planning has occurred primarily in-house through the town of Crested Butte, the Gunnison Trails Commission and the Paonia District Ranger offices, much of our effort thus far has occurred mostly separately.

“For construction, we also expect costs to be much lower in Gunnison County,” Henry continued. “We expect to use volunteers for most of the construction. We do not have a firm cost figure at this point. If the opportunity presented itself for us to work with Pitkin County on some of the more expensive parts of construction — skilled trail construction crews, bridges, etc. — we would potentially look at a joint funding application.”

Peterson-Cook said that it’s possible inmates from the Delta County Correctional Facility could be utilized this summer to help construct new tread.

“They love it,” she said. And while the C-CBT planning and public-input process in Pitkin County has produced much in the way of vitriol, again, things have gone smoother is Gunnison County.

“We haven’t had much of a reaction to the trail so far — certainly nothing in comparison to what you all are experiencing in the Crystal River,” Henry said. “We hope to get more feedback at our open house. Right now, we don’t see any major barriers to the trail’s completion in Gunnison County.”

Peterson-Cook said, however, that a little backlash may be brewing.

“I would say that the trails commission has been very supportive in our part of the county,” she said. “In the last couple years, our Board of County Commissioners has indicated that they feel this trail is not as important as trails between Crested Butte and Gunnison. The Paonia Ranger District, however, is enthusiastic.”

There seems to be a decent chance that Gunnison County will connect its section of the C-CBT to McClure Pass — where the trail enters Pitkin County — in the foreseeable future.

In the meantime, there were references at the joint Pitkin BOCC/OST Board work session Tuesday to a process that could last 20-50 years.

The term “multi-generational” was even used.

The Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail is part of an ambitious trail-building effort spearheaded by a state government outfit called Colorado the Beautiful, established by Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2015 for two main reasons: to help facilitate a statewide system of trails linking the Eastern Plains with the Western Slope and to compile an online interactive map that will show pretty much every trail in the state that’s wider than a goat path.

The backbone of the initiative was originally called “16 for 2016” (now called “Colorado’s 16”) and consists of 16 new trails earmarked for inclusion in the program. Those trails will total just under 1,000 miles.

A draft plan for the Crystal River Valley section of C-CBT should be released by OST in March, after another public comment period will ensue. OST staff hopes to have a final plan released by summer.

Pitkin County commissioners give OK to start Crystal Valley Trail draft plan

Scott Condon, The Aspen Times, Jan. 17, 2018

The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails staff got a green light Tuesday to start working on a draft plan for a pedestrian trail in the Crystal Valley.

However, the Pitkin County commissioners vowed when giving that green light that the public will have extensive opportunities to shape the outcome in what's been a controversial debate so far.

"We're not ramming anything down anybody's throat," Commissioner Rachel Richards said in a joint meeting between the commissioners and Open Space and Trails board of trustees.

She said she pored over the 500-plus public responses to a recent public survey and found deep divisions. Some respondents called for protesting wildlife habitat while others said getting cyclists off Highway 133 should be a top priority. Other respondents expressed opposite views on alignments along various segments. About 12 percent of respondents called for "no trail," she noted.

The county commissioners stressed that the public will be at the center of a process intended to strive for consensus.

“I don't like those 51 to 49 (percent) votes," Richards said.

After 90 minutes of discussion between the commissioners and open space trustees, the commissioners directed the staff to complete a draft plan for the 17-mile trail from BRB Campground outside of Carbondale to the McClure Pass summit. It's part of the 74-mile Carbondale-to-Crested Butte trail being contemplated by Pitkin and Gunnison counties.

Once the draft for the Pitkin County portion is completed, it will be scrutinized at additional joint meetings between the boards and potentially tweaked before it's unveiled to the public for more comment. No timeline for completion of the draft plan was discussed.

"This is a pretty typical process. It's just a huge process," said Gary Tennenbaum, executive director of Open Space and Trails. "We knew it was going to be complicated."

He said public comment would be collected at several successive steps.

Some participants in the discussion opined it could be years before a trail is built given the expense and current lack of consensus over a preferred alignment.

The draft plan will look at issues such as impacts to wildlife habitat, engineering challenges of differing alignments, quality of experience for trail users and cost. While much is unknown about the trail, the commissioners made it clear they will ultimately decide the trail's fate.

"The final approval is in the hands of the commissioners," said Patti Clapper, chairwoman of the commissioners.

Open space board member Tim McFlynn said the county's spending of restricted funds in the open space program require a recommendation of uses by the open space board. County Manager Jon Peacock nipped discussion of that point until a later time but noted there are "different interpretations" on McFlynn's point.

Tennenbaum stressed that future discussions about the trail will occur in joint sessions between the commissioners and open

Crystal River Caucus want more influence on Carbondale to Crested Butte trail

Scott Condon, The Aspen Times, Jan. 22, 2018

Some residents of the Crystal River Caucus are demanding that the Pitkin County commissioners give them a seat at the table when discussing the controversial Carbondale‐to‐ Crested Butte trail.

The caucus board of directors sent a letter to the county commissioners last week indicating they have felt marginalized in the review process so far. They said the experience is eroding their confidence in the caucus process in Pitkin County's home‐rule‐style government.

"The Crystal River Caucus feels that we should also be invited to participate in those meetings with the (county commissioners) and the (Open Space and Trails) board and staff — especially because the valley that will be impacted is in our caucus area," the letter said. "To restore confidence regarding the advisory role of the caucus, we ask that the county (commissioners) include the caucus in all future trail development meetings as a full partner in this process."

County commissioner chairwoman Patti Clapper said she forwarded the letter to the county staff to reiterate the standing of a caucus. It's her understanding for years of experience in county government that a caucus is an advisory body only.

"It is not a rule of thumb. It's not written in stone," Clapper said of the caucus' recommendations.

"We will be taking their recommendations, their comments seriously," she added.

However, the board cannot give the caucus a special seat at the table, according to Clapper.

"That would be precedent‐setting," she said. In her years of experience on the Board of County Commissioners, the commissioners haven't given a caucus power to reject or advance an issue.

All stakeholders must be treated equally, Clapper said.

"We must listen to all the comments," she said.

She noted that the county staff makes sure the caucus is aware of all meetings tied to the trail so they can send representatives.

A caucus is a consortium of neighborhood residents that determines positions on issues and gives a common voice to the area in broader political discussions. Pitkin County urged the creation of caucuses when it went to a form of government known as home rule rather than one strictly defined by the state government. Woody Creek, Emma, Snowmass Creek and the Maroon‐Castle area all have caucuses.

The county commissioners have vowed to undertake a thorough review of the proposed trail, with ample opportunities for public comment.

The Crystal River Caucus has taken an active role against the Pitkin County section of the Carbondale‐to‐Crested Butte trail. At its annual membership meeting in November, the caucus passed five motions regarding the trail or the review process.

One motion recommends the county "scrap the public input" gathered so far because there was no way for respondents to a survey to indicate they were opposed to the trail. The county says 572 people responded to a survey asking for preferences between two possible alignments — one mostly within the Highway 133 corridor and the other on the east side of the Crystal River. A blending of the two also was possible.

The caucus said the public‐opinion process should be restarted to first determine if the public believes the trail should be built and is worth the cost of pursuing.

The motion passed 56 to 6 with three abstentions, according to minutes of the meeting.

Another motion demanding that the trail not infringe on any sensitive wildlife habitat areas was approved 55 to 8 with four abstentions.

The motions and votes were sent to the commissioners with a request for a response. Caucus members are frustrated because the county hasn't responded.

The county commissioners met with the open space trustees July 16 at a public meeting with Crystal River Caucus chairwoman Delia Malone and other board members attending. The commissioners directed the open space staff to work on a draft plan for the trail. When finished, it will be reviewed by the open space board and county commissioners, then opened to renewed public comment.

Study finds Great Outdoors Colorado gives state $507 million economic boost Study comes as state lawmakers mull bill to make Colorado Lottery permanent

Bruce Finley, The Denver Post, January 16, 2018 Grants from Colorado Lottery-funded Great Outdoors Colorado directly supported 11,800 jobs, providing $507 million in labor income and, by protecting land and water and open space for recreation, helped spur $392 million in spending on sporting goods over the past decade, a new study finds. Launched by voters in 1992, GOCO has sent more than $917 million of lottery proceeds to 4,700 open-space projects, including creation or restoration of 900 miles of trails and 1,100 parks. “The bottom line is that, from an economic standpoint, Colorado’s decision to invest lottery proceeds in sustaining the state’s quality of life is a remarkably smart decision.” said Trust for Public Lands economist Jennifer Plowden, the study’s author. “It’s good for business. It’s good for urban and rural communities. It’s good for the health of Coloradans,” she said. Conservationists planned to unveil the 56-page study this week following the introduction Friday of Senate Bill 66, which would make the Colorado Lottery permanent. While Colorado’s constitution allows for the lottery, it is run by a lottery division that depends on an authorizing statute that expires in 2024. The bill is backed by Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg and Rep. Cole Wist, both Republicans, and Sen. Leroy Garcia and Rep. Jeni James Arndt, both Democrats. The lottery provides funds for GOCO, the Conservation Trust Fund and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Since 1992, the funds have been divided under a formula that gives half (up to a $65 million cap) to GOCO, 40 percent to the conservation fund and 10 percent to the state parks and wildlife agency. Lottery proceeds that exceed the cap are given to a state schools construction assistance fund.

Region‐wide biodiversity inventory gaining steam

M. John Fayhee, Jan. 26, 2017, Aspen Daily News

A comprehensive inventory of the biodiversity of the entire watershed is gearing up and gaining momentum. This would be the first such survey in almost 20 years.

A local nonprofit group that will help coordinate the effort, expected to take two years, is being organized by Tom Cardamone, who served as the executive director of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies for about 40 years.

The group does not yet have a name, a detailed battle plan or an established budget, but it does have a mission and at least two high‐level partnerships.

The goal, according to Cardamone, is to support a watershed‐wide, landscape‐scale biological inventory of the Roaring Fork watershed, which would translate to what he calls “informed stewardship.”

“We want to shepherd science‐based stewardship action that recognizes the Roaring Fork watershed as an ecological whole,” Cardamone said. “Native wildlife, including songbirds, waterfowl, mammalian herbivores and carnivores large and small, fish, amphibians and even insect life, tell us by their abundance and diversity just how ecologically healthy our watershed may be. Supporting all wildlife are the essentials of productive native plant communities, clean air, clear water and healthy soils.

“It is anticipated that the body of knowledge provided by the inventory will help prioritize and shape biodiversity stewardship actions in the watershed by national, state and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals.”

The nascent effort will count as one of its partners the Pitkin County Department of Open Space and Trails, which was reauthorized by voters in November 2016 for 20 years to the tune of an estimated quarter‐billion dollars.

The actual inventory will be spearheaded by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), which is affiliated with Colorado State University.

The need for the inventory is self‐evident in a region where growth and development define the social, geographic and natural landscapes.

“An excellent Roaring Fork watershed biological inventory was completed in 1999 by the CNHP,” Cardamone wrote in an overview of the upcoming project. “The inventory prioritized 55 discrete ‘potential conservation areas’ for their high natural values, indicated by either individual plant or animal species or a plant community.

“Now, 20 years later, there is a need for a new level of information to inform conservation and recreation planning throughout the watershed,” the overview further states. “A landscape‐ scale biological inventory of the entire Roaring Fork watershed will provide an indispensable and currently unavailable body of knowledge.”

The bulk of the actual field work, which will include gaggles of scientists covering a wide, though as‐yet‐undetermined, variety of disciplines, will be conducted by the CNHP.

The CNHP defines itself on its website as “Colorado’s only comprehensive source of information on the status and location of Colorado’s rarest and most threatened species and plant communities.

The organization’s biologists work throughout Colorado to document critical biological resources. Inventories for rare animals, plants, wetlands, riparian areas and plant communities are conducted at the scale of a single parcel all the way to an entire county.

“By identifying and describing the locations of Colorado’s rarest species and habitats, this work is critical for supporting conservation activities statewide,” the website says. “Information from these projects has been instrumental in some of Colorado’s biggest conservation successes over the past 30 years, such as the Mountains‐to‐Plains Project in Larimer County and the enlargement of Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve.”

David Anderson, who has been with the organization since 1999, is CNHP’s director and chief scientist.

“Because [CNHP] is part of Colorado State University, it gives us the opportunity to bring in specialized expertise from the entire university,” he said. “We’re still putting in the sideboards for the Roaring Fork Valley project, so we’re not sure at this point what specific expertise will be desired.”

Because the project is still in its formative stages, many of the organizational issues are still on the drawing board. Verily, Cardamone is still trying to figure out what to call the project. At a joint meeting between the Pitkin County Commissioners and the open space board of directors that focused on the proposed Carbondale‐to‐Crested Butte Trail, the term “biological inventory” was used numerous times.

The term has been bandied about at least partially because the term “biodiversity” was adopted as the overarching prime directive of the open space department when it was reauthorized by voters in 2016. No matter what nomenclatural form the inventory eventually takes, the process will include scientists tromping around the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and Crystal River valleys studying pretty much everything that walks, flies, swims, slithers or blooms.

“We won’t be able to do everything,” said Lee Grunau, CNHP’s conservation planner. “A lot of what we will end up doing will be driven by project priorities that have yet to be established. I’m sure we will be spending time on the ‘warm fuzzies’ — the bighorn sheep, deer, the big ungulates. But we will also bring in people with experience studying riparian areas and wetlands and botanists studying rare plants. We are just not to the point yet where we know exactly what we will be doing.”

Timing will be everything.

“We will be paying attention to the phenology,” Anderson said. “That’s basically focusing on the time of year when we might be most easily able to see certain species.”

“It’s a lot easier to find plants when they are blooming,” added Grunau, who has been with CNHP since 1994. “Phenology is the timing of life‐cycle events like breeding and hibernation.”

The upcoming research season will kick off with a “bio‐blitz” that will be held for the third straight year at Spring Valley Ranch. The bio‐blitz is akin to a preseason game for wildlife biologists, a time when they get their research legs under them in preparation for the exacting field work they will be performing through the warmer months.

“We try to document as much biodiversity as we can over the course of one, two or three days,” Anderson said.

Some of those involved in the bio‐blitz will also take part in the biodiversity inventory.

In all likelihood, about a half‐dozen scientists associated with the CNHP will take part in the inventory. But, given that you can scarcely swing a dead cat in the Roaring Fork Valley without hitting a world‐class scientific research entity stocked to the ceiling with people bearing PhDs, that number will undoubtedly be augmented by local nonprofit groups, open space staff and citizen volunteers. Students from CSU will also probably carry notebooks into the field.

“We will have students working on internships and as part of their training experience,” Anderson said. “There may be some honor students working on their undergraduate theses. There may be students from the Poudre School District. This process can be part of nurturing the next generation of conservation practitioners.”

“We hope to engage local expertise on a volunteer basis,” Cardamone said. “We have a nice complement of biologists in the valley, as well as experienced amateurs. The body of knowledge that is already available will be very helpful. Part of my work as coordinator will be to involve organizations, such as the Roaring Fork Conservancy, the Aspen Valley Land Trust and others, that have good data already available.”

This process is more than a sum of its parts. While part the plan is to a focus on what lives where, the ultimate goal is to consider connectivity.

“This is not just about developing a list of species,” Cardamone said. “This is about looking at what we need to do to connect isolated populations. “Genetic mixing is important for the health of any population. Our habitat is becoming more and more fragmented. We might find ourselves discussing overpasses over Highway 82, which has worked against the health of biodiversity.”

More immediately, this inventory would be available for use by local planners who are neck‐ deep in projects such as the controversial Carbondale‐to‐Crested Butte Trail.

“With OST as a partner, this information would be valuable in helping to determining where that trail might be located,” Cardamone said.

He added that it will be at least several more weeks before the nonprofit he is organizing will be up and running.

New water agreement for Crystal River could open door to boost Colorado rivers

Sarah Tory, Aspen Journalism/The Aspen Times, Jan. 22, 2018

There is a new way to put water back in Colorado's parched rivers.

After more than a year of back and forth with Pitkin County officials, the nonprofit Colorado Water Trust announced Tuesday a pilot agreement with a Carbondale rancher to increase streamflows in the Crystal River during dry years.

The three-year agreement will compensate Bill Fales and Marj Perry, who own the 600-acre Cold Mountain Ranch just west of Carbondale, for retiming their irrigation practices to leave water in the Crystal River when it needs a boost.

For Zach Smith, a staff attorney for the environmental nonprofit Water Trust, the pilot agreement is an important test for whether this type of conservation program can work for ranchers and rivers.

"That's great for the Crystal itself," Smith said, "and it's also great for the Water Trust as we try to figure out how to design projects for working ranches."

Under the terms of the agreement, the Water Trust will monitor flows in the river and, if flows fall to 40 cubic feet per second (cfs), the ranch may voluntarily shift its diversion scheduling. The Water Trust will then measure the changes in the ranch's irrigation practices and pay Fales and Perry $175 per cfs per day to encourage that shift. Once streamflows reach 55 cfs, the payments would cease.

The pilot agreement can restore as many as 6 cfs per day in the Crystal River for a maximum of 20 days in August and September (no other months are included), offering a maximum payout of $21,000 per year to Cold Mountain Ranch.

The new deal is the culmination of a multi-year effort to help boost streamflows in the Crystal River, which runs from the above Marble to its confluence with the at Carbondale.

During the drought of 2012, demand for water outpaced supply and the Crystal went dry, prompting the Water Trust to look for new sources of water for the river's benefit.

Although the Colorado Water Conservation Board has an environmental instream flow right on the Crystal, the water right dates from 1975, far lower in priority than the major agricultural water rights on the Crystal — and thus is of little to no use when the river most needs water. The Water Trust began consulting with local ranchers and farmers whose senior water rights could be useful during times of drought, asking whether they would be willing to lease some of their irrigation water for the Crystal's benefit. And many were.

However, most of them, including Fales, were wary of arrangements that involved too much bureaucracy. So the Water Trust devised a more flexible deal, requiring no filings in water court.

Fales was the first to volunteer. He offered to let some of his water rights from the Helms Ditch, which dates from 1899, for Crystal's benefit and assumed Pitkin County would be on board, as well. (The county co-owns a conservation easement on Cold Mountain Ranch and had to approve the deal with the Water Trust.)

Instead, the rancher found himself embroiled in a frustrating disagreement with Pitkin County officials who insisted that Fales' willingness to forgo some of his water when the river needed a boost would put his water rights at risk.

For John Ely, the Pitkin County attorney, the biggest problem was that if Fales kept producing the same amount of alfalfa with less water, his water rights could one day be diminished in water court under the "use it or lose it" principle. This was especially concerning to Ely because the county had paid $7.5 million for the conservation easement on Cold Mountain Ranch.

"If you're preserving agricultural property, you're not preserving much if you don't have the water that goes with it," Ely said.

The new arrangement addresses the county's concerns. Instead of reducing his annual water use, Fales will simply shift the timing of his diversions to align with the Crystal's needs.

The end result, Smith said, will bring the same environmental benefits for the river.

What's more, the pilot agreement mark the first step toward implementing the Crystal River Stream Management Plan, released in 2016, which helped quantify the ecological needs of the river. And it means Pitkin County can finally fulfill its long-stated goal of putting more water in local rivers through the Healthy Rivers and Streams program.

For Smith, the process of working out this kind of arrangement also has broader lessons for other water conservation efforts involving conservation easements. Back in 2012, the Water Trust thought it had a leasing agreement that could be rolled out in different river basins throughout Colorado. Now, Smith said, he's learned that what works in one community might not work for another.

"We need to be flexible," he said. Aspen Journalism is covering rivers and water in collaboration with The Aspen Times, Glenwood Springs Post Independent, Vail Daily and Summit Daily News. More at http://www.aspenjournalism.org.

Planning process for newly acquired Sutey Land Exchange parcel to begin soon

M. John Fayhee, Aspen Daily News, Jan. 18, 2018

The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will soon begin planning for a parcel it acquired last year as part of a controversial land trade.

The 557-tract area, known as the Sutey Ranch Parcel, is located adjacent to the highly popular 3,100-acre Red Hill Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) outside Carbondale.

The swap privatized 1,260 acres of public land on the north flank of Mount Sopris, which has now been folded into an adjacent 4,000-acre ranch owned by Leslie and Abigail Wexner, the Ohio-based billionaire owners of L Brands, the parent company of Victoria’s Secret and Bath and Body Works.

In addition to the Sutey Ranch Parcel, the 112-acre Haines Parcel along Prince Creek, which is popular with mountain bikers, became public as a result of the trade.

Both the Sutey Ranch and the Haines parcels were acquired by the Wexners for the purposes of the trade. The parcels that were privatized through the exchange are all protected with conservation easements.

According to David Boyd, public affairs specialist with the BLM’s Colorado River Valley Field Office, the Sutey Ranch Parcel, which is now only open to foot and horse traffic, is undeveloped.

That could start to change in the next couple months.

“We hope to announce the beginning of the planning process determining how we will manage the Sutey Ranch Parcel in the first part of this year,” Boyd said. “We will have multiple opportunities for the public to be involved, which will be key to helping us determine the management of that area.”

According to Boyd, the Red Hill SRMA area receives an estimated 55,000 user days each year — a user day being one person using the area on one day.

“Designated in 1999, the Red Hill SRMA area focuses on hiking and mountain biking,” Boyd said. “While Red Hill is popular with mountain bikers, the largest use we see is from hikers.”

Boyd said the area has 14 miles of marked trails. In addition to having the Sutey Ranch Parcel added to its acreage, the Red Hill SRMA will also benefit from a recent acquisition made by the Carbondale-based Aspen Valley Land Trust (ALVT), which, in December, completed an $825,000 purchase of a 25-acre parcel at the base of Red Hill.

The parcel acquired by the AVLT will eventually be turned over for management purposes to the Carbondale Parks and Recreation Department.

New trails are sure to be built as a result of the two new additions to the Red Hill.

As of two weeks ago, the AVLT needed to raise another $370,000 to initiate the next phase — planning and constructing new trail connections to Red Hill, moving the trailhead to the bottom of the hill and creating a management fund to enable the town to care for the parcel once ownership is transferred.

The group got a shot in the arm last week, when the Garfield Board of County Commissioners voted to pony up $200,000.

“They voted to approve a placeholder request for 2019 Conservation Trust funding,” said ALVT executive director Suzanne Stephens. “They are prohibited from making multi-year funding commitments due to TABOR (the taxpayers bill of rights, which requires voter-approval of tax increases), so it’s a tentative commitment without dollar figure attached, but it was roundly supported.

“If we hit the funding goals, we’ll start planning the trail project right away and hopefully get a trail in by fall,” Stephens said last week. “Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers has selected this for one of its 2018 trail projects, so they are on board to work on at least the pedestrian trail.”

According to Boyd, “We have been coordinating closely with AVLT on their purchase and will continue to do so as the connector trails are planned.”

A BLM press release issued shortly after the Wexner/Sutey Ranch land exchange was completed stated that the Wexners donated $100,000 directly to the BLM for the development of a site-specific management plan for Sutey Ranch and $1 million to the ALVT to hold in perpetuity for BLM’s long-term management of the newly acquired properties.

Aspen Daily News Editor Curtis Wackerle contributed to this story.

Skico eyes new biking ‘flow’ trails, other summer amenities at Aspen Mountain

January 20, 2018

The bulk of an updated master development plan for Aspen Mountain contemplates upgraded chairlifts and new terrain for skiers (https://www.aspentimes.com/trending/skico-crosses-hurdle-ready-to-seek-pandora-lift-terrain-on-aspen-mountain/), but there also are several amenities to capture the growing summer market.

Aspen Skiing Co. envisions adding new mountain bike and hiking trails, a challenge course, bouldering and climbing walls, and an expanded venue for music and special events. If approved, they will be built over the next 10 years, according to the plan.

"We're not looking to do anything like we're doing at Snowmass," said Jeff Hanle, Skico vice president of communications.

Skico is making the Elk Camp portion of Snowmass a showcase of summer on-mountain amenities (https://www.aspentimes.com/trending/skico- crosses-hurdle-ready-to-seek-pandora-lift-terrain-on-aspen-mountain/). New amenities include an alpine coaster — an amusement park-like ride through a forested area of Elk Camp. Skico also is adding a zip line canopy tour in an island of trees, a ropes challenge course and another 10 trails to a downhill biking park.

The existing amenities at the summit of Aspen Mountain are relatively modest, given the trend in ski resort development.

Skico submitted an updated master plan for Aspen Mountain to the U.S. Forest Service late last year. It was accepted by the agency last week. The plan is a blueprint for development that features items on Skico's wish list. Each project must go through review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Aspen Mountain plan contemplates for four new "flow" trails that would start at the top of the Silver Queen Gondola and provide more manageable alternatives to one existing single-track trail for cyclists.

"Given the steep topography and large vertical relief on Aspen Mountain, these trails will be very long — 8 to 12 miles — in order to achieve the desired 7 to 10 percent average grade," the master plan says. "Given this length, trails will be for intermediate and advanced riders only."

More hiking trail loops would be added at the summit, starting and ending at the Sundeck. A 4- to 6-mile loop into the proposed Pandora's terrain would provide views toward Independence Pass.

With the other amenities, Skico cited a need to cater to parents and their children. Skico said in the master plan it must "cater to a slightly different demographic than in the winter."

Climbing walls are planned near trail edges at the summit of Aspen Mountain. "Possible locations are the edges of the One & Two Leaf trails," the master plan says. "Concepts could include walls of up to 25 feet that would be served with auto belays and shorter bouldering walls that would not require fall protection.

"These features will provide a challenging experience for those new to the sport of climbing and can be designed for a wide variety of users that would suit the full age range of a family," it continued.

A challenge course is contemplated between One & Two Leaf and the Copper trails. Individuals and teams would have to negotiate various obstacles.

"The course elements would be constructed within, and supported by, trees and other natural materials wherever possible," the master plan says.

Skico also wants to expand a music platform that exists in a meadow south of the Silver Queen Gondola's upper terminal to 475 square feet from 144.

"The larger platform will also have a canopy roof to provide weather protection for musicians," the master play says. "The meadow is planned to be terraced to provide formal seating and also have a canopy for weather protection." One element of the plan is completely new to the Aspen-Snowmass ski areas. Skico is proposing "one or more small rustic cabins and/or huts" near Ruthie's restaurant. They would be for summer and winter use. They would be designed to cater to people who don't have the nerve, stamina or equipment to hike or ski to backcountry huts.

"The huts are planned to be modestly scaled structures capable of sleeping eight to 20 people each with bedding and various supplies provided," the plan says.

Skico's highest priority is to pursue approval of snowmaking and opening 153 acres and adding a chairlift in the Pandora section of the mountain, to the skier's right of the Walsh's run. Skico will submit an application to the U.S. Forest Service for those projects this winter, Hanle said.

There is no specific timetable for the summer amenities. [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

2 Comments Sort by Oldest

Add a comment...

Tea Party of Aspen [Liberty] "We're not looking to do anything like we're doing at Snowmass," said Jeff Hanle, Skico vice president of communications.

Yeah. Sure. We believe you.

Skico won't be satisfied until they Disnify Highlands. Big Money Ruins Everything. The Crowns don't gave a stitch about this community & won't be satisfied until they bring 737's in here .... but advertise alot in the Times hence the favorable coverage.

Like · Reply · 1 · 1d

Mike Vandeman Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: http://mjvande.info/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that ... See More

Like · Reply · 1 · 15h

Facebook Comments Plugin Tony Vagneur column: Slippery slope with Pitkin County Open Space and Trails

Tony Vagneur, The Aspen Times, Jan. 19, 2018

Big news in Emma, apparently. If you've been keeping up with the burgeoning corporate‐like growth and management of the Open Space and Trails group (hereinafter referred to as OST), you likely know that officials of that consortium are patting themselves on the back, prematurely, for restoring Emma to being the "breadbasket" of the Roaring Fork Valley.

Such backhanded insults do not go unnoticed by the rest of the valley farmers, ranchers and other long‐timers who might have a different opinion of where the breadbasket was/is located.

In case you didn't read the front‐page article, two Emma properties totaling 22 acres (managed by OST) will be leased to a relatively unknown company, Two Roots Farm, to raise organic vegetables, etc. This lease will be for two consecutive 10‐year periods. In human terms, that's about a generation. OST is going to subsidize Two Roots by putting in a well‐ and wash‐house building. Wait until the public sees all the hoop houses dotting the landscape, necessary for vegetable growing in cold weather.

It's been said about boards (company or otherwise), and I've served on a few, that they should fly at 30,000 feet, staying above the minutia that hits managers and employees in the knees. Clearly, the entire OST lot, from the board on down, is in the clouds. They've already stepped on all available male appendages with their Crystal River bike trail vision (referred to now as a pedestrian trail?); now they're going to step on their tails with this cockamamie Emma project.

So far, Pitkin County has a huge investment in Emma, what with buying the dilapidated old buildings, trying to stabilize them, and finally putting the project on hold, covering up the facade with plywood caricatures like you might find in a Spaghetti Western town.

Additionally, Pitkin County has plowed tax money into Emma Farms, the Salstonstall property, Tom Clark's spread, the Glassier ranch and other properties. This all adds up to some real money, like around $6 million or more, and some of the properties aren't even in Pitkin County.

Those Two Roots folks, inexperienced as they are, have a great attitude about what they do, but in their zeal to get some leased land, perhaps they'd better get a good legal team to help them negotiate with Pitkin County and OST. They're dealing with a behemoth that knows very little about agriculture and maybe even less about integrity.

Harsh, I know, but let me give you an example. Several years ago, Pitkin County OST approached me to enter into a contract with them for use of the Emma School property. Being a fourth‐generation valley rancher, offspring of John Sloss whose brother James at one time owned the Emma Store, plus my maternal grandmother taught school at Emma, it all made sense historically.

Additionally, they wanted the property to be used for growing hay and cattle grazing. Perfect. Two friends and I had put together a loosely organized business that did precisely that — raised beef and hay — and our headquarters were in the immediate neighborhood of the schoolhouse.

Asking for a five‐year lease because I wanted to do some partial crop rotation and raise some grains, I was told by Paul Holsinger, lease manager, such was impossible as the land had been targeted for future community gardens. Later, on a site visit, Holsinger lauded me for doing an excellent job and for doing exactly what the county wanted.

That fall, scarcely a month later, Holsinger talked out of the other side of his mouth and informed me that the lease for the next year would be awarded to someone else. There was not an opportunity to bid for an additional year, nor was I given a reason for my unexplained dismissal.

The man to whom Holsinger intended to lease the land, upon finding out the underhanded nature of Pitkin County, offered to forego his opportunity to lease the land (he was offered a five‐year lease, to boot!). Thank you, but it was clear I could no longer do business with Pitkin County — there was no trust.

After several attempts to set up a get‐together with OST and George Newman, a county commissioner and Sopris Creek Caucus member, where I intended to vociferously point out the willy‐nilly approach of Holsinger, we finally set a firm date to meet. The night before that meeting was to take place, Dale Will, then OST director, informed me the meeting was off as "tomorrow looks like a powder day." We never scheduled another meeting, and I never heard from them again.

Clearly, OST needs a leasing policy available to the general public so we all understand what goes on behind closed doors. It seems the procedure operates at the whims of Holsinger and Will (or whoever replaced him), depending on whatever the agricultural trend might be for the moment, no matter how untenable.