A ask for by the corporate house owners of 3 undeveloped parcels in Aspen Glen to take away a protective bald eagle buffer zone so they can be bought off and at some point designed out will go to the Garfield County commissioners with a advice for acceptance.

Having said that, county Arranging Fee users stated all through a prolonged community hearing on the make a difference Wednesday evening that the commissioners need to also get some much better clarity from state wildlife officers about the opportunity ramifications.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife advised in a May possibly letter to county planners that, mainly because the historic nest that the buffer zone was meant to shield no lengthier exists, the buffer zone protections are no longer desired.

The top 50 % of the tree in which the nesting web site had existed considering the fact that at least the late 1940s, blew more than in a June 2018 windstorm, in accordance to Parks and Wildlife documentation.

Eagles that frequent the spot have due to the fact proven a new nesting web-site a lot less than a mile upstream, and around many residences that had been now built.

The May CPW letter effectively reiterated a stance taken when the Aspen Glen Golf Co. created its preliminary ask for in slide 2020. At that time, county commissioners dominated that the ask for constitutes a “substantial change” to the Aspen Glen PUD approvals, topic to a whole application and community hearing. That application was submitted in late March of this 12 months.

Following quite a few Aspen Glen people commented throughout the Wednesday hearing towards removing the buffer zone, expressing a much more substantial wildlife effect study is necessary, setting up commissioners agreed the CPW placement lacks element.

“I was involved in this 28 several years ago,” Scheduling Commissioner Greg McKennis explained, noting that as a member of the community he originally opposed the Aspen Glen improvement.

On the other hand, “It turned out to be a very excellent advancement in phrases of performing what they said they were likely to do,” he said.

McKennis explained the issue contacting for the buffer zone didn’t meet up with with much objection from the developers.

“No one at any time imagined it should really be something but safeguarded,” he reported.

From his recollection, although, the difficulty was not as simple as defending the one tree where by the nesting web site had existed. It was about shielding the broader habitat along that extend of the Roaring Fork River, McKennis supplied.

He asked for the Setting up Fee continue the discussion until finally Parks and Wildlife could weigh in with any further more ideas. In its place, the fee determined to incorporate as a condition of recommending approval that the elected Board of County Commissioners solicit that details.

Davis Farrar of Western Slope Consulting spoke on behalf of Aspen Glen Golf Co., also declaring the motive for the buffer zone no lengthier exists.

“The tree fell, the nest was destroyed, the eagles moved,” he explained.

Guide Steve Dahmer of Environmental Options also reported the buffer zone was unique to the nest web site.

“The have to have no extended exists,” he testified. “These eagles have shown a exceptional tolerance for human exercise, and that goes from residences to making websites to individuals going for walks canines and a myriad of boats heading down river and fishermen.”

A spokesperson for the Aspen Glen Home owners Association said 98% of the house owners in Aspen Glen oppose removing the buffer zone.

The make any difference is envisioned to go just before the county commissioners in early September.

Senior Reporter/Managing Editor John Stroud can be reached at 970-384-9160 or [email protected]