Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20131203 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 03, 2013 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Sustainability Dashboard II. Snow Polo 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ashley Perl, CJ Oliver, and Karen Harrington DATE OF MEMO: November 27, 2013 MEETING DATE: December 3, 2013 RE: Introduction of Environmental Sustainability Dashboard REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council’s comments on the environmental sustainability dashboard and recommendations for future development. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2011, City Council set a goal, as part of the Best Year Yet process, to create a definition of sustainable Aspen. While this definition provided a starting point, in 2012 staff committed to creating an environmental sustainability dashboard, a more useful document that Council could use to accurately gauge the results of the City’s and community’s environmental efforts. This presentation by staff will be the first time City Council will review and comment on the dashboard. BACKGROUND: Reasoning: In 2012, the Aspen City Council directed staff to develop a new tool to assist in understanding Aspen’s environmental sustainability: a dashboard. The draft dashboard is included as Attachment A. The dashboard has several purposes: • To define what it means to be environmentally sustainable • To help Council assess whether the City is making progress toward environmental sustainability • To guide Council decision-making regarding initiatives proposed to enhance environmental sustainability Defining Environmental Sustainability: Outcomes and Measures of Success The dashboard defines what it means to be environmentally sustainable through a combination of outcome statements and associated measures of success across five areas of environmental sustainability: • Air • Energy • Parks, Trails and Open Space P1 I. 2 • Waste • Water These five topics, and the outcome statements created for them, were drawn from a review of existing City documents (such as the Aspen Area Community Plan) and sustainability plans and dashboards from other jurisdictions. The intent was to maintain consistency with existing, adopted policies while also becoming more explicit about the environment Aspen is seeking to create for now and the future. The outcome statements included in the dashboard act as descriptive statements that show the long term picture of what Aspen will be once sustainability is achieved. For this reason, outcome statements do not contain targets or numbers and do not focus on actions. Outcome statements tell the story of where Aspen wants to go, or in some cases, where Aspen is currently and would like to remain. Outcomes should be referenced regularly to ensure Aspen is on the right track and doesn’t stray away from the larger priorities for the community. They are the end results we want. While the outcomes are descriptive, the measures of success for each outcome provide the hard data needed to understand whether the outcome has been achieved, or if progress is being made. As progress is made on the individual measure(s), advancement is also being made towards the overall outcome. As Aspen moves the needle on the measures, the end outcome comes closer to reality. Future and current projects can be analyzed using the measures by asking the question “does this project or action move one of these measures?”. When selecting the measures to include in the dashboard, staff used a specific set of criteria. The measures needed to be relevant to the outcome statement and the data needed to be available to track the measure. The measures were also selected based on the quality of the measure and the ability of the City or community to take action to affect the measure. Measures may be added or removed as the City moves forward. Staff intentionally did not take the next step of setting targets for each measure. Prior to moving forward with further development of the dashboard, staff wanted to check-in with City Council. Also, it can be challenging to focus on outcome statements and measures without jumping ahead to setting targets. Staff wanted to focus the attention of the community and the larger group on the greater vision for sustainable Aspen prior to setting numerical goals. Attachments C and D show what the dashboard might look like with the addition of targets. Development of the Dashboard Initially, staff developed drafts outcome statements for each topic. The outcome statements were subsequently reviewed and adjusted with input from internal and external subject matter experts. P2 I. 3 In addition, subject matter experts identified draft measures of success in achieving each of the outcomes during focus group sessions. The focus groups were facilitated by staff from Brendle Group Consulting. The focus groups were instructed to identify measures that had community-wide value and that were reflective of results rather than levels of activity. Project staff further assessed the recommendations from the focus groups to develop the set included in this preliminary dashboard. This additional analysis included several components. First, staff reviewed the proposed measures from the standpoint of the availability of data, overall data quality and understandability of the proposed measures. Next, project staff vetted the proposed outcome statements and measures using an internal City comment period and a community-wide survey. Finally, staff asked Brendle Group to look at the similarity between Aspen’s measures and those of other localities. This commonality assessment is included as Attachment B. DISCUSSION: Options for the Use of the Dashboard: The City Council can use the dashboard to guide its decision-making in several different ways: · Gap Analysis: The dashboard can be used to identify gaps in key programs for which the Council may wish to set annual goals - goals to explore the root causes of a problem, or goals to reduce gaps through City initiatives. · Priority Setting: The outcomes and measures from the dashboard can be used throughout the year as a filter through which the value of proposed City initiatives can be assessed. · Review: The outcomes and measures from the dashboard can be used to assess the impact of City initiatives. It can help the City know if the work we are doing and the actions we are promoting are having the intended result. · Planning Tool: The outcomes and measures from the dashboard can be used to prioritize and plan projects for the future, prioritizing those actions that move the needle on measures included in the dashboard. · Community Engagement: More broadly, the outcome statements and measures in the dashboard can be used to focus a community-wide action planning initiative that aligns multiple organizations toward achieving shared goals, much as the Aspen Community Foundation is doing with its education initiative. Such an effort would encourage multiple entities to use the dashboard to guide their priority-setting, leverage each other’s strengths, partner more effectively and focus their initiatives toward the accomplishment of shared outcomes. P3 I. 4 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: While no funding is currently requested for the further development of the dashboard, it is possible that funding will be needed in the future. Budget discussion and amounts will depend on how Council chooses to use the dashboard and how fully the dashboard needs to be developed. If, for example, City Council chooses to use the dashboard on a broader community level, it is possible that funding could be used to engage the community in target setting. Once developed, the dashboard may be used by Council to analyze budget requests from an environmental standpoint. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts of the dashboard are far reaching and numerous. Although the creation of the actual dashboard does not contribute to Aspen's environmental quality, the sole purpose of the dashboard is to protect Aspen's environment while enjoying the surrounding environment in a responsible way. The dashboard can help the Aspen community to ensure our contribution to the environment is a positive one. This tool provides a reference point for knowing where we are with respect to environmental sustainability, discussing where we want to be, and deciding what actions are required to get there. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: City of Aspen Dashboard Attachment B: Comparative Analysis of Measures Attachment C: Sample of Aspen’s Dashboard with Targets Attachment D: Example of Targets and Trends for One Measure P4 I. Environmental Sustainability Dashboard City of Aspen P5 I. 1 Air The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air. Aspen’s air quality is one of the factors that distinguish it from other places. Residents and visitors alike expect and value clear skies and unpolluted indoor and outdoor air. Because Aspen has clean healthy air, residents can fully enjoy indoor and outdoor activities with reduced concern for their respiratory health, including reduced incidence of respiratory illness and irritation. Levels of small particulate matter pollution Importance: Aspen’s small particulate matter can cause respiratory irritation and also has an impact on visibility conditions. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently measures PM10 pollution (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in size) and has plans to begin measuring PM2.5 levels. Data will be reported as a daily 24 hour average throughout the year, highlighting instances of levels above the standard set in the AACP of 35 parts per million for PM10. Most Recent Data: In 2012, there were 7 instances of PM10 levels above the AACP standard, 2 of which were caused by exceptional weather events. Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts Importance: Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts are used to determine the success of traffic reduction measures which reduce the impact of transportation on Aspen’s air quality. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently measures the number and type of vehicles on Castle Creek Bridge. These numbers are reported as an average monthly count over the year in comparison to the baseline traffic count from 1993 when the average monthly count was 23,670 vehicles. Most Recent Data: The 2012 traffic count was 21,917/month. Radon levels and mitigation Importance: Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer and the number one cause among non-smokers. Radon remediation is relatively affordable to homeowners and is a major step individuals can take to lower their cancer risk if high levels are discovered. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently keeps track of the total number of homes tested for radon levels and those with high radon levels as well as those homes that remediate to reduce radon levels. Data is reported as the percentage of homes with current radon levels above the federal action level of 4pc/L. P6 I. 2 Most Recent Data: In 2012 57% (n.53) of homes tested had levels of radon above the recommended action level. Thirteen percent of that group mitigated for the elevated levels of radon. Ozone Levels Importance: Ground level ozone is a respiratory irritant and illness promoter. High levels of ground level ozone reduce visibility. High levels of ozone can often be caused by regional activity including traffic, oil and gas development and other causes. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently monitors ozone levels at the intersection of Hwy 82 and Cemetery Lane. Ozone levels are reported in 8 hour average concentrations. The 8 hour averages are then evaluated against the low end of the national health standard set by the EPA. Most Recent Data: In 2012 there were 29 days with 8 hour average concentrations over the standard of 60 ppb. P7 I. Energy The Aspen community effectively manages minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Energy generation and consumption, while integral to a prosperous economy, can result in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants that contaminate land, air and water. fossil fuel-based energy with renewable resources sectors – Aspen meets its energy demands in an efficient, clean and affordable manner. Aspen maintains a thriving economy while reducing the adverse e energy needs. Percentage of electrical energy from renewable sources Importance: By moving towards renewable energy production, Aspen can reduce the pollution and greenhouse gas generation associated with traditional energy pro be replaced and are finite. Data Collection: The City of Aspen Utility Department and Holy Cross both measure the percent of renewable energy in their portfolios, reported as renewable energy consumed as a percentage of total community energy consumption. Most Recent Data: In 2011, 33% of community electrical energy of Aspen’s electricity portfolio was renewable, while 13% of Holy Cr Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings Most Recent Data: In 2011, the total greenhouse gas emissions for buildings were 214,718 tons of CO2 equivalent. Of note, the City’s Parks Department estimates that public trees sequester (remo year, reduce energy use by 193.9 tons per year, and store approximately 3,411.5 tons of CO2 in the form of biomass. The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Energy generation and consumption, while integral to a prosperous economy, can result in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants that contaminate land, air and water. based energy with renewable resources – and maximizing energy efficiency across all Aspen meets its energy demands in an efficient, clean and affordable manner. Aspen maintains a thriving economy while reducing the adverse environmental impacts of its Percentage of electrical energy from renewable sources By moving towards renewable energy production, Aspen can reduce the pollution and greenhouse gas generation associated with traditional energy production. Renewable energy also reduces the use of resources that cannot The City of Aspen Utility Department and Holy Cross both measure the percent of renewable energy e energy consumed as a percentage of total community energy consumption. In 2011, 33% of community electrical energy was from renewable sources. 75% of Aspen’s electricity portfolio was renewable, while 13% of Holy Cross’ portfolio was renewable. Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings Importance: As a location that will be greatly affected by climate change, Aspen takes interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for climate change. Data Collection: Data will be reported as total tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted, and will include emissions from Aspen Electric, Holy Cross and Source Gas for residential and commercial accounts within the urban growth boundary. The City of Aspen Canary Initiative currently collects this community greenhouse gas data. In 2011, the total greenhouse gas emissions for buildings were 214,718 tons of CO2 equivalent. Of note, the City’s Parks Department estimates that public trees sequester (remove) a net of 147.8 tons of CO2 equivalent per year, reduce energy use by 193.9 tons per year, and store approximately 3,411.5 tons of CO2 in the form of biomass. 3 its energy needs while Energy generation and consumption, while integral to a prosperous economy, can result in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants that contaminate land, air and water. By replacing and maximizing energy efficiency across all Aspen meets its energy demands in an efficient, clean and affordable manner. In doing so, nvironmental impacts of its By moving towards renewable energy production, Aspen can reduce the pollution and greenhouse gas duction. Renewable energy also reduces the use of resources that cannot The City of Aspen Utility Department and Holy Cross both measure the percent of renewable energy e energy consumed as a percentage of total community energy consumption. was from renewable sources. 75% percent of the City oss’ portfolio was renewable. As a location that will be greatly affected by climate change, Aspen takes interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions Data will be reported as total tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted, and will include emissions from Aspen Electric, Holy Cross and Source Gas for residential and commercial accounts within the urban growth boundary. The City of Aspen iative currently collects this community greenhouse gas In 2011, the total greenhouse gas emissions for buildings were 214,718 tons of CO2 equivalent. Of ve) a net of 147.8 tons of CO2 equivalent per year, reduce energy use by 193.9 tons per year, and store approximately 3,411.5 tons of CO2 in the form of biomass. P8 I. 4 Energy efficiency Importance: By increasing efficiencies, the Aspen community can reduce the total demand for energy and reduce the associated environmental impacts of producing energy. One way to measure energy efficiency is to calculate deemed energy savings each year, which is the amount of energy saved due to known implementation of practices that reduce energy use (for instance, replacement of incandescent with fluorescent bulbs). This measure provides a conservative estimate of energy conservation efforts that impact electricity demand. Data Collection: The data below is reflective of all accounts for Aspen Electric and most Holy Cross accounts. It includes deemed savings from activities of the city and others for those accounts. Most Recent Data: For 1/1/12-12/31/12: Total Residential Savings: 60,395 kWh. Total Commercial Savings: 1,093,502 kWh. Mass transit use Importance: Vehicle transportation in Aspen is responsible for adverse environmental impacts including air pollution and the creation of greenhouse gases. By using mass transportation, visitors and residents can reduce the number of vehicles on Aspen’s roads, reduce the environmental effects of those vehicles, and reduce energy use. Data Collection: Data will be reported as the total number of one way bus rides per year within Aspen. Most Recent Data: In 2012, there were 1.064 million rides. Through April of 2013 there were .465 million rides. P9 I. 5 Open Space, Parks, Trails Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-ranging habitats, recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places. A myriad of natural resources contribute to Aspen’s singularity as a place. High levels of biodiversity, native ecosystems, extensive fish and wildlife habitat, and a diverse urban forest provide ecosystem functions that benefit the community (such as absorbing water runoff and filtering water for quality, for example), and provide for extensive active and passive recreational pursuits and personal renewal. Access to nearby parks and open spaces via walkable connections is an integral part of the city’s appeal. Acres of parks, trails and open space Importance: The community greatly benefits from these kinds of areas being kept open and accessible for a number of reasons including the preservation of natural habitat, areas for outdoor recreation, and protection of lands from future development. Data Collection: The City of Aspen Parks Departments has the ability to measure this data with existing software where they track parks and open space parcels. The data will be reported as the total acres of parks and open space within Aspen and the adjacent area. Most Recent Data: There are currently 1961.5 acres of open space in the current inventory. Community forest coverage Importance: Aspen has been named “Tree City USA.” Keeping the community forest healthy and vibrant is critical from an environmental standpoint as well as from a user experience point of view. Data Collection: This data is not currently available; however there is interest in collecting and measuring this data if appropriate time and budget are made available. The City of Aspen could gather this information by conducting a canopy cover study. The data would be reported as total acreage of the City of Aspen that is covered by the community forest canopy. Most Recent Data: No data is currently available. P10 I. 6 Key indicator species (place holder) Importance: Measurement of a key indicator species is meant to serve as a proxy for overall ecosystem health without the need to create a new and/or unstandardized index. While an index provides a more comprehensive picture, the use of an appropriate indicator species can provide good insight to the present conditions and to establish trends over time. The presence or lack of a key indicator species is often used to determine if conditions in an ecosystem are adequate to support that species’ existence with that set of conditions being used as the benchmark for success. Data Collection: An appropriate species would need to be selected by consulting with knowledgeable parties such as the Roaring Fork Conservancy, Forest Service, DOW, etc. Most Recent Data: No data is currently available. P11 I. 7 Waste The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the environment. The consumption of material resources and the waste generation that accompanies it can result in contamination of our air, land and water. Wastes are minimized through diversion and reuse whenever possible, which maximizes the life of the current landfill while avoiding pollution. When waste must be disposed, it is done so responsibly. Levels of water and air pollution at landfill Importance: Processing Aspen’s waste has potential negative effects on the surrounding environment. By measuring the levels of air and water pollution at the Pitkin County Landfill, Aspen can better manage waste to reduce those impacts on the environment. Data Collection: Pitkin County Landfill currently measures water discharged from the landfill for a variety of pollutants. This data will be reported as an index that includes water and air quality sampling, highlighted instances of non-compliance with state and federal pollution standards. Most Recent Data: The landfill reported greenhouse gases 40% below the threshold required for EPA reporting in 2012. There were 3 instances of pollutant detection in the 2012 groundwater monitoring. Vinyl chloride levels are above the statistical minimum. Chloride was detected above minimum levels in one instance. Arsenic was detected, but in levels below statistical limits. Waste diversion rate Importance: For Aspen to responsibly manage waste, the community must move toward zero waste by burying the minimal amount of waste in the landfill. Recycling, composting and reuse rates show Aspen’s progress towards achieving minimal waste burial. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently collects data from waste haulers and the Pitkin County Landfill. This data will be reported as a percentage of the total waste stream that is diverted for reuse, compost, or recycling. Aspen’s data can be compared to national and state averages. Most Recent Data: The 2012 waste diversion rate for the City of Aspen was 30% (29% recycling 1% compost). P12 I. 8 Amount of landfill space available Importance: The Pitkin County Landfill is a finite space. Once the space is full, Aspen will be forced to transport trash to neighboring landfills. By measuring the years of life remaining on the landfill lifespan, Aspen can gauge the success of diversion efforts and plan for the future. Data Collection: The Pitkin County Landfill conducts an aerial survey every three years to calculate the fill rate of the landfill space. Data will be reported as the number of years of life remaining on the landfill at the current fill rate. Most Recent Data: In 2013 the Pitkin County Landfill had 25 years until full. Number of miles waste travels for processing Importance: Managing Aspen’s waste has associated environmental costs, and many of these costs are associated with the transportation of waste, including fuel consumption, road traffic, and air pollution. By measuring the transportation miles of waste within Colorado associated with waste management, Aspen can better manage waste to reduce the environmental consequences. Data Collection: Data will be reported by calculating the average number of miles that trash, recycling and compost are moved weekly. All data will be reported for one-way transportation of materials. Most Recent Data: In 2012 trash was shipped an average of 144 miles. Recycling was shipped an average of 774 miles for processing (Ewaste travels twice a year to be recycled for 200 miles each time). Compost was shipped an average of 24 miles to its final destination. P13 I. 9 Water The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full range of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers. Resources such as the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries are essential to the vitality of the Aspen area, providing high-quality water for a variety of purposes. Because of its heavy dependence on this limited resource, it is important for the City to have minimal negative impacts on water quality and quantity. Only if Aspen has a sufficient supply of clean water for drinking and recreation, will residents and visitors be able to continue enjoying the life and natural amenities for which the area is known. Aspen takes responsibility for and minimizes pollutants entering waterways through storm water and waste water pollution prevention. Gallons of water consumed Importance: Aspen has a finite amount of water available for irrigation, drinking and sustaining life. By measuring the total gallons of water consumed, the City can better understand current usage and future needs. Data Collection: The City of Aspen Water Department has measured treated water since 1967 and continues to do so today. Measurements for untreated water are available since 2010. Data will be reported as millions of gallons of treated and untreated water distributed by the City of Aspen Water Department per year. Most Recent Data: In 2012, the City of Aspen Water Department distributed 1,182,331,000 gallons of water. Flow rate in rivers and streams Importance: The rivers and streams in and around Aspen are healthiest when the flow rates are kept above the minimum that is tolerable and when those rates fluctuate with the seasons, providing peak flows. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently measures flow rates on the Roaring Fork River, downstream of the Salvation Ditch, on Castle Creek at the Marolt Open Space, and at the mouth of Hunter Creek. In addition, daily values are available for Maroon Creek, read every two weeks. Data would be reported as a separate flow rate for each gauge and compared to a 30 year average. Most Recent Data: 2012 data is not currently available. P14 I. 10 Water availability (% of available water supply that is used at peak usage) Importance: This measure tells Aspen how much water is used compared to how much water is available for use during peak use times. This allows the City of Aspen to gauge if adequate water supply is available for Aspen’s use levels. Data Collection: The City of Aspen does not currently publish this information, but can calculate the percentage for a given year in the past. Most Recent Data: In 2012 Aspen reached 95% of availability in one weekend. Mixed Invertebrate Population in Rivers and Streams Importance: The health of macroinvertebrates in Aspen’s rivers and streams acts as an indicator of overall stream and river health. The presence of healthy stream life shows that adequate nutrients are present and also speaks to stream levels and water quality. Data Collection: The Roaring Fork Conservancy tracks insect life using a scale called the Pollution Tolerance Index. The data will be reported as a number on the index. Most Recent Data: 2012 data is not currently available. P15 I. Aspen Dashboard Summary Topic Outcome Statement Measures Criteria for Comparing Measures Air The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air. Levels of small particulate matter pollution Sometimes Found Castle Creek bridge traffic counts Sometimes Found Radon levels and mitigation Rarely Found Ozone Levels Commonly Found Energy The Aspen Community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Percentage of electrical energy from renewable sources Commonly Found Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings Sometimes Found Energy efficiency Sometimes Found Mass transit use Commonly Found Parks, Trails, and Open Space Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-ranging habitats; recreation opportunities; and connected, accessible places. Acres of parks, trails, and open space Commonly Found Community forest coverage Sometimes Found Key indicator species (placeholder) Sometimes Found Waste The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the environment. Levels of water and air pollution at the landfill Rarely Found Waste diversion rate Commonly Found Amount of landfill space available Rarely Found Average miles of transportation to process waste Never Found Water The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full range of municipal needs and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers. Gallons of water consumed Sometimes Found Flow rate in rivers and streams Never Found Water availability (% of the available water supply that is used at peak usage) Rarely Found Mixed invertebrate population in rivers and streams Never Found Mixed invertebrate population in rivers and streams Never Found P16 I. Attachment C City of Aspen Environmental Sustainability Dashboard Air Energy The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing adverse environmental impacts P Parks, Trails and Open Space Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-ranging habitats, recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places Waste The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the environment The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full range of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers • Acres of parks, trails and open space • Community forest coverage The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air Levels of small particulate matter pollution Ozone levels Radon levels and mitigation Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts • Percent of energy from renewable sources • Energy efficiency • Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings • Mass transit use • Key indicator species • Levels of air and water pollution • Waste diversion rate • Amount of landfill space available • Average transportation miles • Gallons of water consumed • Mixed invertebrate population • Water availability at peak times • Flow rate in rivers and streams Water P17 I. Particulate Matter Pollution TARGET: PM 10 levels shall not exceed 35 ug/m3 except during exceptional events such as wildfires and high wind advisories. Current Status: Current Trend: PM10- Aspen has had steadily declining levels of PM10 pollution over the past decade as we continue to increase our control measures surrounding coarse particulate matter pollution. These measures include increased street sweeping practices during the winter and spring, tighter management of run-off and debris carryout from construction sites, and industry improvements such as cleaner running diesel engines. The only readings over 100 ug/m3 we have seen in the past 10 years have been from exceptional events such as spring dust storms and summer wildfires. The EPA sets a maximum allowable limit of 150 ug/m3 for pm10, though consistent levels at or near 150 would greatly diminish the high quality natural environment that our citizens and visitors expect in our community. The AACP sets forth a very stringent target level of 35ug/m3 which truly embraces the idea of a clean sustainable environment that Aspen strives for. In 2013 there were no 24 hr. average readings that exceeded 35 ug/m3 which is a great reflection on the success of our current efforts to control pm10. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 Highest ten 24 hr. PM10 levels by year from 2009- 2013. 5 year trend line is shown in RED City of Aspen PM 10 Levels P18 I.