Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.worksession.20171003
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 03, 2017 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Budget: AMP / Internal Service II. Woody Creek Land Purchase for Water Storage P1 2018 Proposed Budget October 3, 2017 P2I. Asset Management Plan Fund 2 •75% of General Property Tax Revenue •$24.2 Million for New Office Space: $17.5M debt proceeds –Admin. Offices $1.6M transfer -Transportation $3.0M transfer -Parking $2.0M transfer -General Fund Property Tax (75%) $5,353,400 Interest Earnings & Other Revenue $356,340 Transfers $6,690,670 Debt Proceeds $17,500,000 Revenues = $29,900,410 P3I. Asset Management Plan Fund 3 •City Buildings: $20,855,380 Administrative Office: $19,111,880 Rio Grande Renovation: $500,000 Armory Design: $443,500 •Engineering: $1.0M •Streets: $970K •Recreation: $460K •All Other Departments: $127K Asset Management $20,955,380 Other Departments Capital $2,561,350 Operational Costs & Debt Service $189,600 Uses = $23,706,330 P4I. •Administrative Bldg: $22,142,000 2015 Budget: $1,723,740 2016 Budget: $506,380 2017 Budget: $0* 2018 Request: $19,911,880 •Rio Grande Bldg: $500,000 •Armory Remodel: $15,890,110 2015 Budget: $1,207,450 2016 Budget: $354,720 2017 Budget: $0 2018 Request: $13,571,840 City Office Spaces 4 Design & Permits: Fall 2017 –Spring 2018 Utility Work / Demo: Mar 2018 –Jun 2018 Construction: Jul 2018 -Dec 2019 Move In: Spring 2020 Same timeline as above Design & Permits: 2018 / 2019 Construction: Spring 2020 (After Admin Bldg) Move In: Winter 2022 P5I. •Engineering: Concrete Replacement: $435,000 Pedestrian Improvements: $130,000 ADA Improvements: $83,000 Streets to Trails: $80,000 Laserfiche/GIS Integration: $60,100 Main St. Signal Improvements: $40,000 4th St Paving Design: $35,000 Annual Bike Lane Striping: $35,000 Annual Traffic Calming: $30,000 Annual Bridge Maintenance: $25,000 City Survey of Monuments: $20,000 Remaining Projects (2): $30,500 5 •Police: Electrical Restraint Device: $23,000 Radar & Trailer: $17,000 AED Replacements: $13,500 Dispatch Radio Equipment: $9,900 •Streets: Fleet Replacements: $865,250 Streets Facility –Exterior: $48,200 Streets Facility –Site Work : $38,500 Streets Facility –Plumbing: $18,400 P6I. 6 •ComDev: Sm. Lodge Right of Way Imp: $50,000 •Clerk: Optical Imaging Scanner: $10,000 Color Printer: $4,000 •Recreation: Plumbing: $140,000 Red Brick Master Plan: $50,000 Aquatics Scoreboard: $45,000 Technology Upgrades: $35,000 Recreation Storage Solution: $35,000 AIG Sewer Liner: $33,000 ARC Paving: $20,000 AIG Compressor Overhauls: $18,000 Climbing Wall Pads: $18,000 ARC Siding: $15,000 Water Heater Replacements: $14,000 Remaining Projects (5): $37,000 P7I. Asset Management Plan Fund 7 Net Change to Fund Balance: $6,194,080 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense P8I. Debt Service Fund 8 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Parks and Open Space Fund General Fund (for AIG) Certificates of Participation Isis Theater Aspen Police Department Administrative Office -Anticipated Parks & Open Space $2,953,500 Police Department (GF) $1,156,450 Aspen Ice Garden (GF) $87,600 Administrative Office (GF, IT, Stormwater, APCHA) $1,012,100 ISIS COPs $595,270 Expenditures = $5,804,920 P9I. Citywide Debt (Projected 1/1/2018) 9 Parks & Recreation Bonds $26,110,000 Energy Efficiency Lease Purchase $186,915 Facility Bonds $49,171,290 Housing Bonds $2,570,000 By Type = $78,038,205 General Fund $186,915 Debt Service Fund $67,868,265 Golf Fund $188,025 Electric Fund $4,225,000 Water Fund $3,000,000 Truscott Fund $2,570,000 By Fund = $78,038,205 P10I. Employee Health Insurance Fund 10 •Projected Fund Balance of $2.3M •Three main sources of revenue •Proposing premiums increase of 4% •Employee / Employer Allocations SteadyEmployee Premiums $728,000 Employer Premiums $3,990,000 Other Income $53,060 Stop Loss $300,000 Revenues = $5,071,060 P11I. Employee Health Insurance Fund 11 •New High Deductible HRA Plan Discontinue PPO Plan Rx Costs and Specialist / PCP Visits •Employee Health & Wellness HSA Contributions Nutrition / Wellness Coaching •VHA -Shared Purchasing Power Pharmacy Reinsurance Administrative Costs $200,150 EE Health, Wellness & Safety $280,200 Reinsurance Costs $788,400 Claims Paid $4,150,000 Expenditures = $5,418,750 P12I. Employee Health Insurance Fund 12 Net Change to Fund Balance: ($347,690) $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense P13I. Employee Housing Fund 13 •Internal Housing Allocations •New Units Behind APD •Rental Income Rental Income $122,760 One-Time Sale of Housing Units $1,178,000 Interfund Transfers $1,126,600 Investment Income $16,730 Revenues = $2,444,090 P14I. Employee Housing Fund 14 •Capital Water Place Design: $450,000 Roofing Repairs: $42,000 Contingency Repair Budget: $40,000 Furnace Repairs/Upgrades: $24,200 •Annual Maintenance •Down Payment Assistance Program Capital $556,200 Property Maintenance $108,990 Down Payment Assistance $127,500 Expenditures = $792,690 P15I. Employee Housing Fund 15 Net Change to Fund Balance: $1,651,400 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense P16I. Information Technology Fund 16 •Revenues set to cover expenses Fund Balance held level in out-years Annual fluctuation occurs with Capital •Other Revenues: Charges to Non-City Funds: $65,500 Fiber Lease to County: $45,300 Investment Income: $7,800 Other Revenue $118,600 Internal Cost Allocations $1,555,500 Revenues = $1,674,100 P17I. Information Technology Fund 17 •Supplementals Focus Largely on Security •Capital •Fiber Optic Equipment: $85,000 •IT Firewall Refresh: $44,000 •Relocate Disaster Recovery Site: $38,800 •Cyber Security (ClearPass): $24,300 •Microsoft Active Directory Upgrade: $18,150 •New Debt Service Payment Administrative $220,840 Workgroup Services $194,200 Network Services $401,250 Phone Services $78,730 Application Licenses $122,130 Help Desk $163,010 Capital Projects $210,247 Transfers Out $275,700 Expenses = $1,666,107 P18I. Information Technology Fund 18 Supplementals: $91,940 Network Security: $57,160 Fiber Redundancy: $12,280 Single Sign-On Licensing: $18,000 LaserFiche Forms Portal: $1,750 E-Waste Recycling: $1,750 Remote Connection Licenses: $1,000 P19I. Information Technology Fund 19 Net Change to Fund Balance: $7,993 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense P20I. ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Director of Public Works; Dave Hornbacher, Director, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives; DATE OF MEMO: September 29, 2017 MEETING DATE: October 3, 2017 RE: Acquisition of Woody Creek Parcel for Water Storage - Work Session SUMMARY: On October 10, 2016, Council passed Resolution #141, Series of 2016 directing staff to implement certain water management measures to improve resiliency against future climate change impacts and other system changes while continuing efforts to maintain diligence for two conditional water storage rights on Castle and Maroon Creeks. Included in this Resolution was direction to investigate alternative water storage locations. This work session will focus on one site identified, the Woody Creek Parcel. In this work session staff will seek Council direction to return to a regular meeting with a resolution stating Council’s intent to purchase this property regardless of the outcome of the upcoming bond debt election question in November. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen operates a water utility that supplies customers both inside and outside the municipal boundary. The City is committed to operating a water system that is safe, legal and reliable. To this end, the City maintains a portfolio of water rights to meet the current and future water needs of its customers. Within this portfolio are conditional storage water rights on Maroon and Castle Creeks. Recent studies have reinforced the need for these rights. These rights are located in alpine valleys and their development would involve difficult and expensive construction and likely cause significant environmental impacts. Because of these impacts, Council requested staff seek alternative storage sites. Potential Storage Sites In order to investigate the possibility of moving Aspen’s conditional storage water rights, the consulting firm Deere and Ault was engaged to study the Aspen area for alternative storage locations. Deere and Ault identified several locations. The Woody Creek Parcel was determined to be a highly desirable storage location. Woody Creek Parcel The Woody Creek Parcel was identified as the most appropriate site for future water storage. The benefits of this site include: P21 II. · Less environmental implications than many other alternatives. In addition, the City could partner with the local gravel mining operation to improve the reclamation of the gravel pit site. · Location of the site allows for the legal movement of storage rights from Maroon and Castle Creeks to a diversion point near the Woody Creek Parcel. · Scalability provides planning flexibility. The layout and size of the site allow for design of water storage from around 350 acre-feet to a maximum of 8,000 acre-feet when combined with the existing Elam Gravel Pit site. Results of Due Diligence (to-date) The City is currently in a due diligence process to discover particular characteristics of the Woody Creek Parcel, and its suitability for use as a water storage site. The City is currently engaged in the following studies: 1. Geologic Review and Engineering Analysis of Storage Potential Deere and Ault performed a pre-feasibility level analysis of the site (See Attachment A) and concluded that the geology would be favorable for a range of water storage alternatives, from 320 acre-feet up to 8,000 acre-feet. The largest reservoir size would require the addition of the adjacent gravel pit. This study identified potential challenges for in-situ reservoir storage. Due to the geology, in-situ storage would require expensive construction and would be limited in size. 2. Natural Resources Assessment ERO Resources conducted a natural resource assessment to determine environmental impacts of disturbing the site (See Attachment B, Appendix B). The study concludes that compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act would not put the project goals in jeopardy. They concluded that the site does not provide habitat for any species protected by the ESA, nor does the site contain wetlands or other waters of the US. The proximity to the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport was identified as an issue that would require coordination with Pitkin County to ensure that appropriate mitigation efforts are put in place to avoid interaction of birds and aircraft. 3. BASH Assessment Following-up on recommendations by ERO discussed above, the City contracted with EMPSi to further investigate the potential of Bird and Airplane Safety Hazard (BASH) implications of the proximity of the Woody Creek site to the airport. EMPSi is currently reviewing the range and type of water storage options presented in the Deere and Ault report and suggesting appropriate mitigation measures. 4. Phase I Environmental Environmental Services, Inc. are providing consulting services to determine the history of the Woody Creek Parcel and any incidents on the site that may be of concern. P22 II. COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED: During the work session, Council is asked to provide direction regarding the acquisition of the Woody Creek Parcel. Staff recommends passage, at a future regular Council meeting, of a resolution stating Council’s intent to buy the Woody Creek Parcel regardless of the outcome of the coming election issue regarding issuing general obligation bond debt for this purchase. There are other options for financing this purchase. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The City is committed to reducing its footprint (carbon and water) and fighting climate change, but even with this effort and action the City recognizes that it is best practice to plan for a future that looks very different than today. Increasing the City’s raw water storage is necessary to ensure the resiliency of its water system. BUDGET IMPACT: Funds to support the work associated with the acquisition of the Woody Creek Parcel are the subject of the upcoming bond debt election. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Investigation of Woody Creek Parcel, Deere and Ault Consultants P23 II. 600 S. Airport Road, Building A, Suite 205 Longmont, CO 80503 Phone: 303-651-1468 ● Fax: 303-651-1469 MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Hornbacher, Director, City of Aspen Utilities Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager FROM: Victor G. deWolfe, P.E., P.G. Don W. Deere, P.E. DATE: September 29, 2017 RE: Reservoir Pre-Feasibility, Woody Creek Parcel, McLain Flats, Pitkin County, Colorado; D&A Job No. CG-0687.003.00 INTRODUCTION This memorandum describes Deere & Ault Consultants’ (D&A) reservoir pre-feasibility study for a site consisting of two adjacent parcels of land on McLain Flats in Pitkin County, Colorado (Figure 1). The McLain Flats site includes a vacant property currently owned by the Woody Creek Development Company (aka, the Woody Creek Parcel, herein referred to as the WCDC parcel), for which the City of Aspen is currently under contract to purchase. The adjacent Vagneur gravel mine, owned by Elam Construction, could provide additional water storage. This site was identified as being a potential site for reservoir construction during an earlier site screening process. The pre-feasibility study included geotechnical investigations, a natural resources assessment (NRA), a site visit of the active Vagneur mine, preliminary geologic and geotechnical anal ysis, development of in-situ and gravel pit reservoir alternatives, and cost estimating. Four separate alternatives for water storage are presented in this memorandum. The alternatives include options that are built on the WCDC parcel alone to options that encompass both sites. The alternatives range in storage from a low of about 320 acre-feet for in-situ storage to a maximum reservoir of 8,000 acre-feet. SITE CONDITIONS The McLain Flats site is located in unincorporated Pitkin County in the Eastern One-Half of Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Figure 1). The site is situated on a glacial outwash terrace about 150 feet above the Roaring Fork River. Upper River Road runs along the slope of the terrace about 50 feet above the river. The community of Woody Creek occupies a lower terrace northwest of the site. The topography of the terrace is generally flat on the top, exhibiting 1 to 2 percent slopes; and very steep on the sides with slopes up to 50 percent. P24 II. - 2 - The WCDC parcel considered for reservoir development by the City, occupies an area of about 55.7 acres on top of the terrace. A smaller parcel measuring 1.9 acres located along Upper River Road would also be acquired by the City (Figure 1). The WCDC parcel is currently a vacant sage brush meadow. Overhead electric transmission lines run along the edge of the terrace on the west side of the site. Smaller overhead electric lines cross the site as well. A high-pressure gas line runs beneath Raceway Drive along the eastern edge of the parcel. The Rio Grande Trail is a paved bicycle path on Pitkin County land that runs along the terrace about 30 feet below the top. A fiber optic line is buried beneath the bicycle path. A smaller gravel trail runs along the top of the terrace. The existing Vagneur Gravel Mine is situated on an adjacent parcel of land measuring about 104.4 acres. The mine consists of an open pit in the middle terrace (which has been partially filled in) and a benched quarry in the upper terrace. The mine operates a crusher to supply aggregate for industrial uses. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The geotechnical conditions at the site were investigated by conducting reconnaissance geologic mapping, drilling four borings, digging five test pits, and testing soil and rock in the laboratory. To support the investigation, we acquired 2-foot topographic contours from a LiDAR survey performed in 2016 for Pitkin County. The topography of the site is included along with the geologic map and locations of the geotechnical borings, test pits, and other sample sites on Figure 2. The geotechnical conditions of the site are characterized by deep glaciofluvial gravel, cobble, and boulder deposits overlying fractured Mancos Shale bedrock. A deep buried ancestral valley of the Roaring Fork River (paleochannel) appears to cut northerly through the WCDC property. The glaciofluvial outwash deposits were laid down during glacial melting events by large sustained floods. The resulting morphology is an ancestral valley buried by a series of three terraces, labelled as youngest through oldest, as shown on the map of Figure 2, and Profile A on Figure 3. The community of Woody Creek occupies the youngest outwash terrace (Qga) and the WCDC parcel occupies is the middle outwash terrace (Qgb). The Vagneur pit is located on the upper two terraces (Qgb and Qgc). The oldest terrace (Qgc) is capped by clayey eolian (windblown) deposits (Qe). The Mancos Shale (Km) is a Cretaceous aged rock that constitutes bedrock at the site and is the base of the buried valley. Glaciofluvial Outwash Deposits The glaciofluvial outwash deposits were observed during geologic mapping, geotechnical drilling, and test pit excavation. Summary logs of the geotechnical borings and test pits are included as Figure 4. Select samples were tested in a laboratory for index properties. Laboratory test data is shown by depth on the summary logs and tabulated on Table 1. The outwash deposits consist of layers of very densely compacted cobbles, gravel and boulders up to 7 feet in one-dimension. The cobbles consist primarily of sub-rounded granite or red sandstone. Due to the size of the particles in the outwash deposit, it is expected to have a very high permeability. P25 II. - 3 - The drilling program encountered 90 feet of outwash and about 11 feet of Mancos Shale in Boring B-102. In B-102, groundwater was observed at 85 feet deep within the outwash deposits. A pair of nested monitoring wells were installed in B-102, with one screened in the shale and one in the outwash deposits. Both wells measure approximately the same pore water pressure, suggesting that the near surface fractured bedrock is in hydraulic connection with the alluvial groundwater in the cobbles. The well completion details are summarized on Figure 4. The other three borings encountered only dry glaciofluvial cobbles and boulders to 123 feet deep, the depth limit of the drilling program. The test pits were excavated up to 15 feet deep into the glaciofluvial outwash terrace Qgb. In general, the top 4 to 5 feet contains a silty deposit of cobbles and boulders, followed by a 3 to 4- foot layer of cobbles with caliche rinds and cement. Below about 9 feet deep, a cleaner gravel deposit was encountered. Gradation tests were performed on TP-8 bulk samples of the 3-inch minus fraction, the results of which are shown on Table 1 and Figure 4. During test pit excavation, we also estimated the maximum and median particle sizes encountered. Using the field observations in conjunction with the gradation data, we constructed gradation curves for the three layers encountered in TP-8. These curves are presented in Appendix A along with other laboratory test data. We also performed boulder counts in three test pits to help estimate the relative number of boulders with one-dimension equal to or greater than 2 feet within the volume of soil excavated. This estimate suggests that approximately 10 percent of the deposit is composed of boulders greater than or equal to 2 feet. Eolian Deposits The eolian deposits (Qe) are wind-blown deposits consisting of clay, silt and sand. They are located on top of the oldest glaciofluvial outwash terrace (Qgc) in the eastern part of the Elam parcel (Figure 2). The eolian soils are dry silty clays with medium stiffness and low plasticity. Based on the Unified Soils Classification System, the soils classify as lean clay (CL). These soils were sampled and tested in the laboratory for index and engineering properties to assess the soil’s suitability as dam core material. The samples were collected from a stockpile in the Vagneur Mine and from the in-place deposits at the top of the highwall. The laboratory testing indicates that the soils have more than 80 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) and between 5 and 20 percent sand. A hydrometer test shows that most of the fine material is silt, although there is enough clay to yield Atterberg limits values that classify the soils as lean clay (CL). The Standard Proctor test performed on the eolian clays suggest the optimum moisture content is about 14.5 percent and the maximum dry density is about 113 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These data indicate that the eolian clays would be suitable to use as core materials in a dam, but there is only a limited volume on-site. Mancos Shale The Mancos Shale is a Cretaceous age (± 78 to 112 million years old) rock deposited in a marine environment. In the Woody Creek quadrangle, it is described by Freeman (1972) to be a dark gray silty to sandy shale with frequent zones of concretions and minor bentonite beds. Overall the main body is about 4,750 feet thick and contains interbedded sandstone layers. The shale is known to have a low permeability which provides a satisfactory bottom seal for gravel pit P26 II. - 4 - reservoir construction. The shale is generally moderately strong with unconfined compressive strengths on the order of 7,000 pounds per square inch (psi) reported in the literature. The Mancos Shale was observed in outcrop and in core samples during the site investigations. The rock is dark grey to black, dense, thinly bedded, slickensided, fractured shale with local calc-silica concretions and interbeds. Boring B-102 was the only boring to encounter the Mancos Shale on the WCDC parcel. The rock was very difficult to core due to the frequent fractures and the calc-silica concretions, and 10 feet of poor quality core was retrieved in B-102. A piece of core tested in the laboratory indicates the rock has a specific gravity of 2.73, which is a dry density of 170 pcf (very dense). The Mancos outcrops as a steep slope in the road cut along Upper River Road following the southwest edge of the site (Figure 2). A package of northward dipping sandstone (Kms) beds was observed on the far south end of the site. However, further north along the road cut, the outcrop transitions to a southward dipping package of fractured shale beds with calc-silica concretions and concretionary beds. This structural orientation is the result of a west-to-east plunging syncline (Figure 2). Under the WCDC site, the bedding appears to be fairly uniform striking southwest and dipping 50 ̊ south. The Mancos Shale was also observed in outcrop along the lower highwall of the Vagneur Mine. In this area, groundwater seeps were observed from the glaciofluvial deposits above the outcrop (Figure 2), indicating that the shale has a very low permeability and acts as a groundwater barrier. Paleo Topography Because the shale was not encountered in three of the borings drilled 123 feet deep during geotechnical investigations, the depth of the bedrock beneath the site was evaluated using published geologic logs of State permitted wells in the vicinity. A total of 13 well logs were found in the area that provided an estimate to the top of bedrock. These data, in conjunction with our geologic mapping and interpretation, were used to build a contour map of the bedrock surface. This contour map, along with the pertinent data is presented as Figure 5. The contour map shows a deep paleochannel, or buried valley, of the ancestral Roaring Fork River beneath the site. The presence of the sandstone outcrop at the south end of the site suggests that this more resistant rock formed a knickpoint where the river sharply veered east and down-cut into the shale. Subsequent erosion through the Qgb terrace resulted in the current position of the Roaring Fork River and a ridge of bedrock between it and the paleochannel. This rendition of the bedrock surface at the site is in large part based on a well that was drilled in 1994 and encountered dry Mancos Shale at a depth of 200 feet. The location of this well is based on the permit documents, as well as inspection of 1991 versus 1999 aerial imagery of the site. Using 3D analytical techniques in GIS, a difference model was created between the topography and the bedrock surfaces to show the depth to bedrock contours at the site. This map is presented as Figure 6. P27 II. - 5 - Preliminary Slope Stability Preliminary slope stability analyses were conducted for the site using the geometry based on the bedrock elevation map and the topography. The primary stability analyses were conducted for the steep slopes leading towards the Roaring Fork River. Examples of these slopes are shown on the western edges of the profiles on Figure 3. The glaciofluvial outwash deposits are very strong soil deposits as they are dense, free draining, and made up of about 50 percent cobbles and boulders. We estimate that they have a frictional strength of the order of 50 ̊. They stand on natural slopes of 45 ̊. The Mancos Shale has variable shear strength properties highly dependent on bedding. The steep bedding orientation on-site is generally favorable for the stability of terrace slopes. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the northern one-half of the site is quite stable with the thick glaciofluvial deposits of the middle terrace (Qgb) fully buttressed by the lower terrace (Qgc). This is the case near the community of Woody Creek where very high factors of safety for stability were calculated. In the southern parts of the site, bedrock is higher and the overall terrace slope is higher. Additional investigations should be conducted in this area to verify adequate slope stability exists. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS An ecologist with ERO conducted a natural resources assessment (NRA) at the site during a visit in July 2017. The full report is provided as Appendix B. The assessment did not identify any wetland areas or potential federally threatened and endangered species habitat. However, if any work is planned to pump water directly out of the Roaring Fork River, a Nationwide 404 Permit will need to be acquired from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any construction work in the riparian area. There is a potential for nesting raptors at the site, but initial construction activities can be planned to avoid the nesting season, or a nest survey could be conducted prior to beginning construction. Another issue that could affect open-water reservoir development at the property is the potential to increase the risk of bird/wildlife aircraft strike hazards because the reservoir could attract wildlife, especially flocks of water fowl. The site is situated within five miles of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. According to Section 4 of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Advisory Circular No. 150/5200-33B, (Appendix C of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan), any proposed land-use practice changes within five miles of an airport (aka the “General Zone”) would need to be reviewed by the FAA. As discussed in the NRA, in the context of water storage, mitigation techniques include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Building an in-situ or underground storage vessel. This would eliminate the hazard by eliminating an open water surface that attracts wildlife. P28 II. - 6 - 2. Using a layer of floating bird deterrent balls or other covers. This mitigation is used for open storage vessels, and forms a floating cover on a reservoir that does not attract wildlife. This method also reduces evaporation, but would preclude recreational uses. 3. Implementing a wildlife hazard management plan in coordination with the airport’s plan. 4. Employing wildlife deterrent officers and trained dogs to patrol the reservoir and keep wildlife away. WATER STORAGE ALTERNATIVES The water storage alternative concepts developed include above grade storage (with small dams), below grade storage (all below site ground level) and in-situ storage (storage in voids of the gravel and cobbles). To realize any of these concepts requires a positive water cutoff within the highly permeable glaciofluvial outwash deposits. The positive cutoff methods we considered include deep cutoff walls (such as slurry walls), dams, slope liners, and geosynthetic liners. Cutoff walls, dam cores and slope liner cores require a foundation key into the Mancos Shale. The shale would act as a low permeability barrier and form the bottom of these reservoirs. Construction of deep cutoff walls is considered marginally feasible based on depths to bedrock exceeding 200 feet and the number of nested cobbles and very large boulders. Installation of geosynthetic liners, made of HDPE or PVC, appears to be geotechnically feasible at this site. Geosynthetic liners are versatile. They can form the positive cutoff for a dam slope or a cut slope, and can either be anchored to the shale or installed completely within the outwash where shale is too deep. Once the excavation slope is prepared, a bedding layer of silty sand material is typically placed. The geosynthetic liner is then installed on the bedding and buried by a filter layer of silty sand. The bedding and filter layers act to protect the liner and mitigate seepage in the event the liner is compromised. They also allow riprap to be safely placed on the liner. For the McLain Flats site, we developed four storage alternatives. These alternatives include both the WCDC and Elam parcels. The four alternatives are: 1. Alternative 1 – Three-Phase Reservoir Storage 2. Alternative 2 – Maximum Reservoir Storage 3. Alternative 3 – Two-Phase Reservoir Storage 4. Alternative 4 – Manufactured In-Situ Reservoir Storage We prepared a pre-feasibility level engineer’s opinion of costs for the four alternatives, and these values are itemized on Tables 2 through 5. All alternatives include gravity filling and gravity releasing to the Roaring Fork River. We assumed water delivery could be accomplished using a pipeline from existing ditch structures. We assumed a combined low level outlet pipe and Morning Glory spillway to the Roaring Fork River. Alternative 4 does not require a spillway because it is all in-situ storage, but it would still have the same type of outlet. Additionally, all engineer’s opinions of cost include 30 percent contingency. P29 II. - 7 - To use the Vagneur pit for water storage would require a revision to the mine’s reclamation plan and cessation of placing inert fill in the pit. The first three alternatives also involve some degree of mining at the WCDC parcel. We therefore assumed all excavation costs would be incurred by a miner. Mining the WCDC parcel would require the property to be permitted as a mine, or added to the existing Vagneur Mine permit. Alternative 1 – Three-Phase Reservoir Storage Alternative 1 is a phased project that could realize initial storage at the Vagneur Mine relatively quickly, possibly within a few years. This option also allows time to incorporate the WCDC parcel into the Vagneur mining permit. The layout of this concept is presented on Figure 7, and on the geologic profile on Figure 8. Phase 1 of this concept would be to impound water in the Vagneur gravel pit. Low asphalt cored dams would be constructed on the north and south ends of the vessel. HDPE geosynthetic liners would be installed on the cut slopes between the dams and anchored to the shale. The Mancos Shale appears to be more shallow in this area, which suggests it is feasible to use it as a foundation for the positive cutoff methods. Clay cores could also be built in the dams if enough material is available for borrow from the upper terrace stockpile or in-place eolian deposits. This reservoir would total approximately 1,000 acre-feet of storage. Phases 2 and 3 assume the WCDC parcel can be mined and reclaimed as open water storage. Phase 2 would be on the north end of the site, and include a 20-foot high dam to provide both above grade and below grade storage. The gravel pits would be cut at 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes down to about elevation 7340 feet. The vessels would be completely lined with HDPE geosynthetic liners because the Mancos Shale is so deep. The HDPE liner would be anchored to the dam or to the ground surface at the top of the excavation. Mined material could be stockpiled on the south end of the site so that Phase 2 reservoir construction could continue independent of mining permit approval. The Phase 2 reservoir would realize approximately 700 acre-feet of storage. Once the mining permit is approved, the material stockpiled on the south end of the WCDC parcel could be processed and sold. With two reservoirs on line, construction of the third phase would begin in conjunction with mining operations. The Phase 3 reservoir would be constructed using HDPE geosynthetic liner as the positive cutoff, resulting in an additional 800 acre-feet of fully below grade storage. This project would involve mining approximately 3 million cubic yards of material, or about 4.5 million tons. Currently, most of the sand and gravel used for construction in Aspen is trucked from gravel pits in the Carbondale area. Thus, utilization of this local resource would reduce Aspen’s carbon footprint. National per-capita consumption of sand and gravel can be as high as 10 tons per year. P30 II. - 8 - Alternative 1 would provide a total of 2,500 acre-feet of storage at a cost of approximately $73 million, or about $29,000 per acre-foot of storage (Table 2). The fastest total completion of all three phases would be of the order of a decade. However, the phasing of this alternative provides flexibility for bringing these vessels on line as they are needed. Alternative 2 – Maximum Reservoir Storage Alternative 2 represents the maximum storage vessel that could be realized using both parcels. It is also, therefore, the longest-term solution to water storage. The maximum reservoir includes the construction of a 5,000-foot long dam, with a 60-foot maximum section, around the north side of the Vagneur parcel and along the west side of the WCDC parcel (Figure 9). The positive cutoff would be provided by an HDPE geosynthetic liner. The outwash would be mined at 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes to bedrock. This would result in an excavation of about 11 million cubic yards (16.5 million tons) of gravel and cobbles. A gravity drain would be installed behind the liner on the east side of the reservoir to drain groundwater from behind the liner. The tunneled outlet and spillway would be located on the south end of the reservoir. All utilities, including the high-pressure gas line and multiple overhead electric lines running through each parcel, would have to be relocated. This alternative would provide approximately 8,000 acre- feet of total storage for about $81 million or about $10,000 per acre-foot of storage (Table 3). Alternative 3 – Two-Phase Reservoir Storage Alternative 3 is a variation of Alternative 1 that involves maximizing open water storage on the WCDC parcel with one reservoir, rather than building two smaller vessels (Figure 10). The first phase is the same as for Alternative 1: a 1,000 acre-foot reservoir in the Vagneur pit. The second phase of this alternative would be to build the same low dam as in Phase 2 of Alternative 1, but the excavation would be site-wide instead of leaving material between two cells. The excavation would be cut at 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes down to approximately elevation 7300 feet producing approximately 3.9 million cubic yards (5.9 million tons) of gravel material. This reservoir would provide approximately 2,000 acre-feet of storage on the WCDC parcel compared to 1,500 acre-feet in Alternative 1. The total storage realized for this alternative would therefore be approximately 3,000 acre-feet and would cost approximately $74 million, or nearly $25,000 per acre-foot of storage (Table 4). Alternative 4 – Manufactured In-Situ Reservoir Storage Alternative 4 was developed as an alternative to open water storage. This concept involves manufacturing in-situ storage on the south one-half of the WCDC parcel, while the north one- half is used for material stockpiling and processing (Figure 11). This option essentially represents converting only the Phase 3 vessel of Alternative 1 to in-situ storage. Manufacturing in-situ storage would be accomplished by building the fully below grade geosynthetic lined vessel, then backfilling the reservoir with select large cobbles and boulders and storing water in the voids. To fill the vessel, an infiltration gallery consisting of 15,000 linear feet of 36-inch diameter slotted HDPE pipes bedded in gravel would be built near the P31 II. - 9 - surface. The infiltration gallery would be plumbed to the water supply system and buried up to grade. The outlet works would be tunneled to the Roaring Fork River. The outlet would be connected to a 9-foot diameter concrete collection gallery in the bottom of the reservoir. The gallery would run up one slope to a gate house to control releases. Using select coarse rock as backfill for the vessel would likely allow the manufactured porosity to be of the order of 40 percent. Therefore, such a vessel could provide up to about 320 acre-feet of storage. This alternative would cost approximately $48 million, which would be around $150,000 per acre-foot. This is a very high unit cost for reservoir construction due to the additional handling and processing of the material and the relatively low storage volume it allows. A variation of Alternative 4 could involve constructing two such in-situ vessels to double the storage. Unit costs would remain high for this variation. A further variation could involve a recharge facility on half of the site. In this case, another infiltration gallery could be constructed and used to recharge water to the Roaring Fork River to replace any out-of-priority depletions in lagged time. Having lagged return flow credits accreting to the river from the recharge facility could allow additional flexibility in operating the storage vessel. CONCLUSIONS This reservoir pre-feasibility investigation has resulted in the following conclusions: 1. Open water storage using geosynthetic liners is geotechnically feasible. 2. Slurry wall, or deep cutoff wall construction for in-situ storage, is considered marginally feasible because of the greater than 200-foot bedrock depth and numerous cobbles and boulders. 3. Alternative 1, a three-phase project, could potentially provide 1,000 acre-feet of storage within a few years, and eventually provide up to 2,500 acre feet for about $29,000 per acre-foot. 4. Alternative 2, the maximum storage alternative, could provide 8,000 acre-feet of storage at about $10,000 per acre-foot. 5. Alternative 3, a variation of Alternative 1, would be a two-phase project that could provide about 3,000 acre-feet of storage for roughly $25,000 per acre-foot. 6. Alternative 4, a manufactured in-situ storage vessel, could be constructed to provide approximately 320 acre-feet of storage for a unit cost of up to $150,000 per acre-foot. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this pre-feasibility level investigation and its conclusions, we arrived at the following recommendations: P32 II. - 10 - 1. Pursue the potential for using both parcels for water storage. 2. Conduct feasibility level geotechnical analyses for both parcels. Before pursuing reservoir alternatives, the next steps include: - Drilling two deep rotosonic borings on the WCDC parcel to confirm depth to bedrock - Drilling several borings in the Vagneur gravel pit to assess the foundation conditions - Conduct more detailed slope stability analyses 3. Perform a water resources analysis to better understand how the McLain Flats site can be used to optimize the flexibility of the City’s water rights. 4. Conduct a risk assessment for potential wildlife hazards. LIMITATIONS This pre-feasibility level analysis is considered reasonable, given the data, time and budget available. It was performed using publicly available data and data obtained from field investigations. These data are limited, however, and therefore the results of the analysis must be considered approximate. Should additional data or information become available, D&A can analyze the information and to update the opinions provided in this memorandum. U:\0687 City Of Aspen\0687.003 Gravel Pit Reservoir Pre-Feasibility\Pre-Feasibility Memo\Reservoir Pre-Feasibility.Mem.Docx P33 II. TABLES P34 II. Upper Terrace 1'Qe - Eolian Grab 4.5 0.1 6.3 93.6 34 19 Lean clay (CL) Upper Terrace Stockpile 0'-1'Qe - Eolian Bulk 1.4 18.0 61.2 19.4 80.6 26 11 113.8 14.5 Lean clay with sand (CL) 0'-4'Qgb - Outwash Bulk 4.6 41.2 32.8 26.0 25 8 NA 4'-8.5'Qgb - Outwash Bulk 2.7 54.8 33.7 11.5 NA 12'-14'Qgb - Outwash Bulk 1.1 54.0 41.7 4.3 NA 33'Qgb - Outwash SPT 50.1 43.5 6.4 NA 91'Km - Mancos Shale SPT 10.6 48.4 23 8 NA 91'-101'Km - Mancos Shale NQ Core 56.8 21 7 NA 98'Km - Mancos Shale NQ Core 2.73 NA Road Cut 0'Km - Mancos Shale Bulk 11.8 28.5 59.7 22 4 NA * Table 1 Unit Sample Type Gravel (%) Gradation* Gravel Pit Reservoir Pre-Feasibility Summary Of Laboratory Test Results SAMPLE LOCATION Test Hole Sand (%) Depth (feet) September-2017 Plasticity Index (%) Natural Moisture Content (%) Gradation tests performed on glacial outwash deposits represent the fraction less than 3 inches for bulk samples and less than 1.5 inches for the SPT sample. Bulk samples of outwash had an estimated 50 percent of cobbles and boulders greater than 3 inches. Liquid Limit (%) Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve TP-8 Unified Soil Classification (Symbol) Hydrometer Silt (%) Clay (%) Standard Proctor Max Dry Density (Pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) Specific Gravity Atterberg Limits B-102 Page 1 of 1 P35II. TABLE 2 ENGINEER'S PRE-FEASIBILITY LEVEL OPINION OF COST WOODY CREEK GRAVEL PIT RESERVOIR 2,500 ACRE-FEET Quantity Unit Cost Extension 1 Phase 1 Mobilization (5%)1 LS 1,235,450$ 1,235,450$ 2 Phase 1 Reservoir (1,000 AF) a. Foundation Excavation 130,000 CY 10$ 1,300,000$ b. Foundation Preparation 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ c. Main Dam Rockfill (Zone 4)900,000 CY 6$ 5,400,000$ d. Asphalt Core (Zone 1)20,000 CY 125$ 2,500,000$ e. HDPE Liner 648,000 SF 3$ 1,944,000$ f. Graded Filter Zone & Bedding (Zones 2 & 3)123,000 CY 25$ 3,075,000$ g. Riprap/w Bedding 12,000 CY 45$ 540,000$ h. Concrete HDPE anchor slab 1,000 CY 800$ 800,000$ i. Grouting 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ j. Instrumentation & Electrical 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Subtotal 16,209,000$ 3 Combined Outlet Works & Morning Glory Spillway 1500 LF 3,000$ 4,500,000$ 4 Water Delivery Infrastructure 1 LS 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 5 Phase 2 Mobilization (5%)1 LS 479,700$ 479,700$ 6 Phase 2 Reservoir (700 AF) a. Foundation Preparation 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ b. Main Dam Zone 65,000 CY 6$ 390,000$ c. HDPE Liner 943,000 SF 3$ 2,829,000$ d. Graded Filter Zone & Bedding 140,000 CY 25$ 3,500,000$ e. Riprap 6,000 CY 45$ 270,000$ f. Interconnect Pipeline 1,250 LF 2,000$ 2,500,000$ g. Instrumentation & Electrical 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ Subtotal 9,594,000$ 7 Phase 3 Mobilization (5%)1 LS 412,650$ 412,650$ 8 Phase 3 Reservoir (800 AF) a. Foundation Preparation 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ b. HDPE Liner 991,000 SF 3$ 2,973,000$ c. Graded Filter Zone & Bedding 147,000 CY 25$ 3,675,000$ d. Interconnect Pipeline 750 LF 2,000$ 1,500,000$ e. Instrumentation & Electrical 1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$ Subtotal 8,253,000$ Miscellaneous Unlisted Items @ 5%2,234,190$ Total Construction Items 44,683,800$ Engineering @ 15%6,703,000$ Permitting @ 10%4,468,000$ Subtotal 55,854,800$ Contingency @ 30%16,756,000$ ESTIMATED TOTAL (rounded to nearest $1,000,000)73,000,000$ 29,000$ Note: These costs do not include land acquisition costs or excavation costs. The latter are assumed to be incured by the miner. Construction Item Cost per Acre Foot (rounded to nearest $1,000) ALTERNATIVE 1 - THREE PHASED RESERVOIRS P36 II. TABLE 3 ENGINEER'S PRE-FEASIBILITY LEVEL OPINION OF COST WOODY CREEK GRAVEL PIT RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE 2 - ULTIMATE RESERVOIR 8,000 ACRE-FEET Quantity Unit Cost Extension 1 Mobilization (5%)1 LS 2,267,250$ 2,267,250$ 2 Dam Embankments a. Foundation Preparation 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ b. Main Dam Zone 1,070,000 CY 6$ 6,420,000$ c. HDPE Liner 4,530,000 SF 3$ 13,590,000$ d. Graded Filter Zone & Bedding 671,000 CY 25$ 16,775,000$ e. Riprap 25,000 CY 45$ 1,125,000$ f. Gravity Drain 2,600 LF 100$ 260,000$ g. Instrumentation & Electrical 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Subtotal 38,345,000$ 3 Combined Outlet Works & Morning Glory Spillway 1000 LF 3,000$ 3,000,000$ 4 Water Delivery Infrastructure 1 LS 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ Miscellaneous Unlisted Items @ 5%2,380,613$ Total Construction Items 49,992,863$ Engineering @ 15%7,499,000$ Permitting @ 10%4,999,000$ Subtotal 62,490,863$ Contingency @ 30%18,747,000$ ESTIMATED TOTAL (rounded to nearest $1,000,000)81,000,000$ 10,000$ Note: These costs do not include land acquisition costs or excavation costs. The latter are assumed to be incured by the miner. Construction Item Cost per Acre Foot (rounded to nearest $1,000) P37 II. TABLE 4 ENGINEER'S PRE-FEASIBILITY LEVEL OPINION OF COST WOODY CREEK GRAVEL PIT RESERVOIR 3,000 ACRE-FEET Quantity Unit Cost Extension 1 Phase 1 Mobilization (5%)1 LS 1,235,450$ 1,235,450$ 2 Phase 1 Reservoir (1,000 AF) a. Foundation Excavation 130,000 CY 10$ 1,300,000$ b. Foundation Preparation 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ c. Main Dam Rockfill (Zone 4)900,000 CY 6$ 5,400,000$ d. Asphalt Core (Zone 1)20,000 CY 125$ 2,500,000$ e. HDPE Liner 648,000 SF 3$ 1,944,000$ f. Graded Filter Zone & Bedding (Zones 2 & 3)123,000 CY 25$ 3,075,000$ g. Riprap/w Bedding 12,000 CY 45$ 540,000$ h. Concrete HDPE anchor slab 1,000 CY 800$ 800,000$ i. Grouting 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ j. Instrumentation & Electrical 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Subtotal 16,209,000$ 3 Combined Outlet Works & Morning Glory Spillway 1500 LF 3,000$ 4,500,000$ 4 Water Delivery Infrastructure 1 LS 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 5 Phase 2 Mobilization (5%)1 LS 923,090$ 923,090$ 6 Phase 2 Reservoir (2,000 AF) a. Foundation Preparation 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ b. Main Dam Zone 64,800 CY 6$ 388,800$ c. HDPE Liner 1,962,000 SF 3$ 5,886,000$ d. Graded Filter Zone & Bedding 290,700 CY 25$ 7,267,500$ e. Riprap 29,100 CY 45$ 1,309,500$ f. Gravity Drain 2,600 LF 100$ 260,000$ g. Interconnect Pipeline 1,600 LF 2,000$ 3,200,000$ h. Instrumentation & Electrical 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ Subtotal 18,461,800$ Miscellaneous Unlisted Items @ 5%2,266,467$ Total Construction Items 45,329,340$ Engineering @ 15%6,799,000$ Permitting @ 10%4,533,000$ Subtotal 56,661,340$ Contingency @ 30%16,998,000$ ESTIMATED TOTAL (rounded to nearest $1,000,000)74,000,000$ 25,000$ Note: These costs do not include land acquisition costs or excavation costs. The latter are assumed to be incured by the miner. ALTERNATIVE 3 - TWO PHASED RESERVOIRS Construction Item Cost per Acre Foot (rounded to nearest $1,000) P38 II. TABLE 5 ENGINEER'S PRE-FEASIBILITY LEVEL OPINION OF COST WOODY CREEK GRAVEL PIT RESERVOIR 320 ACRE-FEET Quantity Unit Cost Extension 1 Mobilization (5%)1 LS 1,494,580$ 1,494,580$ 2 Manufactured In-Situ Reservoir (400 AF) a. Excavation, processing, stockpiling and backfilling 1,290,400 CY 9$ 11,613,600$ b. Foundation Preparation 1 LS 75,000$ 75,000$ c. HDPE Liner 991,000 SF 3$ 2,973,000$ d. Graded Filter Zone & Bedding 146,800 CY 25$ 3,670,000$ e. Infiltration Piping (36" slotted HDPE)15,000 LF 180$ 2,700,000$ f. Gravity Drain 2,600 LF 100$ 260,000$ g. Concrete Collection Gallery (9' dia.)750 LF 2,000$ 1,500,000$ h. Combined Outlet Works & Morning Glory Spillway 1000 LF 3,000$ 3,000,000$ i. Instrumentation & Electrical 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Subtotal 25,891,600$ 3 Water Delivery Infrastructure 1 LS 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ Miscellaneous Unlisted Items @ 5%1,569,309$ Total Construction Items 31,386,180$ Engineering @ 15%4,708,000$ Permitting @ 3%942,000$ Subtotal 37,036,180$ Contingency @ 30%11,111,000$ ESTIMATED TOTAL (rounded to nearest $1,000,000)48,000,000$ 150,000$ Note: These costs do not include land acquisition costs. ALTERNATIVE 4 - MANUFACTURED IN-SITU RESERVOIR Construction Item Cost per Acre Foot (rounded to nearest $1,000) P39 II. FIGURES P40 II. M C L A IN F L A T S M C L A IN F L A T S Woody Creek Development Co.(WCDC Parcel)55.7 Acres Elam Construction(Vagneur Gravel Mine)104.4 Acres W O O D Y C R E E KWOODY C R E E K U pper R iver R oadH ig h w a y 8 2 1.9 Acres A s p e n (~6 m ile s )G le n w o o d S p rin g s (~3 5 m ile s )21 16 22 15 16 9 15 10 Woody CreekRoaringForkR i v e r BrushCreek Salvation Ca n al Salv ation Canal Legend State Highway 82 Streams Salvation Canal McLain Flats Reservoir Parcels Section Lines ¥0 800 1,600Feet MCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECT FIGURE NO.1 DATE:SCALE: Site Location Map 1 inch=800 feetSEPTEMBER 2017 JOB NO. 0687.003.00 U:\0687 City of Aspen\0687.003 Gravel Pit Reservoir Pre-Feasibility\GIS\Figure 1 - Site Location Map.mxd Thursday, September 28, 2017 09:39 AMTownship 9 South, Range 85 West (6th P.M.)Parcel Data from Pitkin CountyAerial Photo from NAIP (2015) C o l o r a d o I n d e x M a pColorado I n d e x M a p Woody CreekPitkin County, COWater Division 5Colorado RiverP41II. MoooÂÂÂÂÂo")")")")")!A!A!A!AEERoaring Fork RiverUpper River Road W O O D Y C R E E KWOODY C R E E K U pper R iver R oadR io G rande TrailH ig h w a y 8 2 M C LA IN FLA TS M C LA IN FLA TS Q g bQgb Woody CreekPROFILE APROFI LE BQ g bQgb Q g aQga Q a lQal Q g cQgc Q g bQgb Q eQe Q g aQga Q a lQal Q a lQal Q a lQal Q fQf Q fQf K mKm Q fQf Q g cQgc Q g aQga Q fQf Q eQe Q eQe Q g aQga Q g bQgbKmKm Q a lQal K m sKms K mKm 7340 7350736073707 3 8 0 73907 4 0 0 7 4 1 0 7 4 2 0743074407450 7460 7 4 7 07480 7 4 9 07500 7 5 1 0 7 5 2 0 7 5 3 0 7 5 4 0 75507560 7 3 3 0 7570 7 5 8 0 732073107 5 9 0 73007600 7290 7 6 10 7620 7 2 80 7630 7640 73807 4 3 0 7480 7350 73707480754074107 4107360 7520737074207590 7 4 7 0 7450732073707340 7 3 5 0 743075007410 74707420742073207400740075007 4 2 0 7 4 1 07410745074907310 7480 7 4 6 0 750075307380748074807 4 2 0 7390 739074407 3 3 0 7 4 1 07470 7 3 7 0 75007380 7 4 8 0 73707350 7 4 5 0 7360 7400 73607490 74507 4 2 0 74607480746074907490 74807310 742074907 3 4 0 7 4 4 0 75107 3 7 07450 7360748073107390 752073207380 74907430 747073707490 7520 7480 74307450 7570 74107480 7 5 0 0 7 4 3 0 733074807370734073207410 74307 4 2 0735073607340 74407480748075307340738073907 3 5 0 7 3 6 0 74307340735075007400743074907500 65 27 81 6862 58 5147 27 TP-8 TP-7 TP-6 TP-1 Seeps B-101(O) B-103(O) B-104(O) B-102(O, C, P) Km Roadcut Sample Upper TerraceQe Sample Upper Terrace StockpileQe Sample MCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECT FIGURE NO.2 DATE:SCALE: Geologic Map 1 inch=400 feetSEPTEMBER 2017 JOB NO. 0687.003.00 U:\0687 City of Aspen\0687.003 Gravel Pit Reservoir Pre-Feasibility\GIS\Figure 2 - Gelogic Map.mxd Thursday, September 28, 2017 09:37 AMLegend Geotechnical Site Investigations !A Borings (O = Odex, C = Core, P = Piezometer) ")Test Pits Other Sample Locations EGroundwater Seeps oStrike and Dip of Bedding ÂStrike and Dip of Joint M Approximate Syncline Axis Arrow indicates direction of plunge Geology (Contacts Approximate) Qal - Alluvial Deposits Qf - Fan Deposits Qe - Eolian Deposits Qga - Glacial Outwash Terrace A Qgb - Glacial Outwash Terrace B Qgc - Glacial Outwash Terrace C Km - Mancos Shale Kms - Mancos Sandstone Water¥0 400 800Feet Geologic Profiles are shown on Figure 3.Geology after Freeman, 1972LiDAR Topography from Pitkin County (2016), C.I. = 2'P42II. ELEVATION (FT) ELEVATION (FT)STATION (FT)720073007400750072007300740075000+002+004+006+008+0010+0012+0014+0016+0018+0020+0022+00MANCOS SHALEUPPER RIVERROADAPPROXBEDROCKSURFACEROARINGFORK RIVEREXISTINGGROUNDOUTWASH DEPOSITSQgbQalWESTEASTAPPROX GROUNDWATERSURFACEELEVATION (FT) ELEVATION (FT)STATION (FT)Terraces PROFILE71007200730074007500760077007800710072007300740075007600770078000+002+004+006+008+0010+0012+0014+0016+0018+0020+0022+0024+0026+0028+0029+43EXISTINGGROUNDB-102EL=7423.0(OFFSET 0.7)ROARING FORKRIVERELAM PROPERTYWCDC PROPERTYELAM PROPERTYPITKINCOUNTYPROPERTYWCDCPROPERTYPRIVATEPROPERTYBEND IN SECTION MANCOS SHALEQgaQalQgbQgcWESTEASTAPPROX BEDROCKSURFACEAPPROX GROUNDWATERSURFACEQeDATE:SCALE:FIGURE NO.AS NOTEDMCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECTGEOLOGIC PROFILES A AND B3JOB NO. 0687.003.00SEPTEMBER 2017100 0200 SCALE IN FEETGEOLOGIC PROFILEB100 0200 SCALE IN FEETGEOLOGIC PROFILEAP43II. 74107420743074007390732073807370735073407330ELEVATION (FT)7360BH-102101'BH-104BH-101123'BH-103123'===EL=7430N:1526448E:2608447EL=7454N:1525112E:2608490EL=7470.3N:1524099E:2608400EL=7455.5N:1524846E:26079537470744074507460907/25/177/28/17663DRY 7/27/17123'4DRY 7/28/17273453591071156575805101550/3"30/0"50/4"50/7"50/2"50/3"100/014/073/0100/074/05101551015510151411141010101210101074107420743074007390732073807370735073407330ELEVATION (FT)7360DRY7470744074507460-20056.8LL21PI72====-20048.4LL23PI8MC10.6SpG = 2.73===-2006.4G50.1S43.57/28/172NESTEDWELLDETAILGROUNDWATER LEVER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLINGAPPROXIMATE DEPTH OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT7/28/176350/7"STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BLOW COUNT. NUMBER("N" VALUE) INDICATES THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF A 140LB. HAMMER FREE FALLING 30 INCHES REQUIRED TODRIVE THE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER 1 FOOT OR THEINDICATED INTERVAL.101'DEPTH OF BORING OR TEST PIT (FT)SUMMARY LOGS LEGEND:1.EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED BETWEEN JULY 24 AND JULY 28, 2017 USING A TRACK-MOUNTED CME 850DRILL RIG. BORINGS WERE DRILLED WITH ODEX AND NQ CORING TECHNIQUES.2.EXPLORATORY TEST PITS WERE EXCAVATED JULY 25, 2017 USING A LINK BELT 225 TRACK MOUNTED EXCAVATOR.TEST PITS 3, 4, AND 5 INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.3.LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS REPRESENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN TYPES AND TRANSITIONS MAY BEGRADUAL.4.GROUNDWATER LEVELS WERE MEASURED AT THE TIME OF DRILLING OR DATE INDICATED. GROUNDWATER LEVELSMAY FLUCTUATE SEASONALLY.5.ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A 2016 LIDAR SURVEY FROM PITKIN COUNTY, RELATIVE TO THE NAVD88 VERTICALDATUM.6.COORDINATES ARE RELATIVE TO THE NAD 83 HORIZONTAL DATUM PROJECTED IN THE COLORADO STATE PLANECENTRAL ZONE COORDINATE SYSTEM, UNITS IN FEET.7.LAB TESTING: MC=% MOISTURE CONTENT G=% GRAVEL BY WEIGHTS=% SAND BY WEIGHT-200=% BY WEIGHT PASSING THE #200 SIEVE (FINES) SILT=%SILT CLAY=%CLAYLL=LIQUID LIMITPI=PLASTICITY INDEX MDD=MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) OMC=OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) SpG=SPECIFIC GRAVITY8.TWO ONE-INCH PVC OPEN STANDPIPE PIEZOMETERS ARE NESTED IN BORING B-102. THE WELLS WERE COMPLETEDUSING 10-SLOT SCREEN, 10/20 FILTER SAND AND TIME-RELEASE BENTONITE SEALS. THE SURFACE COMPLETIONCONSISTS OF A LOCKING 4-INCH STICK-UP STEEL WELL BOX IN A CONCRETE PAD.NOTES:105TP-1814'TP-28.515'TP-61115'TP-7715'DEPTH (FT)EL=7470.0N:1524122E:2608404EL=7455.6N:1524841E:2607954EL=7457.8N:1525069E:2608485EL=7448.4N:1525473E:260876902015TP-8415'8.5EL=7437.5N:1526068E:260853842461425SAND & GRAVEL: COBBLEY, TRACE SILT , LOCAL BOULDERS, WELL GRADED, COARSEGRAINED SAND, DENSE TO VERY DENSE, DRY TO SLIGHTLY MOIST, RED BROWN TOGRAY.CLAY, SILTY, MEDIUM, DRY, RED-BROWN, LOW TO MODERATE PLASTICITY, LOCALROOTS PRESENT (CL).COBBLES, GRAVELLY TO BOULDERY WITH SAND AND LOCAL SILT, VERY DENSE, DRYTO WET, WHITE, GRAY, PINK-BROWN, LOCALLY CONTAINS BOULDERS UP TO 6'-7'DIAMETER, CALCAREOUS, LOCAL CALICHE RINDS & CEMENT. RED SANDSTONE ANDLIGHT GRAY GRANITE ARE MOST COMMON COBBLES.SHALE: HARD (SOILS), MODERATELY STRONG, MOIST TO WET, DARK GRAY TO BLACK,FRACTURED, LOW TO MODERATELY PLASTIC, VERY THINLY BEDDED, SLIGHTLYWEATHERED TO FRESH NEAR BEDROCK/SAND AND GRAVEL CONTACT, LOCALLYCONTAINS CALC-SILICA CONCRETIONS AND LENSES. BEDDING DIPS 45° TO 55° TO THESOUTH.7/28/17GROUNDWATER LEVER MEASURED ON DATE INDICATED5101510ODEX DRILLING RATE IN MINUTES PER 5 FOOT RUN.RUNS OF 10 MINUTES OR LONGER ARE NOTED.100/014/073/0100/074/0CORE INTERVAL SHOWING RECOVERY (%) AND RQD (%) ROCKQUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD) IS THE RATIO (%) OF THECUMULATIVE LENGTH OF THE SOLID ROCK CORE = 4 INCHESTO LENGTH OF THE CORE RUN.105DEPTH (FT)02015105UPPER TERRACE10'STOCKPILE8'DEPTH (FT)EL=7545.0N:1526528E:2609578EL=7442N:1526728E:2609004020153105DEPTH (FT)02015ROAD CUT12'EL=7370N:1524475E:26076667UPPER TERRACEGRAVEL, SANDY, SILTY, COBBLY , WITH BOULDERS UP TO 5' IN DIAMETER, DRY,BROWN TO RED BROWN, LOW PLASTICITY, LOCAL ROOTS PRESENT.DRYDRYDRY===-20093.6G0.1S6.3=MC4.5=LL34=PI19===-20080.6G1.4S18=LL26=PI11=MDD113.8=OMC14.5=SILT61.2=CLAY19.4===-20059.7G11.8S28.5=LL22=PI4===-2004.3G54.0S41.7=MC1.1===-20011.5G54.8S33.7=MC2.7===-20026G41.2S32.8=MC4.6EOLIAN DEPOSITS:GLACIOFLUVIAL OUTWASH DEPOSITS:MANCOS SHALE:==PI8LL25INTERVAL SEALEDWITH BENTONITEMONITORING WELLSCREENED INTERVALBORING LOGS10 SCALE IN FEET020 TEST PIT LOGS5 SCALE IN FEET010 DATE:SCALE:FIGURE NO.AS NOTEDMCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECTSUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS & TEST PITS4JOB NO. 0687.003.00SEPTEMBER 2017WELLDETAILP44II. !A!A!A!ARoaring Fork RiverU pper R iver R oadR io G rande TrailW O O D Y C R E E KWOODY C R E E K H ig h w a y 8 2 Roaring Fork Roaring Fork PaleochannelPaleochannelWoody Creek7360 7380 7320 730072807400 72607420 7240722073407200744073407340 7340735073707 3 8 0 7360 7 3 9 0 7 4 0 0 7 4 1 0 742074307 4 4 0 7 4 5 0 7 4 6 0 7 4 7 0 7 4 8 0 7 4 9 07500 7 5 1 0 7 5 2 0 75307 5 4 0 73307 5 5 0 73207 5 6 0 7310 7 5 7 0 73007 5 8 0 7 5 9 0 7290 7 6 0 0 7280 7 6 1 07 6 2 0 7270 748073807 4 0 0 741073807380 74007310 7 4 7 07490 7 4 8 0 74207430 74 2 0 7 3 5 0 7310 74507 3 9 0 73707 4 2 0 7280 73007410 74307470748073807500748074207360 7 4 1 0 7570 74807390750073 30750073407470 7390 7480 7 5 3 0 73607 4 3 0 7 4 6 0 75207380732074007390 7 4 9 0 74507 4 3 0 73407460740074107400 7440740074 50742074607420751074807 4 9 0 7410732074807 3 5 0 7300742074907 3 7 0 74407 4 2 0 73407490745073707370738074807 3 0 0 754073107440 7 3 6 0 73507 3 3 0 74307 3 8 0 750074207490 7370733074807 3 5 0 74407 4 5 0 7 4 8 0 7520 731073207480 7 3 7 0 7270 7 4 3 07430 742073507 4 1 0 7 3 5 07370 73607 4 6 0 72807480 74807360 7360 73907480 7 3 7 0 7 4 3 0 7 34 07 4 2 07350 7450 7400 737075007340 7362 7366 736773697369 7374 7345 7279 7338 7323 7353 7249 72517429 7282 7412 B-101(O) B-103(O) B-104(O) B-102(O, C, P) MCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECT FIGURE NO.5 DATE:SCALE: Bedrock Contour Map 1 inch=400 feetSEPTEMBER 2017 JOB NO. 0687.003.00 U:\0687 City of Aspen\0687.003 Gravel Pit Reservoir Pre-Feasibility\GIS\Figure 5 - Bedrock Contour Map.mxd Thursday, September 28, 2017 09:36 AMLegend 2017 Geotechnical Borings !A Borings (O = Odex, C = Core, P = Piezometer) Bedrock Elevation Data (Approximate) Bedrock Elevation Contours (C.I. = 20 feet) Approximate Outcrop Location Inferred Location Bedrock ElevationHigh : 7440 Low : 7200¥0 400 800Feet Aerial Imagery from Pitkin County (2014)LiDAR Topography from Pitkin County (2016), C.I. = 10'P45II. !A!A!A!ARoaring Fork RiverU p per R iver R oadR io G rande TrailW O O D Y C R E E KWOODY C R E E K H ig h w a y 8 2 Roaring Fork Roaring Fork PaleochannelPaleochannelWoody Creek806 0 1 0 040 12014016020 1 8 0 2000 0 4 040 16 0 4 0 20 1 2 0 1206 0 14020 4 0 1 2 0 601001 2 0 8 0 100060 201 0 0 8020 1 4 00 600201 2 0 100160 120 12060100140140201401 4 0 40 140806 0 14080120140002 0 1401401600 10080208 0 40 040100180 40 1201401001 2 0 80120 1 2 0 201 0 0 40 40120160100401206 0 1602000 00 00 0 90 30 28 39 82 61 41 28 40 200 117 B-101(O) B-103(O) B-104(O) B-102(O, C, P) MCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECT FIGURE NO.6 DATE:SCALE: Bedrock Depth Isopach Map 1 inch=400 feetSEPTEMBER 2017 JOB NO. 0687.003.00 U:\0687 City of Aspen\0687.003 Gravel Pit Reservoir Pre-Feasibility\GIS\Figure 6 - Bedrock Depth Isopach Map.mxd Thursday, September 28, 2017 09:37 AMLegend 2017 Geotechnical Borings !A Borings (O = Odex, C = Core, P = Piezometer) Bedrock Depth Data (Approximate) Depth to Bedrock Isopachs (feet) Bedrock Depth (feet)High : 224 Low : 0¥0 400 800Feet Aerial Imagery from Pitkin County (2014)LiDAR Topography from Pitkin County (2016), C.I. = 10'P46II. B-101B-102B-103B-104TP-1TP-2TP-6TP-7TP-80SCALE IN FEET300150NWL=7452NWL=7444NWL=7431ROARINGFORKRIVER WOODY CREEKUPPER RIVER ROADRIO GRANDE TRAILVAGNEURGRAVELMINEASPHALTCORE DAMPHASE 11,000 afPHASE 2700 afPHASE 3800 afWOODY CREEKPROPERTYLINESDAMASPHALTCORE DAMTUNNELED OUTLET &SPILLWAY TO ROARINGFORK RIVER25201510507460732073407360738074007420744001002003004005006007008009001,0001,10074607320734073607380740074207440AREA (AC)CAPACITY (AF)ELEVATION (FT) ELEVATION (FT)PH1 AREA (AC)PH1 CAPACITY (AF)PH2 CAP (AF)PH3 CAP (AF)PH2 AREA (AC)PH3 AREA (AC)HWL=7431HWL=7444HWL=7452UPPER R I V E R R O A D DATE:SCALE:FIGURE NO.AS NOTEDMCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECTALTERNATIVE 1 - THREE-PHASE RESERVOIR STORAGE7JOB NO. 0687.003.00SEPTEMBER 2017L I T T L E T E X A SNOTES:OVERHEAD ELECTRICHIGH PRESSURE GAS LINEFIBER OPTIC CABLECINTERCONNECTPIPELINEINTERCONNECTPIPELINEP47II. ELEVATION (FT) ELEVATION (FT)STATION (FT)7200730074007500760077007200730074007500760077000+005+0010+0015+0020+0025+0030+0035+0040+0045+0050+0052+00HDPE LINEREXISTINGGROUNDSOUTHNORTHAPPROXBEDROCKSURFACEMANCOS SHALEOUTWASH DEPOSITSEL=7435ASPHALTCORE DAMB-104EL=7449.0(OFFSET 19.5)B-101EL=7465.0(OFFSET 156.5)B-102EL=7423.0(OFFSET 264.1)EL=7448PHASE 2NWL=7444PHASE 3NWL=7452VAGNEUR MINEPHASE 1NWL=7431EL=7435UPPERRIVERROADBEND IN SECTION BEND IN SECTIONINTERCONNECT PIPELINESAPPROX GROUNDWATER SURFACEHDPEGEOSYNTHETICLINERFILTER / BEDDINGZONES312'2'OUTWASH DEPOSITSNWL=74313131ZONE 3COARSE TRANSITIONCREST EL=743518" RIPRAPZONE 2FINE TRANSITIONZONE 4ROCKFILLZONE 13' WIDEASPHALTCORESHALE BEDROCKZONE 402001005 010 SCALE IN FEETGEOSYNTHETIC LINER DETAILNTSPHASE 1 ASPHALT CORE DAM TYPICAL DETAIL0400200Vertical Scale (Feet)Horizontal Scale (Feet)GEOLOGIC PROFILEDATE:SCALE:FIGURE NO.AS NOTEDMCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECTALTERNATIVE 1 PROFILE & DETAILS8JOB NO. 0687.003.00SEPTEMBER 2017CP48II. B-101TP-1B-102B-103B-104TP-2TP-6TP-7TP-80SCALE IN FEET300150NWL=7451FILL WITHDIKEROARINGFORKRIVER WOODY CREEKUPPER RIVER ROADRIO GRANDE TRAILTUNNELED OUTLET &SPILLWAY TOROARING FORK RIVERPROPERTYLINESAREACAPACITY HWL=7451010002000300040005000600070008000CAPACITY (AF)90000102030405060708090100AREA (AC)7250ELEVATION (FT)73007350740074507250ELEVATION (FT)7300735074007450UPPER RIV E R R O A D L I T T L E T E X A S DATE:SCALE:FIGURE NO.AS NOTEDMCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECTALTERNATIVE 2 - MAXIMUM RESERVOIR STORAGE9JOB NO. 0687.003.00SEPTEMBER 2017MAXIMUM RESERVOIR8,000 afNOTES:OVERHEAD ELECTRICHIGH PRESSURE GAS LINEFIBER OPTIC CABLEDAMP49II. B-102B-103B-104TP-2TP-6TP-7TP-8B-101TP-10SCALE IN FEET300150NWL=7444NWL=7431ROARINGFORKRIVER WOODY CREEKUPPER RIVER ROADRIO GRANDE TRAILVAGNEURGRAVELMINEPHASE 11,000 afPHASE 22,000 afWOODYCREE KASPHALTCORE DAMPROPERTYLINESASPHALTCORE DAMTUNNELED OUTLET &SPILLWAY TO ROARINGFORK RIVER72500ELEVATION (FT)0AREA (AC)500100015002000250073007350740074507250ELEVATION (FT)73007350740074501020304050HWL=7444CAPACITYAREACAPACITY (AF)PHASE 1 CAPACITY CURVESSHOWN ON FIGURE 6.NOTES:OVERHEAD ELECTRICHIGH PRESSURE GAS LINEFIBER OPTIC CABLEDATE:SCALE:FIGURE NO.AS NOTEDMCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECTALTERNATIVE 3 - TWO-PHASE RESERVOIR STORAGE10JOB NO. 0687.003.00SEPTEMBER 2017UPPER RIVE R R O A D L I T T L E T E X A SINTERCONNECTPIPILINE DAMP50II. B-101B-102B-103B-104TP-1TP-2TP-6TP-7TP-8ELEVATION (FT) ELEVATION (FT)STATION (FT)720073007400750072007300740075000+002+004+006+008+0010+0012+0014+0016+0018+0020+0022+00MANCOS SHALEUPPER RIVERROAD9'Ø CONCRETECOLLECTIONGALLERYWESTEASTEXISTINGGROUNDNWL=745236"Ø INFILTRATIONGALLERY (TYP)GATEHOUSEAPPROXBEDROCKSURFACEHDPE LINER31ROARINGFORK RIVERBACKFILLTO GRADETUNNELEDOUTLETOUTWASH DEPOSITSQalAPPROX GW LEVEL0SCALE IN FEET300150NWL=7452ROARINGFORKRIVER UPPER RIVER ROADRIO GRANDE TRAILVAGNEURGRAVELMINEWOODY CREEKPROPERTYLINESTUNNELED OUTLET TOROARING FORK RIVERUPPER RIVER ROADDATE:SCALE:FIGURE NO.AS NOTEDMCLAIN FLATS STORAGE PROJECTALTERNATIVE 4MANUFACTURED IN-SITU RESERVOIR STORAGE11JOB NO. 0687.003.00SEPTEMBER 2017L I T T L E T E X A S NOTES:OVERHEAD ELECTRICHIGH PRESSURE GAS LINEFIBER OPTIC CABLE100 0200 SCALE IN FEETGEOLOGIC PROFILEMATERIALPROCESSINGANDSTOCKPILEAREABBGATEHOUSEP51II. APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS P52 II. TP-8, 0'-4' TP-8, 4'-8.5' TP-8, 12'-14' Estimated Gradation for the Glaciofluvial Outwash Deposits P53II. P54 II. P55 II. P56 II. P57 II. P58 II. P59 II. P60 II. P61 II. APPENDIX B NATURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT P62 II. Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado Prepared for— Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc. 600 South Airport Road, Suite A-205 Longmont, Colorado 80503 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 ERO Project #6941 September 26, 2017 Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho www.eroresources.com P63 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ii Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Project Area Description ........................................................................................................ 1 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................................ 4 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Site Conditions and Regulations ...................................................................................................... 5 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species .................................................................... 5 Colorado River Endangered Fish Species ......................................................................................... 7 Other Species of Concern ....................................................................................................... 8 Raptors and Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................ 8 Other Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 9 Bird/wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard ........................................................................................ 9 Potential Regulatory Reviews ........................................................................................................ 11 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 12 References ........................................................................................................................... 12 Tables Table 1. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in Pitkin County or potentially affected by projects in Pitkin County. .......................................... 6 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Wildlife Zones and Attractions ........................................................................................ 10 Appendix Appendix A Photo Log P64 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 ii ERO Resources Corporation Executive Summary Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc. (D&A) retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide a natural resources assessment for the Proposed Reservoir site in Pitkin County, Colorado (project area; Figure 1). The project area is on a terrace above the Roaring Fork River and the small community of Woody Creek. The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of natural resources that would present a possible fatal flaw that would jeopardize the proposed project. ERO assessed the project area for potential wetlands and waters of the U.S., threatened and endangered species, and general wildlife use. Below is a summary of the resources found at the project area and recommendations or future actions necessary based on the current site conditions and federal, state, and local regulations. The natural resources and associated regulations described in this report are valid as of the date of this report and may be relied upon for the specific use for which it was prepared by ERO under contract to D&A. Because of their dynamic nature, site conditions and regulations should be reconfirmed by a qualified consultant before relying on this report for a use other than that for which ERO was contracted and if a significant amount of time has passed between the date of this report and project activities. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. – No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. occur within the project area. If activities are limited to the project area and no other wetlands or waters of the U.S. would be directly affected by the proposed project, no action is necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act. Threatened and Endangered Species – The project area does not contain habitat for any federally listed threatened or endangered species, although if depletions (changes in the volume and timing of flow) to streams within the Colorado River basin would occur, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required to determine impacts on four Colorado River endangered fish species. Migratory Birds – The sagebrush shrubland within the project area is nesting habitat for several species of migratory birds. No bird nests were observed during the 2017 site visit; however, an extensive nest survey was not conducted. ERO recommends removing vegetation outside of the active breeding season. If the project schedule does not allow for vegetation to be removed outside of the breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted within one week of activities that would disturb vegetation to ensure that no active nests are destroyed or nesting birds are harmed by project activities. Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard – The project area is within the General Zone (5-mile buffer) around the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. Because the proposed reservoir could be an attractant to wildlife, especially water fowl, the Federal Aviation Administration would likely review the project and may have some concerns. Mitigation options may be available. Additional analysis may be needed to model the direct and indirect effects of the proposed reservoir on bird concentrations and to determine possible movements based on other attractants. Because Pitkin County 1041 approval may be needed, coordination with the county is recommended early in the process to determine the airport’s concerns and recommendations. Conclusion – Compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act would not present a fatal flaw that would jeopardize the project. The proximity of the project area to the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport would present some challenges and would require coordination with Pitkin County and the airport’s Wildlife Coordinator to determine the concerns and potential mitigation strategies. P65 II. ERO Project #6941 1 ERO Resources Corporation Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado September 26, 2017 Introduction Deere & Ault Consultants, Inc. (D&A) retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide a natural resources assessment for the Proposed Reservoir site in Pitkin County, Colorado (project area; Figure 1). The proposed reservoir would be to the east of the Roaring Fork River near the small community of Woody Creek. The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of natural resource issues that may be considered fatal flaws by regulatory agencies and that would jeopardize the proposed reservoir project. On July 20, 2017, Leigh Rouse, an ecologist with ERO, assessed the project area for natural resources (2017 site visit). During this assessment, activities included a review of potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (streams, ponds, lakes, and some ditches); identification of potential federally threatened and endangered species habitat; and identification of other natural resources in the project area. This report provides information on existing site conditions and resources, as well as current regulatory guidelines related to those resources. ERO assumes the landowner would be responsible for obtaining all federal, state, and local permits for construction of the project. The natural resources and associated regulations described in this report are valid as of the date of this report and may be relied upon for the specific use for which it was prepared by ERO under contract to D&A. Because of their dynamic nature, site conditions and regulations should be reconfirmed by a qualified consultant before relying on this report for a use other than that for which ERO was contracted or if a significant amount of time has passed between the date of this report and project activities. Project Area Description The project area is in Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Pitkin County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates for the approximate center of the project area are 337539mE, 4348130mN, Zone 13 North. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 106.883213°W/39.267297°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 7,445 feet above sea level. Photos of the project area are in Appendix A. The project area is east of Woody Creek, a small community within the Roaring Fork Valley, and sits on a terrace above the Roaring Fork River, a perennial tributary to the Colorado River. State Highway 82 generally parallels the west side of the Roaring Fork River while the Upper River Road occurs between the river and the project area (Figure 2). Raceway Road creates the southeast boundary of the site and P66 II. Project Area Prepared for: Deere & Ault File: 6941 Figure 1.mxd (GS) September 26, 2017 ± Figure 1 Vicinity Map Proposed Reservoir Site Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2016 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 1,500750Feet LocationPath: P:\6900 Projects\6941 Buckeye Reservoir\Maps\6941 Figure 1.mxdSection 16, T9S, R85W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 337539mE, 4348130mN Longitude 106.883213°W, Latitude 39.267297°N USGS Woody Creek, CO Quadrangle Pitkin County, Colorado P67 II. Upper Ri ver Roa d Hi ghway82R o arin g F ork R i v e r RacewayRoadWestLo w er B ellwinkleRoad Rio G ra n d e Trail 1.9-acre Parcel 55.7-acre Parcel Gravel Mine RaceTrack Prepared for: Deere & Ault File: 6941 Figure 2.mxd (GS) September 26, 2017 ± Figure 2 Existing Conditions Proposed Reservoir Site 0 500250FeetPath: P:\6900 Projects\6941 Buckeye Reservoir\Maps\6941 Figure 2.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, April 2015 Project Area Boundary P68 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 4 ERO Resources Corporation provides access to a racetrack and shooting range east of the project area. A gravel mine is northeast of the project area. The main 55.7-acre parcel is on the upper terrace (Photo 1) and a secondary 1.9-acre parcel is on a steep bank that slopes toward the Woody Creek community, northwest of the project area (Photo 2). On the west side of the project area, two trails parallel the project area – the Rio Grande Trail is paved and the smaller trail east of the Rio Grande Trail is crusher fines. Powerlines cut through the western part of the project area (Photo 3). Occasionally, large boulders occur in mounds throughout the project area along with other disturbed soil mounds. Along the Roaring Fork River, the riparian corridor is dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) and blue spruce (Picea pungens) (Photo 4). The vegetation within the project area is dominated by sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Other species present include bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.), snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.), Oregon grape (Berberis repens), and juniper (Juniperus sp.). Patches of scrub oak (Quercus gambelii) occur along the trails and the west property boundary. Forbs and grasses consist of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), fringed sage (Artemisia frigida), wild buckwheat (Eriogonum sp.), and pussytoes (Antennaria sp.). Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Background The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the physical, biological, and chemical quality of waters of the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Regulatory Program administers and enforces Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404, a Corps permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the U.S. In 2007, the Corps issued guidance in response to the Supreme Court ruling in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Rapanos) stating that the Corps considers traditionally navigable waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to a TNW, and tributaries to TNWs that are relatively permanent waters (RPWs) and their abutting wetlands to be jurisdictional waters. Other wetlands and waters that are not TNWs or RPWs will require a significant nexus evaluation to determine their jurisdiction. A significant nexus evaluation assesses the flow characteristics and functions of a tributary and its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of downstream TNWs. On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that approved jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable under the Administration Procedure Act and, therefore, can be appealed in court. The Corps has recommended that requests for both approved and preliminary jurisdictional determinations be done using guidance outlined in Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 16-01 and that a jurisdictional form request be completed (Corps 2016). The Corps has indicated that jurisdictional determinations associated with a Section 404 CWA Permit request will preside over stand-alone P69 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 5 ERO Resources Corporation jurisdictional determination requests. While ERO may provide its opinion on the likely jurisdictional status of wetlands and waters, the Corps makes the final determination. Site Conditions and Regulations ERO assessed the project area for potential isolated wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands, and other waters of the U.S. (streams, ponds, lakes, and some ditches). The project area is entirely sagebrush-dominated upland, and no wetlands or other waters subject to Corps’ jurisdiction are present. Because no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are present in the project area that would be directly impacted by project activities, no action is necessary to comply with the CWA. Other actions that may be part of the proposed project (e.g., construction of a diversion structure) and that would affect a jurisdictional water of the U.S. would require coordination with the Corps to determine compliance with the CWA. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ERO assessed the project area for potential habitat for threatened, endangered, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federally threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Significant adverse effects on a federally listed species or its habitat require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under Section 7 or 10 of the ESA. The Service lists several threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in Pitkin County, or that would be potentially affected by projects in Pitkin County (Table 1). P70 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 6 ERO Resources Corporation Table 1. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in Pitkin County or potentially affected by projects in Pitkin County. Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present Mammals Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T Climax boreal forest with a dense understory of thickets and windfalls No North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus PT Boreal forests and cold areas that receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent snow No Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis T Closed canopy forests in steep canyons No Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus T Wooded habitat with dense cover and water nearby No Fish Bonytail chub** Gila elegans E Backwaters with rocky or muddy bottoms and flowing pools No habitat; affected by depletions within the Colorado River basin Colorado pikeminnow** Ptychocheilus lucius E Deep, fast-flowing rivers; prefer large turbid pools found in the main river and its tributaries No habitat; affected by depletions within the Colorado River basin Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias T Cold, clear, gravel headwater streams and mountain lakes No Humpback chub** Gila cypha E Variety of habitats ranging from pools with turbulent to little or no current; substrates of silt, sand, boulder, and bedrock; and depth ranging from 1 to 15 meters No habitat; affected by depletions within the Colorado River basin Razorback sucker** Xyrauchen texanus E Large rivers, in water 4 to 10 feet deep; adults are associated with areas of strong current and backwaters No habitat; affected by depletions within the Colorado River basin Plants Ute ladies’-tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis T Moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 6,500 feet in elevation No Insects Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema E Associated with large patches of snow willow above 3,780 meters in elevation No *T = Federally Threatened Species, E = Federally Endangered Species; PT = Proposed Threatened. **Water depletions in the Colorado River may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other counties. Source: Service 2017. The proposed project would not directly affect the Canada lynx, North American wolverine, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, greenback cutthroat trout, Ute ladies’-tresses orchid, or Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly because of the lack of habitat in the project area. The riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork River is habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo. Because the proposed project would not directly affect the riparian habitat and the site is on a terrace not directly abutting the river, P71 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 7 ERO Resources Corporation there would not be a direct effects on yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. The project would not result in any direct impacts on federally threatened and endangered species. Colorado River Endangered Fish Species The Roaring Fork River is a tributary to the Colorado River, which is habitat for four endangered Colorado River fish species – bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker. An action that causes a change in the volume or timing of flow is considered a depletion. Water diverted from the Roaring Fork River or any other tributary to the Colorado River would cause depletions to the Colorado River that would adversely affect the Colorado River fish species. If a project- related action, such as constructing a diversion structure, would require Section 404 authorization, the action would create a federal nexus and depletions to the Roaring Fork River would require consultation with the Service. Typically, the lead federal agency (i.e., the Corps for 404 authorization) would consult with the Service under Section 7 of the ESA. The Section 7 consultation process typically consists of a biological assessment (BA) provided by the Corps (or other lead federal agency) to the Service describing the effects on listed species and designated critical habitat and proposed mitigation for the impacts. The Service responds to the BA with a biological opinion (BO) providing its opinion on the effects and prescribing the required mitigation to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of a federally listed species or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (reasonable and prudent alternatives or measures). The BO’s reasonable and prudent alternatives are included as special conditions in any permit issued by the Corps. In 1999, the Service issued a Programmatic BO with specific elements to implement the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Recovery Program) (Service 1999). The Recovery Program is a mechanism to consult with the Service and for the regulated public to benefit from existing mitigation measures. When consulting on projects, the Service would determine if progress toward recovery has been sufficient for the Recovery Program to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative or measure. The Service also would consider whether the probability of success of the Recovery Program is compromised as a result of the project or the cumulative effect of depletions. The Service would consider Recovery Program and non-Program actions throughout the basin in evaluating the sufficiency of the program to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative or measure for the project. The Service would assess the sufficiency of Recovery Program actions in proportion to the potential impacts of a proposed federal action. That is, the smaller the impact of a federal action, the lower the level of actions by the Recovery Program or others needed to avoid jeopardy or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The Service only consults on and tracks depletions associated with a federal action. If the proposed project would not trigger a federal nexus, consultation with the Service on the Colorado River endangered fish species would not be necessary. P72 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 8 ERO Resources Corporation Other Species of Concern Raptors and Migratory Birds Migratory birds, as well as their eggs and nests, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA does not contain any prohibition that applies to the destruction of a bird nest alone (without birds or eggs), provided that no possession occurs during the destruction. While destruction of a nest by itself is not prohibited under the MBTA, nest destruction that results in the unpermitted take of migratory birds or their eggs is illegal and fully prosecutable under the MBTA (Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, Service (2003)). The regulatory definition of a take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Under the MBTA, the Service may issue nest depredation permits, which allow a permittee to remove an active nest. The Service, however, issues few permits and only under specific circumstances, usually related to human health and safety. Obtaining a nest depredation permit is unlikely and involves a process that takes from 8 to 12 weeks. The best way to avoid a violation of the MBTA is to remove vegetation outside of the active breeding season, which typically falls between March and August, depending on the species. Most MBTA enforcement actions are the result of a concerned member of the community reporting a violation. Habitat and Recommendations Sagebrush shrublands are nesting habitat for several bird species including Brewer’s sparrow, vesper sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, western meadowlark, horned lark, and loggerhead shrike. Generally, the nesting season in the Intermountain West is from April through August. No bird nests were observed in the project area during the 2017 site visit; however, a full nest survey was not conducted. The best way to avoid affecting nesting migratory birds is to remove vegetation outside of the active breeding season. If the project schedule does not allow vegetation removal outside of the breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted within a week prior to any vegetation-disturbing activity so that any active nest can be avoided until the birds, including fledglings, have left the nest to avoid a “take” under the MBTA. If active nests are found during surveys, any work that would destroy the nests or cause a bird to abandon eggs or chicks cannot be conducted until the birds have left the nests. There is no process for removing nests during the nonbreeding season; however, nests may not be collected under MBTA regulations. Although the proposed project would not affect the riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork River, it provides nesting habitat for a variety of birds including raptors. A few raptor species such as bald eagles, great horned owls, and red-tailed hawks can nest as early as December (eagles) or late February (owls and red-tailed hawks). Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has recommended setbacks from active raptor nests; the distance depends on the species. Prior to any land disturbance activity, a nest survey should be conducted in the riparian corridor adjacent to the project area to determine if any setbacks from an active nest are needed during the breeding season. CPW allows some changes in the setbacks depending on the circumstances, such as if birds are nesting in a highly disturbed area. P73 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 9 ERO Resources Corporation Other Wildlife The sagebrush habitat provides habitat for many of Colorado’s wildlife species including mule deer; elk; mountain lion; many small mammals (cottontail rabbit, jack rabbit, pocket gopher, striped skunk, red fox, coyote, and deer mouse); and reptiles (gartersnake, smooth green snake, and gopher snake). According to the Natural Diversity Information Source, the project area is within the overall range for elk, mule deer, and mountain lion and in summer range for mule deer (CPW 2017). The proposed project may displace some species but would not likely affect overall populations. The proposed reservoir may benefit some water fowl and other aquatic species. Bird/wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard The proposed reservoir could be an attractant to water fowl, especially in the spring during migration. Birds that could be potentially attracted to open water in the Roaring Fork Valley are: gulls, geese, ducks, herons, and some raptors. Large mammals such as mule deer and elk may also use the proposed reservoir as a water source. The Aspen-Pitkin County Airport is about 2 miles to the south of the study area (Figure 3). The airport is approximately 7,820 feet in elevation. The mountain setting of the airport and the surrounding grasslands, shrublands, forests, and open water features create different types of habitat for many species of wildlife. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined that the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport has a high level of risk associated with wildlife collisions with aircraft, which creates a safety hazard for flights into and out of Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. The factors that primarily contribute to wildlife/aircraft strike risk include bird flight heights, aircraft flight patterns and heights, wildlife habitat affinities, and the location of wildlife attractants near aircraft movement areas. The FAA issued regulations (14 CFR 139.337) that require certified airports to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment if wildlife potentially have access to flight patterns and are capable of causing collisions. Because of the high wildlife hazards, the FAA required Aspen-Pitkin County Airport to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment and as a result of determining a high level of risk, required the airport to prepare a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2012). As part of the airport’s wildlife management, a Wildlife Coordinator is appointed and assists with implementing the management protocols. The FAA developed Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A to provide guidance for land uses on airport property and in the surrounding area that could potentially attract wildlife hazardous to aircraft (U.S. Department of Transportation 2004). The FAA recommends maintaining a separation distance of 5,000 feet between airport ground movement areas and wildlife attractants for piston-powered aircraft, 10,000 feet for turbine-powered aircraft (Critical Zone), and 5 miles between wildlife attractants and approach, departure, or circling airspace (General Zone; Figure 3). Potential land uses that could attract wildlife that pose a risk to aircraft safety include wetlands or open water, landfills, livestock and agriculture fields, golf courses, or landscaped parks (Cleary and Dolbeer 2005). P74 II. Hi ghway82WoodyCreek Aspen - Pitkin County Airport WildcatReservoir MaroftReservoir Roari ng Fork River Pitkin CountySanitary Landfill SnowmassGolf Course City ofAspen SnowmassResort Prepared for: Deere & Ault File: 6941 Figure 3.mxd (GS) September 26, 2017 ± Figure 3 Wildlife Zones and Attractions Proposed Reservoir Site 0 8,0004,000 FeetPath: P:\6900 Projects\6941 Buckeye Reservoir\Maps\6941 Figure 3.mxdImage Source: USDA FSA, September 2015 Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Runway Critical Zone (Aspen Airport 10,000-Foot Buffer) General Zone (Aspen Airport 5-Mile Buffer) Project Area Boundary P75 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 11 ERO Resources Corporation Under Section 4 of Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A, the FAA discourages the development of facilities that would be located within the 5,000/10,000-foot criteria. For projects outside the 5,000/10,000-foot criteria, but within 5 statute miles of the airport’s aircraft movement areas, FAA may review proposed land use changes to determine if such changes present potential wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. The FAA may discourage the development if it shows that the area or proposed land use change supports wildlife species that are hazardous to aircraft. According to FAA (2017), there have been 42 documented bird strikes since August 2007 at the Aspen- Pitkin County Airport. About 28 percent of the strikes were identified as mountain bluebirds. Other birds involved in collisions were identified as magpie, American pipit, blue jay, western sandpiper, American crow, great horned owl, killdeer, horned lark, red-tailed hawk, and sparrow. The proposed reservoir would not be an important part of the preferred habitat of these species; however, water fowl species may be attracted to the proposed reservoir. The proposed reservoir is outside of the Critical Zone but within the General Zone. Some of the other attractants to wildlife within the General Zone include the Roaring Fork River and riparian corridor, Pitkin County Sanitary Landfill, Snowmass Golf Course, Wildcat Reservoir, and the many acres of natural habitat (Figure 3). Movements from the proposed reservoir to some of these features could potentially be through the flightpath. If the proposed reservoir is determined to be a hazard by the airport’s Wildlife Coordinator, options to deter wildlife use of the proposed reservoir could include: • Steep, unvegetated banks • Liners • Netting • Floating balls • Floating covers • Underground storage • Trained dogs to deter birds and other wildlife from using the reservoir Often times, using multiple methods can be the most effective. Additionally, the owners of the proposed reservoir would likely be expected to prepare and implement a Wildlife Management Plan to comply with the airport requirements. Birds using the reservoir would still be protected under the MBTA, and a permit from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife would be required for a lethal take. Potential Regulatory Reviews Clean Water Act 404 Authorization If the proposed project would require the placement of dredged or fill material into a water of the U.S. subject to Corps jurisdiction, Section 404 authorization would be required. Depending on the impacts of the project on waters of the U.S. (which are unknown at this time), the project could be authorized under a Nationwide or an Individual permit. Nationwide permits are issued when the impacts are under a specified threshold of impact for the specific activity, and no public review is completed. Individual P76 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 12 ERO Resources Corporation Permits are for impacts above a certain threshold but that do not cause significant overall adverse effects on resources. For an Individual permit, typically there is a 30-day public comment period during which the Corps could receive comments from the public, state agencies, and/or federal agencies. The Corps may receive comments on the proximity of the project area to the airport and would allow the applicant to respond. The Corps would likely not deny a permit because of the proximity of the proposed reservoir to the airport but would instead defer to local or county regulations to rule on the increased hazards or may require mitigation measures as a permit condition. Pitkin County Areas and Activities of State Interest As part of its Land Use Code, Pitkin County has a review process codified as the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act, or more popularly known as the 1041 Act. Pitkin County may require a review of the proposed reservoir because it involves the site selection and construction of a major facility of a public utility and because it is near the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. For a project to proceed, the County would issue either a permit or a Finding of No Significant Impact determination. The County would likely defer to FAA recommendations and may require a wildlife management plan and mitigation to offset potential hazards of the proposed reservoir in order to issue a permit. Early coordination with the County is recommended. Additional analysis may be needed to model the direct and indirect effects of the proposed reservoir on bird concentrations and to determine possible movements based on other attractants. Conclusions The sagebrush-dominated project area provides habitat for many wildlife, plant, and invertebrate species, but none that are protected under the ESA. No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would be directly affected by the proposed project. Coordination with regulatory agencies, such as the Corps or Service, may be required if the mechanism for providing water for the project would impact a jurisdictional water of the U.S. Depletions from the Colorado River basin would require consultation with the Service on the Colorado River endangered fish species. The proximity of the proposed reservoir to the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport could attract some birds that may increase the risk of collision with aircraft. Coordination with Pitkin County early in the process would help determine its concerns and possible management recommendations to comply with airport requirements. References Cleary, E.C. and R.A. Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for Airport Personnel. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. 133. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/133. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2017. CPW Wildlife Shapefile Download. Species Activity Data Collection. Redlands, CA: ESRI. Available at: http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=rsacco&title=Colorado%20Parks%20and%20Wi ldlife%20-%20Species%20Activity%20Data. P77 II. Natural Resources Assessment Proposed Reservoir Site Pitkin County, Colorado ERO Project #6941 13 ERO Resources Corporation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2017. FAA Wildlife Strike Database. Available at: https://wildlife.faa.gov/database.aspx Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2012. Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Prepared for Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2016. Regulatory Guidance Letter 16-01. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rgl_6-01_app1-2.pdf?ver=2016-11-01- 091706-840. Last accessed April 10, 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1999. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation’s Operations and Depletions, Other Depletions, and Funding and Implementation of the Recovery Program Actions in the Upper Colorado River above the Confluence with the Gunnison River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2003. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2017. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Last accessed April 10, 2017. P78 II. ERO Project #6941 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log P79 II. PROPOSED RESERVOIR SITE JULY 20, 2017 PHOTO LOG Photo 1 ‐ The 55.7‐acre parcel on the terrace above the Roaring Fork River. Photo 2 ‐ The 1.9‐acre parcel on a steep bank. P80 II. PROPOSED RESERVOIR SITE JULY 20, 2017 PHOTO LOG Photo 3 ‐ Powerlines on the west side of the project area paralleling a small trail. Photo 4 ‐ The riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork River. P81 II.