HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20180514
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 14, 2018
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Black Diamond Award
b) Month of the Young Child Proclamation
c) Arbor Day Proclamation
d) Safe Drinking Water Week Proclamation
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #74, Series of 2018 - Adoption of Updated Pitkin County Hazard
Mitigation Plan
b) Resolution #76, Series of 2018 - Change Order to Contract for As-Needed GIS
Services
c) Resolution #75, Series of 2018 - Stage One Water Shortage
d) Resolution #77, Series of 2018 - Contract with L.L. Johnson for Rough Mower
e) Minutes - April 30, 2018
VII. Notice of Call-Up
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #12, Series of 2018 - Spring Budget - Component Unit Funds:
APCHA, Smuggler and Truscott Phase II
b) Ordinance #07, Series of 2018 - Spring Supplemental Budget
c) Ordinance #14, Series of 2018 - Harassing Wildlife
IX. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #10, Series 2018 - Revisions to Implement Performance Pricing for
Parking
b) Ordinance #11, Series of 2018 - Lot 20 Water Service Agreement
X. Action Items
XI. Executive Session
P1
a) C.R.S. 24-6-102 (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any
real, personal, or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the
local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal
questions and (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to
negotiations; developing strategy for negotiation; and instructing negotiators.
XII. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting May 29, 2018
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
· Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
· Tone and Tenor Matter
· Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Paul Schultz, IT Director
MEMO DATE: April 30, 2018
MEETING DATE: May 21, 2018
RE: Ruth Kinney, Black Diamond Award
This award recognizes Ruth Kinney for expertly leading the successful design and implementation of the City
of Aspen’s new public-facing web site, i.e., https://cityofaspen.com/, which was delivered on schedule and
under budget (by more than $20,000)! The new City website delivers a more responsive, effective, efficient,
secure and aesthetically pleasing user experience for our community, visitors and City staff.
Ruth exemplified teamwork, creativity, open communications and fiscal responsibility while leading the diverse
team of City staff responsible for creating and maintaining City website content, including:
· Coordination across ALL City departments to identify, train and empower department webmasters to
deliver content and services to citizens, visitors and City staff more efficiently and effectively via a
modernized City website
· Gained an understanding of each individual department’s unique content and website-delivered services
needs and desires
· Delivered personalized and targeted training focused on each individual department’s unique
content/website needs
· Manage website vendor CivicPlus, including negotiating cost savings by deferring CivicPlus Mobile
App implementation and associated maintenance fees
· Envisioned and led a City website photo contest resulting in unique imagery for the new City website
Ruth’s relentless focus on website user experience, City webmaster content management efficiency and
delivering the website on time, while accommodating changes (e.g., the City Branding initiative, which impacts
the City website), demonstrate exemplary communication, collaboration and creativity. Her ability to maintain
City staff momentum and focus throughout the months-long effort is remarkable (especially considering
implementing the new City website required considerable effort from many City staff beyond their normal
duties). Ruth worked over 220 hours to successfully launch the new website November 27, 2017 instead of at
end of the 2017 or later.
The new City website provides a much better user experience for website users while saving City staff time and
effort (especially City webmasters) associated with creating and maintaining fresh website content. The City
now has a more effective, efficient and better-looking website for delivering relevant information to City
website users.
Thank You and Congratulations Ruth Kinney!
P3
III.a
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1881
WHEREAS, Kids First Early Childhood Resource Center and
Pitkin County child care providers, are celebrating
the Month of the Young Child in May; and
WHEREAS, by raising awareness about the value of high-
quality early childhood programs available for all
children and families in our community, and
WHEREAS, Aspen thrives when our kids thrive because they
are our future workforce, leaders and community
members. We all have a role to play in preparing
our kids for the future, and
WHEREAS building a healthy human brain is a process that
begins before birth and continues into adulthood. A
strong foundation early on increases the
probability that a child will be socially and
emotionally healthy, as well as physically healthy,
and
WHEREAS, given the appropriate learning opportunities that
high quality early childhood programs provide,
children acquire language, mathematical, social,
emotional, artistic and physical skill development
that strengthens the foundation for success in life
embraced by the Aspen idea of mind, body and
spirit.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Aspen City
Council and citizens of Aspen join the National Association for the
Education of Young Children in proclaiming May 2018 as the
Month of the Young Child
We extend our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to all those who
work to care for and educate our youngest citizens, and we
commend these efforts and encourage community involvement of all
citizens to recognize and support the needs of young children.
Dated the 14th day of May, 2018.
P4
III.b
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P5
III.b
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1881
WHEREAS, In 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the
Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day
be set aside for the planting of trees; and
WHEREAS, This holiday called Arbor Day, was first observed
with the planting of more than a million trees in
Nebraska and is now observed throughout the
nation and the world; and
WHEREAS, Trees reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil, cut
heating and cooling costs, moderate the
temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and
provide habitat for wildlife; and
WHEREAS Trees are a renewable resource giving us paper,
wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and
countless other products; and
WHEREAS, Trees in our city increase property values, enhance
the economic vitality of business areas, beautify
our community, and are a source of joy and
spiritual renewal; and
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen has been recognized as a Tree
City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation;
and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Aspen City
Council and the citizens of Aspen join in proclaiming May 19th, 2018
as
ARBOR DAY
In the City of Aspen, we urge all citizens to support efforts to care for
our trees and woodlands and to support our city’s community
forestry program for this and future generations. Dated the 14th day
of May, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P6
III.c
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1881
WHEREAS, water is an essential but limited natural resource;
and
WHEREAS, safe drinking water is vital to protecting public
health; and
WHEREAS, everyone must practice a culture of public health
and continuously work to prevent waterborne
disease outbreaks; and
WHEREAS significant regulatory and operational
improvements to reduce the risk of future
outbreaks have been made in the ten years since
the Alamosa outbreak; and
WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate and recognize the full
impact that certified operators have on our
community and public health; and
WHEREAS, the drinking water professionals who provide safe
drinking water in spite of fires, floods, and other
ever-changing forces of nature are worthy of
recognition; and
WHEREAS, we all need to continue to educate ourselves about
the value of water and how our relationship with
water changes with increasing population and a
changing climate; and
WHEREAS, Coloradans are encouraged to take time to reflect
on the value safe drinking water brings to our
personal lives, our communities, and our state;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the Aspen City
Council and the citizens of Aspen join in proclaiming May 6th, 2018
through May 12th, 2018 as
SAFE DRINKING WATER WEEK
Dated the 14th day of May, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P7
III.d
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Linn
THRU: Richard Pryor
DATE OF MEMO: April 26, 2018
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018
RE: Resolution #74, Series of 2018 - Adoption of updated Pitkin County Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Plan
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
A request of council to approve Resolution #74, adopting the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan
(PDMP) Update. (See attachment A.)
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
In 2006 council approved the 2005 Pre-Disaster Mitigation plan. It was updated and adopted again
in 2012. A FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is a requirement of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 for communities to remain eligible for pre- and post-disaster grants. We are
required to update our plan every five years.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the PDMP is to identify natural hazards that endanger the community, and
develop mitigation strategies to ensure that we have a disaster-resilient community. This is to
eliminate or reduce long-term risks to people and properties due to natural and human-caused
hazards within unincorporated Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village
and the Town of Basalt.
Participating jurisdictions and a cross section of representatives from throughout the
community assisted with the development of this plan update, including data collection, public
input on history, community assets and strategies, and identification of preferred mitigation
alternatives. This plan update represents the collective work of the citizens, elected and
appointed officials, and other stakeholders in the county.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Adoption of this plan creates no financial impacts, though city
departments may later approach council with financial requests related to pre-disaster
mitigation efforts suggested by this plan.
P8
VI.a
Page 2 of 2
The adoption of this plan does allow local jurisdictions to be eligible for grant funding from the
following programs:
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
Flood Mitigation Assistance
Repetitive Flood Claim
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Adoption of the plan has no environmental impacts, per se,
though implementation of some aspects of the plan could have further impacts, such as storm
water control projects.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the Resolution #74.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #74 and adopt the pre-disaster mitigation
plan update.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
P9
VI.a
RESOLUTION #74
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, ADOPTING AN UPDATED PITKIN COUNTY PRE-DISASTER
MITIGATION PLAN WITH PITKIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASPEN,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADOPT SAID PLAN ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an updated Pitkin
County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, a true and accurate copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the updated
Pitkin County Pre-Disaster plan, a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to adopt said
plan on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 14th day of May 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 14, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P10
VI.a
Pitkin County Hazard
Mitigation Plan
2018
P11
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
1
Pitkin County Hazard
Mitigation Plan
April 2, 2018
P12
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter One: Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning ............................................................. 9
1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.2 Participating Jurisdictions ...................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Background and Scope .......................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Mitigation Planning Requirements ...................................................................................... 10
1.5 Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Mitigation Plans............................................................ 10
1.6 Plan Organization ................................................................................................................ 11
Chapter Two: Planning Process ..................................................................................................... 13
2.1 2017 Plan Update Process ................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................ 13
2.3 10-Step Planning Process .................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Phase One: Organize Resources .......................................................................................... 15
2.5 Phase Two: Assess Risks ...................................................................................................... 18
2.6 Phase Three: Develop the Mitigation Plan .......................................................................... 19
2.7 Phase Four: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress ..................................................... 20
Chapter Three: Community Profile ............................................................................................... 22
3.1 Geography ........................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.3 History ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.4 Population ........................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Economy .............................................................................................................................. 25
3.6 Government ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.7 Fire Protection Districts (FPDs) ............................................................................................ 28
Chapter Four: Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Federal Disaster Declaration History for Pitkin County ....................................................... 31
4.2 Hazard Identification ........................................................................................................... 32
4.3 Hazard Profile Summary ...................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Climate Change and Natural Hazards .................................................................................. 37
4.5 Public Health Impacts of Natural Hazards ........................................................................... 41
4.6 Hazard Profile Methodology ............................................................................................... 43
P13
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
3
4.7 Wildfires .............................................................................................................................. 44
4.8 Geologic Hazards: Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows and Rockfalls................................ 51
4.9 Flooding ............................................................................................................................... 57
4.10 Winter Storm ..................................................................................................................... 63
4.11 Avalanche .......................................................................................................................... 66
4.12 Drought .............................................................................................................................. 71
4.13 Lightning ............................................................................................................................ 76
4.14 Dam Failure Flooding ......................................................................................................... 79
Chapter Five: Capability Assessment............................................................................................. 85
5.1 Vulnerability Assessment Summary .................................................................................... 85
5.2 Community Asset Inventory ................................................................................................ 87
5.3 Social Vulnerability .............................................................................................................. 91
5.4 Growth and Development Trends ....................................................................................... 92
5.5 National Flood Insurance Program ...................................................................................... 93
5.6 Capability Assessment ......................................................................................................... 94
Chapter Six: Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................. 100
6.1 Plan Goals .......................................................................................................................... 100
6.2 Incorporation of 2012 Plan Elements into Other Planning Mechanisms .......................... 100
6.3 Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives ................................................................ 101
6.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions ................................................................................... 102
6.5 Completed Projects and Accomplishments Since 2012 .................................................... 103
6.6 Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions ..................................................................................... 104
6.7 2017 Mitigation Actions .................................................................................................... 107
City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) ........................................................ 109
6.8 Mitigation Funding Sources ............................................................................................... 113
Chapter Seven: Plan Implementation and Maintenance ............................................................ 115
7.1 Formal Plan Adoption ........................................................................................................ 115
7.2 Plan Maintenance and Evaluation ..................................................................................... 115
7.3 Mitigation Actions and Other Plans and Programs ........................................................... 116
7.4 Continued Public Involvement .......................................................................................... 116
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 118
Appendix A: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................ 119
Appendix B: Acronyms ............................................................................................................ 121
P14
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
4
Appendix C: References and Resources .................................................................................. 123
Appendix D: Documentation of the Planning Process ............................................................ 127
Appendix E: FEMA HAZUS Flood Maps.................................................................................... 157
Appendix F: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Summary ...................................... 163
Appendix G: Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances ......................................................... 166
Appendix H: FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool ........................................................... 167
Tables
Table 1.1 - Participating Jurisdictions .............................................................................................. 9
Table 2.1 - Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ......................................................... 14
Table 2.2 - Plan Development Methodology ................................................................................. 15
Table 2.3 - Planning Meetings and Topics ..................................................................................... 16
Table 3.1 - Demographic and Social Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of
Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt .......................................................................................... 25
Table 3.2 - Economic and Housing Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of
Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt .......................................................................................... 26
Table 3.3 - Industry Distribution in Pitkin County ......................................................................... 26
Table 4.1 - Federal Disaster Declaration History (1965-2017) for Pitkin County .......................... 31
Table 4.2 - Significant Natural Hazards Affecting Pitkin County ................................................... 32
Table 4.3 - Categories for Estimating Probability of Future Hazard Occurrences ......................... 33
Table 4.4 - Categories for Estimating Magnitude of Future Hazard Occurrences......................... 33
Table 4.5 - 2017 Composite Risk Assessment: Pitkin County and Partner Jurisdictions ............... 35
Table 4.6 - Aspen/Aspen FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude ............. 35
Table 4.7 - Basalt/Basalt & Rural FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude . 36
Table 4.8 - Pitkin County Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude ..................... 36
Table 4.9 - Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability
and Magnitude .............................................................................................................................. 37
Table 4.10 - Summary of Climate Trends Observed in and around Aspen ................................... 38
Table 4.11 - Significant Geologic Hazard Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 .............................. 53
Table 4.12 - Significant Flood/Flash Flood Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 ........................... 59
Table 4.13 - Potential Flood Losses in Pitkin County: HAZUS-MH Estimates ................................ 62
Table 4.14 - Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County, 1980-2017 ............................................ 65
Table 4.15 - Pitkin County Avalanche Fatalities, 1997-98 to 2016-17 ........................................... 69
Table 4.16 - Historic Dry and Wet Periods in Colorado ................................................................. 73
Table 4.17 - Colorado Deaths and Injuries due to Lightning, 2008-2016 ...................................... 77
Table 4.18 - Significant Lightning Events in Pitkin County, 2008-2017 ......................................... 77
Table 4.19 - Average Lightning Flashes in Colorado per Day by Month ........................................ 78
Table 4.20 - Location of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County ............................................... 82
Table 4.21 - Status of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County: EAPs, Storage Capacity and
Ownership ..................................................................................................................................... 83
Table 5.1 - Priority Hazards – Key Issues ....................................................................................... 85
P15
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
5
Table 5.2 - Rare Species in Pitkin County ...................................................................................... 88
Table 5.3 - Historic Aspen Properties and Districts on National Register ..................................... 88
Table 5.4 - Historic Pitkin County Properties and Districts on National Register .......................... 90
Table 5.5 - Top Employers in Pitkin County in 2016 ...................................................................... 91
Table 5.6 - Social Vulnerability Indicators from U.S. Census (2015) ............................................. 91
Table 5.7 - Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2010-2015 ......................................................... 92
Table 5.8 - Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, 2010-2015 ................................................ 92
Table 5.9 - Projected Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2015-2050 ........................................ 92
Table 5.10 - NFIP Community Participation .................................................................................. 93
Table 5.11 - NFIP Policies in Force as of July 31, 2017 .................................................................. 93
Table 5.12 - NFIP Claims, January 1, 1978 to July 31, 2017 ........................................................... 94
Table 5.13 - Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities ............................................................................ 96
Table 5.14 - Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities ............................................... 97
Table 5.15 - Financial Resources ................................................................................................... 98
Table 6.1 - Types of Mitigation Actions ....................................................................................... 101
Table 6.2 - Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions ............................................................................. 105
Table 6.3 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Pitkin County ..................................................................... 107
Table 6.4 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: City of Aspen ..................................................................... 109
Table 6.5 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Aspen Fire Protection District ........................................... 110
Table 6.6 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Basalt ................................................................... 111
Table 6.7 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District .............................. 111
Table 6.8 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Snowmass Village ................................................ 112
Table 6.9 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District ...................... 113
Figures
Figure 3.1 - Map of Pitkin County .................................................................................................. 22
Figure 4.1 - Public Health Impacts of Climate Change .................................................................. 42
Figure 4.2 - Historic Wildfire Occurrences in Pitkin County .......................................................... 46
Figure 4.3 - Pitkin County Wildland-Urban Interface Hazards Map .............................................. 48
Figure 4.4 - Proximate Areas Deemed High/Very High Wildfire Risk (as of Q1 2017) .................. 49
Figure 4.5 - Mudflow near Redstone, July 31, 2010 ...................................................................... 52
Figure 4.6 - West Salt Creek Landslide (Mesa County) .................................................................. 55
Figure 4.7 - U.S. Avalanche Fatalities by State .............................................................................. 67
Figure 4.8 - Colorado Avalanche Fatalities by County ................................................................... 68
Figure 4.9 - Colorado Avalanche Zones ......................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.10 - Pitkin County Dams .................................................................................................. 81
Figure 5.1 - City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary ............................................... 95
P16
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
6
Executive Summary
Background and Purpose
This five-year update of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a collaborative
effort of county, municipal and fire officials and a cross-section of representatives
throughout the community with expertise in a range of subjects related to mitigating the
impacts of natural hazards. Communities in the Roaring Fork Valley have not suffered a
major disaster in modern history, due in part to good fortune relative to the random
forces of nature, but also a testament to a long-standing commitment to the principles of
safe growth and community resilience by residents and community leaders.
The purpose of current updates to this plan is to continue that legacy by providing local
officials with a tool to guide policies and actions that can be implemented to reduce risk
and future losses from natural hazards. Formal approval of this plan by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also assures that participating jurisdictions in
Pitkin County will remain eligible for federal grant funding under FEMA’s Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program to include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FMA) program. Participation in the multi-hazard mitigation planning process also
allows jurisdictions to earn planning credits for the National Flood Insurance Program’s
Community Rating System (CRS).
Nationwide, proactive mitigation planning has proven to help reduce the cost of disaster
response and recovery to communities and property owners by protecting critical
community facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall community
impacts and disruption. Information in this plan is intended for use by local officials to
help guide mitigation activities and inform decisions on growth and land use policies as
they relate to exposure to risks from natural hazards.
Risk Assessment
The mitigation actions recommended in this plan are based on an assessment of hazards
and risks and a planning process that engaged a wide range of stakeholders, including
the public. Eight natural hazards were evaluated with respect to probability (based on
historical frequency) and magnitude, or the severity of consequences from actual
occurrences (considering recorded incidents and estimated future losses). Some natural
hazard events have a high probability of occurrence but generally limited impacts (e.g.,
avalanches and lightning), while others are low probability-high consequence (e.g., dam
failure flooding). High-probability hazards that also present risks to people and property
are generally the highest priorities for mitigation action.
Based on feedback from two planning workshops and information gained from surveys
and interviews, the three natural hazards considered the highest mitigation priorities by
all seven participating jurisdictions in Pitkin County are: (1) wildfires, (2) geologic
hazards (landslides, debris flows, mudflows and rockfalls), and (3) flooding. In Chapter
Four, Risk Assessment, the hazards facing communities in Pitkin County are examined
in detail.
P17
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
7
Climate Change and Natural Hazards
Climate warming may have profound implications for natural hazard events, the effects
of which we may already have begun to see in the U.S. with the large-scale wildfire and
hurricane disasters of 2017. While climate extremes are a natural part of the climate
system, current warming trends are expected to lead to changes in the frequency,
intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events.
Although extreme weather events are caused by a variety of possible contributing factors,
human-induced climate change is now considered by a large majority of the scientific
community to be one of those factors.
Climate change considerations are incorporated into multiple elements of this updated
plan. At the recommendation of the communities participating in the planning effort, a
goal statement was adopted that recognized the need to integrate climate projection data
into future hazard mitigation planning activities. In Chapter Four, Risk Assessment, the
potential effects of climate warming are discussed as they relate to each of the natural
hazards profiled in the plan. Finally, specific hazard mitigation actions that address
climate change in Pitkin County are included in Chapter Six, Mitigation Strategy, of this
plan.
Hazard Mitigation Goals
Based on the assessment of risks to community assets and the vulnerability of people
and property, the following goals were established to guide the development of the
mitigation strategy:
1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards.
2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused
hazards.
3. Recognizing the common issues and mutual goals of hazard mitigation and
climate adaptation, promote collaborative planning and identify opportunities
to dovetail actions that reduce risks from both natural hazards and climate
warming.
2017 Mitigation Actions
The mitigation strategy for achieving these goals is highlighted by a range of distinct
mitigation actions that were identified in the planning process by each participating
jurisdiction to address the risks posed to their communities by high-priority natural
hazards. Mitigation actions included in the updated plan are a combination of ongoing
activities, new projects and actions from the previous plan that were partially completed,
including:
• adoption of regulations and enforcement of local codes and standards designed to
reduce losses from natural hazards;
• development of stormwater management plans and implementation of
stormwater drainage improvements;
P18
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
8
• adoption of updated floodplain mapping and implementation of flood protection
measures;
• preparation of plans and studies related to improving public safety in areas
downstream of high-hazard dams;
• development of improved mapping and implementation of mitigation actions in
areas prone to debris and mudflows; and
• continuation of wildfire mitigation projects related to fuel reduction, defensible-
spacing, right-of-way tree removal and subdivision-level planning.
The updated plan also identifies hazard mitigation actions that consider the potential
effects of climate change on the future frequency and intensity of severe weather and
extreme climate events. A complete list of mitigation actions and a discussion of the
process used to identify and prioritize actions can be found in Chapter Six, Mitigation
Strategy.
Project Management
Updates to this plan have been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000. This updated version of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation
Plan is the second revision of a plan originally prepared as a regional document in
cooperation with Eagle County (2005) and subsequently updated in 2011-2012 as a plan
for Pitkin County and its local partners exclusively. This updated plan builds on previous
versions, incorporating current hazard research, studies and information about natural
hazards.
Updates to this plan were guided by a planning team composed of representatives of
each participating jurisdiction, possessing a wide variety of technical expertise and
community knowledge, including public safety, public works, community development,
emergency management, environmental health, floodplain management, and utilities
services.
Overall project management was provided by Pitkin County Emergency Management
with technical planning assistance from the Colorado Division of Homeland Security &
Emergency Management (DHSEM) and research and plan development provided by a
planning consultant.
In addition to Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Snowmass
Village, Aspen Fire Protection District, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District and
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District participated in development of this updated
plan. The collaborative effort further demonstrates the ongoing commitment of Pitkin
County and its partners to reducing risks to people and property posed by natural
hazards, in addition to maintaining eligibility for federal funding.
P19
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
9
Chapter One: Introduction to Hazard
Mitigation Planning
1.1 Purpose
This updated Pitkin Hazard Mitigation Plan provides Pitkin County and political
subdivisions within the county with a comprehensive hazard mitigation strategy for
reducing long-term risks to people, property and natural resources. Fortunately,
communities in Pitkin County have been spared to date from broad impacts of major
disasters due to natural hazard events. The purpose of this plan is to help ensure that
Pitkin County remains a safe place to live and work and to provide a framework for
addressing potential future hazards through hazard mitigation planning.
1.2 Participating Jurisdictions
Table 1.1 - Participating Jurisdictions
2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
County
Participants
Municipal
Participants
Special District Participants
Pitkin County City of Aspen Aspen Fire Protection District
Town of Basalt Basalt & Rural Fire Protection
District
Town of Snowmass
Village
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire
Protection District
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District, a participant in the 2011-2012 planning effort with a district
spanning multiple counties, is participating in the 2017 Garfield County Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
1.3 Background and Scope
Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” Each year in
the U.S., disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more.
Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities,
organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. While some
communities are less hazard-prone than others, there are no hazard-free communities
and all communities face some degree of risk from natural disasters. As the costs of
recovering from natural disasters continue to rise, many communities have sharpened
their interest in identifying effective ways to reduce vulnerability to hazards. In addition
to creating safer communities by saving lives and preventing injuries, hazard mitigation
can protect infrastructure, limit property damages, reduce public-sector losses, and
minimize social and economic disruptions.
Many disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be
alleviated or even eliminated by implementing cost-effective hazard mitigation
measures. Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that
threaten communities are identified, likely impacts of those hazards are determined,
mitigation goals are set, and appropriate strategies to lessen impacts are determined,
prioritized, and implemented. Hazard mitigation plans assist communities in reducing
P20
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
10
risk from hazards by identifying resources, information, and strategies for risk reduction.
This plan documents the local hazard mitigation planning process, identifies relevant
hazards and risks, and outlines the strategies that will be used to decrease vulnerability
and increase resilience and sustainability.
1.4 Mitigation Planning Requirements
This plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Law 106-390, the
Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 and the DMA 2000 implementing regulations
set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26,
2002 (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. These regulations established
the requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local
jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation
funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act (Public Law 93-
288), also known as the Stafford Act.
Significant steps in the process of preparing this updated plan included (a) forming a
local planning committee, (b) preparing a strategy for public involvement, (c) identifying
and assessing natural hazards, (d) determining the vulnerability of community assets to
identified natural hazards, and (e) then determining a corresponding set of measures
and actions to minimize or manage those risks.
1.5 Grant Programs Requiring Hazard Mitigation Plans
FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans qualify communities for the following federal
mitigation grant programs:
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
• Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
• Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The HMGP Program provides grants to States, Tribes, and local entities to implement
long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose
of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to
enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a
disaster. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem, for example, elevation
of a home to reduce the risk of flood damages as opposed to purchasing supplies to fight
the flood. In addition, a project’s potential savings must be more than the co st of
implementing the project.
HMGP funds may be used to protect property or to purchase property that has been
subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The amount of funding available for
the HMGP under a disaster declaration is limited. The program may provide a state or
tribe with up to 15 percent of the total disaster grants awarded by FEMA. The cost-share
eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal.
Funding from other federal sources cannot be used for the 25 percent share with one
exception. Funding provided to states under the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development can be used
to meet the non-federal share requirement.
P21
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
11
Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program
The PDM Program provides funds to States, Tribes, and local entities, including public
universities, for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation
projects prior to a disaster event. Grants are awarded on a nationally competitive basis.
Like HMGP funding, a PDM project’s potential savings must be more than the cost of
implementing the project. In addition, funds may be used to protect either public or
private property or to purchase property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of,
repetitive damage. The cost-share eligibility requirement for this grant is 75 percent
federal/25 percent non-federal. There is approximately $50 million to $150 million
available each year ($90 million was allocated for FY 2016).
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant Program
The goal of the FMA grant program is to reduce or eliminate flood insurance claims
under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Particular emphasis for this
program is placed on mitigating repetitive loss properties. Repetitive loss properties are
properties for which two or more NFIP losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid
within any 10-year period since 1978. Grant funding is available for three types of grants,
including planning, project, and technical assistance. Project grants, which use the
majority of the program’s total funding, are awarded to states, tribes, and local entities
for planning and technical assistance and/or to apply mitigation measures to reduce
flood losses to properties insured under the NFIP. The cost-share eligibility requirement
for this grant is 75 percent federal/25 percent non-federal. For FY 2016, $199 million
was allocated for FMA program grants nationwide.
1.6 Plan Organization
The updated 2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is organized as follows:
• Executive Summary
o Provides an overview of the process and findings;
• Chapter One – Introduction to Hazard Mitigation Planning
o Describes the plan’s purpose, participating jurisdictions, hazard
mitigation planning requirements, and federal hazard mitigation
programs;
• Chapter Two – Planning Process
o Describes the process used to develop the updated plan, including how it
was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was
involved;
• Chapter Three – Community Profile
o Provides a general description of Pitkin County and its local government
partners, including their location, geography, climate, history, population,
economy and government structures;
P22
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
12
• Chapter Four – Risk Assessment
o Identifies and profiles the hazards that could affect Pitkin County, based
on probability and potential magnitude, assesses vulnerability to those
hazards, and describes potential effects of climate warming for each
hazard;
• Chapter Five – Capability Assessment
o Provides an inventory of critical facilities and other community assets,
describes land-use and development trends, assesses capability related to
hazard mitigation, and describes existing policies, plans and programs in
the participating jurisdictions that are related to hazard mitigation;
• Chapter Six – Mitigation Strategy
o Identifies goals and prioritizes actions to mitigate hazards in each
participating jurisdiction, based on the risk assessment, and provides a
strategy for implementation;
• Chapter Seven – Plan Implementation and Maintenance
o Provides a formal process for monitoring, evaluating and updating the
plan, identifies methods for continued public involvement, and describes
how the updated plan will be incorporated into existing planning
mechanisms; and
• Appendices
A. Plan Participants
B. Acronyms
C. References and Resources
D. Documentation of the Planning Process
E. HAZUS Flood Maps
F. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) Summary
G. Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances
H. FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool.
P23
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
13
Chapter Two: Planning Process
2.1 2017 Plan Update Process
The project to update the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was managed by
the Pitkin County Emergency Manager and funded by a combination of federal grant
(DR-4229-CO HMGP) and local matching funds provided through in-kind contributions.
Technical planning assistance was provided by staff from the Colorado Division of
Homeland Security & Emergency Management. The services of a planning consultant
were secured to conduct research, facilitate data collection, incorporate best available
current data into revisions, and produce draft and final plan documents in accordance
with DMA 2000 requirements.
Updates to this plan were based on research from a wide variety of sources, historical
perspectives, and future projections of vulnerability and resource capacity. Updates were
completed using the most current state and federal guidance, including FEMA’s Local
Mitigation Planning Handbook (March 2013), to ensure that the plan met federal
requirements. A concerted effort was also made to ensure that 2017 revisions were
consistent with information in the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December
2013), including the definition and detailed description of each hazard profiled in
Chapter Four, Risk Assessment.
2.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation
Cities, towns and special districts within Pitkin County were invited to participate in the
2017 effort to revise the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. In accordance with
DMA 2000, each participating jurisdiction was involved in the planning process and
agreed to formally adopt the mitigation plan (upon FEMA approval) in order to remain
eligible for FEMA hazard mitigation grant funding. Other public agencies and
organizations participating in the process can also receive FEMA grant funds, but only if
the project is consistent with this plan and an eligible local government entity agrees to
apply on their behalf.
At the outset of the HMP revision process, the Pitkin County Emergency Management
office informed emergency management colleagues in surrounding counties (Eagle,
Garfield, Gunnison and Lake Counties) about the project and invited interested local
government agencies and other stakeholders to participate in the Kickoff Meeting and
Mitigation Actions Workshop. Two members of the Lake County Emergency
Management office attended the Kickoff Meeting in Aspen on June 6, 2017. Although no
adjacent counties participated directly in the process, the Pitkin County Emergency
Manager provided updates on the project to neighboring jurisdictions at regional
meetings and forums, including regular meetings of the Northwest All-Hazards Region
and Basalt Emergency Management Committee (which includes Eagle County).
Updates to this plan were guided by a planning team composed of representatives of
each participating jurisdiction, possessing a wide variety of technical expertise and
community knowledge, including public safety, public works, community development,
emergency management, environmental health, floodplain management, and utilities
services. The Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team (Planning Team) formed
P24
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
14
over the course of two planning workshops and through responses to surveys and
requests for information. Participants in the planning process, including their affiliations
and contact information, are listed in Appendix A. The organizations represented on the
Planning Team are identified in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1 - Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation County Planning Team
Pitkin County
Administration/County Manager’s Office Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO)
Community Relations Department Pitkin County Emergency Management
Community Development Office Animal Safety Department (PCSO)
Public Works Department Human Services Department
Engineering and Road & Bridge Dept. Environmental Health Department
Land Use Engineering/Floodplain Mgmt. Regional Emergency Dispatch Center
Long-Range Planning Solid Waste Center
GIS Department Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
City of Aspen
City Manager’s Office Aspen Police Department
Climate Action/Canary Initiative Environmental Health & Sustainability
Community Development Human Resources/Risk Management
Stormwater/Flood and Mudflows Utilities
Town of Snowmass Village
Town Manager’s Office Snowmass Village Police Department
Public Works Department
Town of Basalt
Community Development Basalt Police Department
Public Works Department
Aspen Fire Protection District
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
Stakeholders
American Red Cross Crystal River Valley Community
Aspen Valley Hospital Community of Lenado
Aspen Community Health Colorado Mountain College
Aspen Ambulance District Aspen Skiing Company
Aspen School District Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
Roaring Fork Club Holy Cross Energy
Bureau of Land Management Colorado Division of Water Resources,
Dam Safety, Division 5 U.S Forest Service
Updates to this plan have been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000. This updated version of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation
Plan is the second revision of a plan originally prepared as a regional document in
cooperation with Eagle County (2005) and subsequently updated in 2011-2012 as a plan
for Pitkin County and its local partners exclusively. This updated plan builds on previous
versions, incorporating current hazard research, studies and information about natural
hazards.
P25
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
15
2.3 10-Step Planning Process
The planning process followed for the 2017 plan updates conforms to FEMA’s four-phase
DMA process and the 10-step process used for FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS)
and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) programs. Table 2.2 shows how the modified 10-
step process corresponds with the planning requirements of DMA 2000.
Table 2.2 - Plan Development Methodology
FEMA’s Four-Phase DMA
Process
Modified 10-Step CRS Process
1) Organize Resources
201.6(c)(1) 1) Organize the Planning Effort
201.6(b)(1) 2) Involve the Public
201.6(b)(2) and (3) 3) Coordinate w/ Other Departments/Agencies
2) Assess Risks
201.6(c)(2)(i) 4) Identify the Hazards
201.6(c)(2)(ii) 5) Assess the Risks
3) Develop the Mitigation Plan
201.6(c)(3)(i) 6) Set Goals
201.6(c)(3)(ii) 7) Review Possible Activities
201.6(c)(3)(iii) 8) Draft the Plan
4) Implement Plan/Monitor Progress
201.6(c)(5) 9) Adopt the Plan
201.6(c)(4) 10) Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
2.4 Phase One: Organize Resources
Step 1: Organize the Planning Effort
In conformance with the DMA 2000 planning regulations and guidance, representatives
of Participating Jurisdictions participated in the planning effort in the following ways:
• attending and participating in one or both planning workshops
• providing available data
• evaluating and rating area risks and hazards
• identifying goals and objectives for the mitigation strategy
• reviewing and providing comments on the plan drafts
• assisting in the implementation of the public input process
• identifying specific projects to be eligible for funding, and
• assisting with the formal adoption of the plan by the governing board.
Two planning meetings, a Kickoff Meeting and a Mitigation Actions Workshop, were
scheduled to update and obtain feedback from the Planning Team. The Kickoff Meeting
was scheduled at the outset of the planning process to provide an overview of the project,
evaluate risks from natural hazards in terms of probability and severity, and discuss
potential mitigation actions to reduce risk from high priority hazards.
At the Kickoff Meeting, participants reviewed the 2011-2012 Risk Assessment and made
the following changes and recommendations for the 2017 version:
• Add debris flows and mudflows to the geologic hazards profiled in 2011-
2012 (landslide and rockfall), identify areas subject to debris flow and mudflow
events, and identify historic events and related damages;
P26
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
16
• Change probability rating for avalanche from “Likely” to “Highly Likely;”
• Add dam failure flooding to the hazards profiled in the updated plan and
identify “high” and “significant” hazard dams in Pitkin County;
• Add ice jam flooding to the flood hazards described in the flood hazard
profile;
• Develop a climate change statement for each profiled natural hazard that
outlines the implications of global warming and potential future impacts;
and
• Develop a section within the Risk Assessment chapter that outlines the public
health implications of potential hazard events (e.g., air quality issues caused
by large, regional wildfires).
Using a dot-poster board exercise, each participant identified the three natural hazards
they considered the highest mitigation priorities. The results, across participating
jurisdictions, are as follows:
1. Wildfires
2. Geologic Hazards (Landslides/Debris Flows/Mudflows/Rockfalls)
3. Flooding
Participants also rated the highest priority human-caused hazards, in this order:
1. Special Events
2. Infrastructure/Public Service Disruptions
3. Aviation Accidents
The Climate Action Manager for the City of Aspen presented an overview of climate
change issues relevant to local government operations and outlined the implications of
global warming for extreme natural hazard events.
At the Kickoff Meeting, participants also accomplished several other tasks, including:
• reviewing the 2012 Capability Assessment matrix and making several changes;
• revalidating the two 2012 goal statements and adding “critical facilities,” and
recommending an additional goal related to climate change and global warming;
and
• reviewing the status of 2012 projects and determining which incomplete actions
to retain in the updated plan.
This updated plan is a result of Planning Team input provided through a combination of
technical data collection and sharing, comments on draft planning elements, and
information gathered during planning workshops. The workshop schedule and topics are
listed in Table 2.3 below. Meeting summaries and agendas are included in Appendix D,
Documentation of the Planning Process.
Table 2.3 - Planning Meetings and Topics
Meeting Date and
Location
Meeting Purpose
Pitkin County Kickoff
Meeting/Initial Workshop,
June 6, 2017 (Aspen, CO)
Convene Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation
Planning Team; outline Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000 process; identify timelines; review and
update previous (2012) risk assessment; discuss
significant events last five years; determine
status of previous (2012) mitigation actions.
P27
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
17
Mitigation Actions
Workshop, September 14,
2017 (Aspen, CO)
Report on progress to Planning Team; finalize
risk assessment; review potential effects of
climate change on local natural hazards;
evaluate and prioritize 2017 mitigation actions.
Step 2: Involve the Public
Pitkin County Emergency Management utilized all available local media outlets to
announce the Kickoff Meeting and Mitigation Actions Workshop and invite the public to
participate, including newspaper, online news, television, public radio and social media
(Facebook). The public was encouraged to attend in all spots. Information about the
project and workshops was also distributed to Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) and
Pitkin County Caucuses.
An announcement of the dates, times and locations of the workshops was scrolled on
local government television (CGTV) and the hazard mitigation plan update project was
discussed at two televised meetings of the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners. Announcements welcoming the public to attend the workshops
appeared in the This Week in Pitkin County section of The Aspen Times on consecutive
Mondays before the workshops and also appeared in the Aspen Daily News. The
information in the Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News was also broadcast on Aspen
Public Radio and posted to the Pitkin County Facebook page.
Two citizens attended the Kickoff Meeting – one from the Crystal River Valley
community and one from the community of Lenado. There were no members of the
general public present at the Mitigation Actions Workshop. A 30-day public review and
comment period provided citizens an opportunity to review the final draft of the updated
plan and recommend changes or additions. The draft plan was posted for public review
on the Pitkin County Connect citizen forum section of the Pitkin County government web
page. Citizens were directed to the site using a variety of media, including local
government television (CGTV), newspaper ads, Facebook and other social media. No
citizen comments were received during the comment period.
Step 3: Coordinate with Other Departments and Agencies
Pitkin County Emergency Management invited a range of local, state, regional and
federal agencies and other interested parties to participate in the plan update process
and to review and comment on draft updates to the plan. Stakeholders representing the
following public- and private-sector entities participated in the process by attending
planning meetings, providing needed data, and/or reviewing the final document draft:
• American Red Cross
• Aspen Ambulance District
• Aspen Community Health
• Aspen Fire Protection District
• Aspen School District
• Aspen Skiing Company
• Aspen Valley Hospital
• Bureau of Land Management
P28
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
18
• Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
• City of Aspen
• Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management
• Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Div. of Water Resources, District 5
• Colorado Mountain College
• Crystal River Valley Community (unincorporated Pitkin County)
• Holy Cross Energy
• Lenado (unincorporated Pitkin County)
• Pitkin County Government
• Roaring Fork Club
• Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
• Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
• Town of Basalt
• Town of Snowmass Village
• U.S. Forest Service
2.5 Phase Two: Assess Risks
Step 4: Identify the Hazards
For the 2017 update, the Planning Team members reviewed previous versions of the risk
assessment and established new ratings and priorities. Two hazards profiled in the
previous version of this plan were deleted (earthquakes and tornadoes/windstorms) and
one new hazard was added in the current updates (dam failure flooding). The results of
that process and hazard profiles for all significant hazards are detailed in Chapter Four,
Risk Assessment. In addition to input from the Planning Team, a variety of state, federal,
nonprofit and university sources were consulted to collect data required for the update of
this plan, including:
• Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE)
• Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, Office
of the State Engineer
• Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)
• Colorado State Forest Service
• Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• History Colorado
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for
Environmental Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center)
• National Weather Service (NWS)
• Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association (RMIIA)
• University of South Carolina (SHELDUS)
• U.S. Census Bureau
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
P29
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
19
Step 5: Assess the Risks
The 2017 Risk Assessment was completed based on feedback from survey respondents
and participants at the planning workshops. A detailed description of the hazard
assessment process and results, including a vulnerability assessment and hazard maps,
are provided in Chapter Four, Risk Assessment.
A profile of each identified hazard was created using available GIS data, online data
sources, and existing plans and reports. The profiles included a hazard description,
geographic location, past occurrences, probability of future occurrences, and
magnitude/severity (extent) for each hazard. The profiles also describe overall
vulnerability of each jurisdiction to each hazard and identify structures and estimate
potential losses to structures in identified hazard areas. Each profile also examines the
potential effects of climate change for each hazard.
An updated Capability Assessment is included in Chapter Five, Capability Assessment.
The capability assessment process identified existing policies, tools, and actions in place
that can reduce risk and vulnerability from natural hazards, such as comprehensive
plans, building codes and floodplain management ordinances. Combining the results of
the risk assessment with the capability assessment helps to inform the process of
developing the goals, objectives, and proposed actions of this plan.
2.6 Phase Three: Develop the Mitigation Plan
Step 6: Set Goals
Based on the assessment of risks to community assets and the vulnerability of people
and property, the following goals were established to guide the development of the
mitigation strategy:
1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards.
2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused
hazards.
3. Recognizing the common issues and mutual goals of hazard mitigation and
climate adaptation, promote collaborative planning and identify opportunities
to dovetail actions that reduce risks from both natural hazards and climate
warming.
Step 7: Review Possible Activities
The Mitigation Actions Workshop, the second and final planning workshop in support of
the project to update the hazard mitigation plan, was held in Aspen on September 14,
2017, 9:30-2:30 at the Pitkin County Library. The workshop was well-attended by
representatives of each of the participating jurisdictions, who received a report on the
progress of plan updates, reviewed final risk assessment information, and evaluated
proposed mitigation actions. Small group activity sessions were conducted in the
P30
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
20
afternoon to allow each participating jurisdiction to refine and finalize mitigation
actions.
The updated plan also identifies hazard mitigation actions that consider the potential
effects of climate change on the future frequency and intensity of severe weather and
extreme climate events. The Planning Team discussed a wide range of possible
mitigation actions and evaluated and prioritized proposed actions based on their need,
viability, proposed benefits and estimated costs. A complete list of mitigation actions and
a discussion of the process used to identify and prioritize actions can be found in Chapter
Six, Mitigation Strategy.
Step 8: Draft the Plan
Based on results of the risk assessment, the goals established, and the mitigation actions
identified in Planning Steps 6 and 7, a complete first draft of the plan was prepared and
distributed for review and comment. Final comments from the participating
jurisdictions, stakeholders and interested citizens were integrated into the final draft,
which was posted on the web and social media to collect public input and comments. A
final draft was produced for the Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency
Management and FEMA Region VIII to review and approve, contingent upon final
adoption by Pitkin County and the other participating jurisdictions.
2.7 Phase Four: Implement the Plan and Monitor Progress
Step 9: Adopt the Plan
The updated plan will be officially implemented upon formal adoption by the Pitkin
County Board of Commissioners and the governing bodies of the other participating
jurisdictions, tentatively scheduled for early 2018, following conditional approval by
FEMA Region VIII.
Participants at the Mitigation Actions Workshop in Aspen on September 14, 2017.
Group discussion (middle) is facilitated by the Pitkin County Emergency Manager (left)
and the Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal for the Aspen Fire Protection District (right).
P31
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
21
Step 10: Implement, Evaluate and Revise the Plan
The primary benefit of mitigation planning is the implementation of specific mitigation
projects and action items. Each mitigation action recommended in this updated plan
includes a description of the problem and recommended solution, a lead/responsible
agency, project priority and, when available, a cost estimate and possible funding
sources. An overall implementation strategy is described in Chapter Seven, Plan
Implementation and Maintenance, along with a plan update and maintenance schedule
and a strategy for continued public involvement.
P32
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
22
Chapter Three: Community Profile
Pitkin County is located in the high country of west-central Colorado and is dominated
by national forest land, several large mountain ranges, and many of the state’s highest
mountain peaks. Located approximately 200 miles southwest of Denver, Pitkin County is
the 24th largest county in the state out of 64 counties, covering approximately 975
square miles (626,832 acres).
Most of the land area in Pitkin County is publicly-owned. The U.S. Forest Service/White
River National Forest is the largest landowner in the county with 490,760 acres (78% of
the county), followed by the Bureau of Land Management which owns 27,915 acres
(4.5%), and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (800 acres or less than 1%). The total land
area in the county that is privately held is 107,358 acres (17%).
Figure 3.1 - Map of Pitkin County
Pitkin County includes the City of Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village, portions of the
Town of Basalt, and the unincorporated communities of Woody Creek, Old Snowmass,
Meredith, Thomasville, and Redstone. Other rural residential areas include Brush Creek
Village, Aspen Village and Castle/Maroon Creek, Crystal River Valley and Lenado. Ghost
towns within the county include Ashcroft and Independence. The majority of private
lands and homes are located along the Roaring Fork River corridor -- the primary river
valley in Pitkin County -- and in the Crystal River valley. The other significant river
P33
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
23
drainages in the county are the Frying Pan River, Snowmass Creek, Woody Creek, Castle
Creek, Conundrum Creek and East Sopris Creek.1
3.1 Geography
Pitkin County is dominated by several large mountain ranges. The Elk Mountains form
the western and southern sides of Pitkin County and the Continental Divide forms the
eastern boundary along the crest of the Sawatch Range. The Fryingpan River is dammed
to form the Ruedi Reservoir and the Roaring Fork River flows northwest from the high
peaks. The Crystal River is on the western side of the county. The elevations in the
county range from 6,250 feet along the Crystal River south of Carbondale to over 14,000
feet on a number of peaks in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Area.
Most of the land area within Pitkin County consists of high elevation forests and alpine
environments, with the lower valleys dominated by irrigated farmlands and
urban/suburban developments. In between the high elevation forests and alpine habitats
and the lower farmlands are pinion/juniper woodlands, oakbrush stands, aspen forests,
lodgepole pine forests, and much of the rural population. The majority of the population
and most privately-owned lands in Pitkin County are located on the valley floor.2
3.2 Climate
The high-altitude climate of Pitkin County is characterized by low humidity, abundant
sunshine, and annual precipitation totals that vary widely from high peaks to lower
valleys. Summer weather is warm and generally dry with temperatures occasionally
reaching 90˚F during the day. Brief afternoon thunderstorms are common during the
summer months, with accompanying lightning strikes and locally-heavy rainfall.
Overnight low temperatures in the summer can dip below 50˚F, again with high
variability depending on elevation.
During the winter, sunny days and clear blue skies often give way to severe winter
weather conditions and significant snowfall accumulations. Communities in the Roaring
Fork Valley experience relatively temperate daytime high temperatures in winter that
average around 35˚F, while temperatures drop dramatically at night with overnight low
temperatures that average in single digits.
Recent climate records indicate that Pitkin County is currently experiencing a significant
warming trend, with uncertain, but potentially serious implications for the frequency
and intensity of future natural hazard events. The projected effects of climate change on
natural hazards are discussed in detail in Chapter Four, Risk Assessment.
3.3 History
Before the arrival of the first non-native settlers from Europe in the mid-nineteenth
century and well before the height of silver mining in the early 1880s, the Ute Indians
hunted, fished and gathered wild foods in the valleys of the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and
other rivers and streams of current-day Pitkin County. The Ute Indians referred to the
area as “Shining Mountains.” But in 1879, the first silver miners arrived in the Roaring
1 Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCCWPP), June 2014, p.8.
2 Ibid.
P34
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
24
Fork Valley followed by ranchers running sheep and cattle and entrepreneurs that
established commerce to support the new industries.
In 1880, the small settlement known as Ute City was renamed Aspen and the town was
incorporated the next year. By 1891, Aspen surpassed Leadville as the nation’s largest
single silver-producing mining district and the town’s population grew to 12,000. In
1894, one of the largest nuggets of native silver ever found (2,350 pounds) was mined at
the Smuggler Mine near Aspen. However, the Sherman Silver Act was repealed in 1893
and led to demonetization of silver. After the silver bust, Aspen’s population declined to
700 and the economy languished until rebounding in the 1940s when Aspen was reborn
as a ski town. Today, the City of Aspen is the 53rd largest city in the state and a world-
renowned winter and summer resort. Surrounded by the White River National Forest
and on three sides by Aspen, Smuggler and Red Mountains, the current City of Aspen
covers 3.66 square miles within its corporate limits.3
During the boom days in 1882, demand for charcoal from smelters in Aspen resulted in
the construction of seven kilns near the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan
Rivers. Five years later in 1887, the town of Aspen Junction was formed across the
Fryingpan River from the kilns. In 1895 Aspen Junction was renamed Basalt for the
basaltic rock formation of Basalt Mountain, north of the town. The Town of Basalt was
officially incorporated during the summer of 1901. The Fryingpan Kilns at Arbany Park,
the best-preserved regional examples of the early-industry facilities, were designated as a
Local Historic Landmark in 1893.4
Before Snowmass Village became known as a world-class ski resort, ranching was the
center of economic activity in the Brush Creek Valley. During the silver-boom years, a
small number of ranchers raised cattle, sheep, wheat and hay and the ranching industry
grew and thrived in the years that followed. Inspired by the success of the Aspen ski area
during the late 1950s, a ski-area developer bought ranches at the base of Baldy and Burnt
Mountains and eventually opened the Snowmass-at-Aspen ski area in 1967. Situated
high in the Brush Creek Valley, the Town of Snowmass Village was incorporated in 1977
and today is a medium-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented community surrounded by
suburban residential neighborhoods and open space. The 25-square-mile town
maintains over 35 miles of hiking and biking trails with beautiful mountain vistas.
Snowmass Village is home to the second-largest ski mountain in Colorado with the most
vertical feet of terrain in the United States and over 150 miles of ski trails.
3.4 Population
According to the State Demography Office, Pitkin County’s population has grown since
1990 due to a combination of natural increase (during the 2000s) and net migration
(1990s). Since 2013, net migration has exceeded natural increase as population growth
in the 55-65 age group has grown faster than net in-migration of 25-30-year-olds.
3 City of Aspen Web Page, www.aspenpitkin.com.
4 Town of Basalt Web Page, www.basalt.net.
P35
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
25
Table 3.1 - Demographic and Social Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen,
Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt
Characteristic Pitkin
County
Aspen Snowmass
Village
Basalt
Population
17,420 6,740 2,865 3,791
Median Age
43.4 43.7 40.0 47.0
Population 65 Years &
Over
2,655 1,336 294 394
Female Population
8,185 3,094 1,365 1,714
Male Population 9,235 3,646 1,500 2,077
Average Household Size 2.28 2.03 2.26 2.24
Average Family Size 3.01 2.83 2.86 2.96
Percent of Total
Population with
Disabilities
6.3 4.9 12.8 4.2
Residents with Disabilities
less than 18 Years
173 31 110 0
Residents with Disabilities
18-64 Years
552 156 156 127
Residents with Disabilities
over 65 Years
367 138 100 31
Residents with Health
Insurance Coverage
14,889
(85.8%)
5,560
(83.0%)
2,440
(85.5%)
3,401
(89.7%)
Residents with High
School Degree (Percent)
95.1 96.7 100.0 93.3
Residents with Bachelor’s
Degree (Percent)
59.1 64.5 68.3 61.1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey.
3.5 Economy
Pitkin County residents have a higher median household income than the rest of the
state and a higher share of residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. In terms of race
and ethnicity, Pitkin County is less diverse than the state as a whole, but has become
more diverse over time. As an example, the Hispanic population grew by 60% between
2000 and 2010, while the white population grew by just 12% during the same period.
Most of the housing units in Pitkin County are owner-occupied (62.9%). A significant
portion of the housing units in Pitkin County (37.1% in 2010) is considered “vacant
housing,” which does not mean abandoned housing, but instead refers to seasonal and
recreational rentals (along with a small number of not-yet-sold and not-yet-rented
units). The majority of vacant units are for seasonal use (79.3%).5 Select U.S. Census
economic and housing characteristics for Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the
Towns of Snowmass Village and Basalt are provided in the table below.
5 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov.
P36
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
26
Table 3.2 - Economic and Housing Characteristics of Pitkin County, City of Aspen,
Town of Snowmass Village and Town of Basalt
Characteristic Pitkin
County
Aspen Snowmass
Village
Basalt
Median Annual Household
Income
$71,196 $67,164 $81,035 $69,583
Percent of Total
Population that is
Unemployed
7.7 7.9 4.0 8.2
Percent of Families Living
Below Poverty Level
5.4 2.6 0.0 6.2
Percent of Individuals
Living Below Poverty Level
9.9 8.8 9.7 6.4
Total Housing Units
13,027 5,961 2,698 1,865
Occupied Housing Units
7,570 3,269 1,261 1,691
Vacant Housing Units
5,457 2,692 1,437 174
Homeowner Vacancy Rate
3.3 2.4 5.0 3.3
Rental Vacancy Rate
22.4 25.7 32.1 3.3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey.
According to the U.S. Census (2015 County Business Patterns), the total number of
business establishments located in Pitkin County in the first quarter of 2015 was 1,595
and the total number of employees was 17,141 (the data does not include most
government employees, railroad employees and self-employed individuals). As in other
mountain resort communities, the largest industries by employment are accommodation
and food services; arts, entertainment and recreation; and retail trade, followed by real
estate/rental and leasing. Tourism accounts for two-thirds of the base industry
employment in Pitkin County, primarily ski resorts and second-home owners.6 In 2012,
the total number of businesses within the county was 4,855, with 3,033 of those
businesses in Aspen, 1,083 in Basalt, and 527 in Snowmass Village.7
Table 3.3 lists the top 10 major industries in Pitkin County for the first quarter of 2015 by
number of employees and number of establishments.
Table 3.3 - Industry Distribution in Pitkin County
Industry Employees Establishments
Accommodation and Food Services 5,669 167
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 3,369 51
Retail Trade 1,482 237
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,074 226
Administrative Support/Waste Management 841 101
Health Care and Social Assistance 761 72
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 673 251
Construction 578 163
6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 County Business Patterns.
7 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Survey of Business Owners.
P37
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
27
Management of Companies and Enterprises 381 10
Other Services (except Public Administration) 960 136
Total (including sectors not listed above) 17,141 1,595
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 County Business Patterns.
According to the State Demography Office, job growth is expected to continue to exceed
population growth for the period from 2015 to 2020, after which population growth will
slightly exceed job growth during the period 2020 to 2030. The transition to lower job
growth is a reflection of short-term economic growth and longer-term population aging.
As the population ages, labor force growth will decrease and older adults may require
additional housing, more accessible housing, and community services.8
3.6 Government
With the county seat in Aspen, Colorado, Pitkin County was established in 1881 and
became a home-rule county in 1978, giving local elected officials the authority of self-
government under the State Constitution, Colorado Revised Statutes, and the Home Rule
Charter for Pitkin County. A five-member Board of County Commissioners is the
decision-making body for the County. Each Commissioner is elected at large from one of
five districts and serves a four-year term. The Board of County Commissioners appoints
a county manager and county attorney, as well as a variety of citizen boards, such as the
Planning and Zoning Commission, Open Space and Trails Board, and the Financial
Advisory Board.
As a home-rule county, Pitkin County provides general government, public safety, road
and bridge, and health and welfare services required by state statute, as well as other
services such as solid waste landfill and recycling, ambulance, library, airport, parks, and
open space and trails services.
The City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village are both home-rule municipalities.
The Town of Basalt is a statutory municipality. All three municipalities have council-
mayor-manager forms of government. An appointed city/town manager oversees each
municipality’s day-to-day operations on behalf of the elected mayor and council
members. All powers are vested in the councils, which enact local legislation, adopt
budgets, determine policies and appoint the city/town managers. Aspen and Snowmass
Village have five-member councils (including the mayor), while Basalt has a seven-
member council (including the mayor).
Pitkin County Emergency Management is responsible for the planning and coordination
of local disaster services, including preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery
from natural and human-caused emergencies and disasters. To enhance planning and
coordination, the Pitkin County Public Safety Council (PSC) brings together 38
cooperating agencies, including all first response agencies (such as law enforcement and
fire departments) and other supporting agencies (such as American Red Cross and
Community Health) quarterly to discuss public safety issues in the Roaring Fork Valley.
In 2001, the Pitkin County Emergency Medical and Trauma Advisory Council (EMTAC)
was established to inspect/license ambulances, coordinate emergency medical and
8 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov.
P38
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
28
trauma services, and implement and coordinate accident prevention programs, among
other responsibilities. In 2003, the Town of Basalt established an Emergency
Management Committee (BEMC) to channel community input and to ensure that public
safety entities are meeting the needs of citizens in the Basalt area.
3.7 Fire Protection Districts (FPDs)
Aspen Fire Protection District
The Aspen Fire Protection District provides 24-hour emergency response to a wide
variety of critical situations, including structural, wildland, and urban interface fires,
explosions, hazardous materials incidents, medical emergencies, accidents and auto
extrication. Personnel are trained in swift-water rescue, as well as ice, low-angle rope,
trench, and confined-space rescue. The fire department has the capability to respond to
emergency medical needs, including basic life support. The Aspen Fire Protection
District serves 87 square miles in Pitkin County. It encompasses the City of Aspen and
several unincorporated areas, including Woody Creek, Brush Creek and Starwood.
The department also manages fire prevention and emergency preparedness programs,
including fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, burn permits, fire code
enforcement, community education, and business emergency planning in accordance
with Colorado laws. Each year the Aspen Fire Protection District spends over 4,000
hours completing hands-on training activities, which build important practical skills and
provide each firefighter with the abilities needed to quickly and correctly respond to all
types of emergency situations.9
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District provides emergency and non-emergency
services for the protection of life and property in portions of Pitkin and Eagle Counties.
Encompassing 492 square miles, the department is one of the largest fire districts in
Colorado. The department provides 24-hour emergency response to a wide variety of
critical incidents and has the capability to respond to emergency medical needs,
including basic life support.
The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District spans Colorado 82 from mile-marker 18 to 30
and follows the Fryingpan River east to the Continental Divide. The department
maintains four fire stations: Basalt, El Jebel, Meredith, and Old Snowmass. Each station
is equipped with a four-wheel drive ambulance and various fire response trucks.
The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District is made up of nearly 80 members including
the Board of Directors, the District’s Attorney and Physician Advisor, Fire Chief, Deputy
Chiefs, Fire Officers, EMS Director, EMS Shift Captains, Fire Marshal, Fleet Mechanic,
Firefighters, EMS Personnel, Fire Inspector, Office Manager, Administrative Assistants,
and numerous Firefighter and EMT Volunteers.10
9 Aspen Fire Protection District, aspenfire.com.
10 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, www.basaltfire.org.
P39
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
29
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District (SWFPD) serves a 24-square mile area of
Pitkin County including the town of Snowmass Village. The District, established in 1971,
is situated in an area known for its natural beauty at an elevation of almost 9,000 feet.
SWFPD serves a growing population as well as surges due to tourists and other visitors
that can swell the population to 25,000. SWFPD is also called upon often to provide
resources and support through mutual aid agreements with Aspen, Basalt and
Carbondale fire departments. SWFPD has 19 full-time career personnel consisting of a
Fire Chief, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, Administrative Assistant, 3 Fire
Captains, 3 Engineer/Paramedics, and 9 Firefighter/Paramedics. SWFPD is supported
by numerous volunteers and part-time reserve Firefighter/EMTs.
The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Department operates 13 pieces of apparatus out of one
station. SWFD is responsible for all Emergency Medical care as well as Fire and
Technical Rescue operations in its district. The District’s yearly call volume is around
1000 calls with approximately 40% consisting of medical calls. SWFPD proudly exhibits
an ISO rating of 4 for the entire district.11
The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection
District have reached an agreement to merge the two departments into a single district
beginning in 2017.
11 Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, www.swfpd.com.
P40
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
30
Chapter Four: Risk Assessment
The natural hazards that present the greatest risks to communities in Pitkin County are
profiled in this chapter, along with an assessment of the vulnerability of community
assets to those hazards. The purpose of the risk assessment is to provide a better
understanding of local risks and establish a framework for developing and prioritizing
mitigation actions to reduce risk from future natural hazard events.
Risk is the potential for damage, loss, or other impacts created by the interaction of
natural or other types of hazards with community assets. When people, property or other
community assets are exposed to hazards, incidents or extreme events can lead to
catastrophic impacts. “Impacts are the consequences or effects of the hazard on the
community and its assets. The type and severity of impacts are based on the extent of the
hazard and the vulnerability of the asset, as well as the community’s capabilities to
mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from events.”12
Hazard and Risk Assessment Terminology
Natural hazard – source of harm or difficulty created by a meteorological,
environmental, or geological event .
Community assets – the people, structures, facilities, and systems that have
value to the community.
Vulnerability – characteristics of community assets that make them
susceptible to damage from a given hazard.
Probability – the likelihood of the hazard occurring in the future, based on
historical frequencies or statistical probability models.
Impact – the consequences or effects of a hazard on the community and its
assets.
Magnitude – the scale or severity of a hazard event in terms of the impacts to
public safety, critical infrastructure, private property, natural resources and
other community assets.
Risk – the potential for damage, loss, or other impacts created by the
interaction of natural hazards with community assets.
Risk assessment – product or process that collects information and assigns
values to risks for the purpose of informing priorities, developing or
comparing courses of action, and informing decision making .
Human-caused incident – an incident caused by human action (or inaction),
such as a hazardous materials accident or long-term power outage, or an
intentional action of an adversary, such as a cyber event.
Source: Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, FEMA (March 2013).
The information provided in this risk assessment is intended as a tool to support local
decision-making and a framework for developing and prioritizing mitigation actions to
reduce risk from future hazard events. For the 2017 updates to this plan, the process that
was followed is consistent with the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA)
12 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, FEMA (March 2013), p. 5-1
P41
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
31
process outlined and followed in the Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013)
and conforms to the methodology described in FEMA regulations and guidelines,
including the publication Understanding Your Risks— Identifying Hazards and
Estimating Losses (2002).
4.1 Federal Disaster Declaration History for Pitkin County
Federal disaster declarations are granted when the magnitude and severity of impacts
caused by an event surpass the ability of state and affected local governments to respond
and recover. Most disaster assistance programs are supplemental and require a local
cost-sharing match. When the response capacity of an affected jurisdiction is exhausted,
a state disaster declaration may be issued, allowing for the provision of state assistance,
usually for the purpose of covering the costs of state assets committed to response
operations.
Should the severity of the disaster event surpass both the local and state government
response capacity, a federal emergency or disaster declaration may be issued, allowing
for the provision of federal disaster assistance. Generally, the federal government issues
disaster declarations through FEMA. However, federal assistance may also come from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Small Business Association (SBA), or
other government programs such as the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program
(FMAG). FEMA also issues emergency declarations, which are more limited in scope and
without the long-term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. The
quantity and types of damage are the determining factors.
USDA disaster declarations are the most common type of federal disaster assistance and
is limited to low-interest loans to farmers and ranchers to help compensate for losses
due to natural hazards, including drought, freezing, hail, and insect infestations. Table
4.1 lists the federal disaster declarations for which Pitkin County was a designated
county.
Table 4.1 - Federal Disaster Declaration History (1965-2017) for Pitkin County
Year Disaster Event Type Declaration Type
(Number)
1977 Drought; emergency federal public
assistance to repair/replace disaster-
damaged facilities.
Federal Emergency
(EM-3025)
1984 Minor-to-moderate property damage in
Basalt (flooding) and Aspen (mudslides).
FEMA Disaster
(DR-719)
2002 Statewide federal drought designation
(snowpack in Colorado on April 1 just 52% of
normal).
USDA Disaster
(Number N/A)
2006 Federal drought designation for Pitkin
County for losses due to heat, high winds
and drought.
USDA Disaster
(S2351)
2012 Federal designation for Pitkin County for
losses due to freezing conditions.
USDA Disaster
(S3307)
2013 Federal designation for Pitkin County for
losses due to drought.
USDA Disaster
(S3575)
P42
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
32
2013 Federal designation for Pitkin County for
losses due to frost and freezing.
USDA Disaster
(S3583)
2014 Federal designation for Pitkin County for
losses due to frost and freezing.
USDA Disaster
(S3760)
Source: Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013); Colorado Drought Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2013); FEMA, www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema.
4.2 Hazard Identification
At the first workshop on June 7, 2017, participants provided input on local risks from
natural hazards (in terms of probability, magnitude and priority), identified new hazards
to include in the updated plan (dam failure flooding), and identified the need to address
public health issues and the implications of climate change for each hazard profiled in
the updated plan.
Participants also recommended adding debris flows and mudflows to the other geologic
hazards included in the plan (landslides and rockfall). The table below identifies the
eight natural hazards recommended for inclusion in the 2017 update of this plan.
Table 4.2 - Significant Natural Hazards Affecting Pitkin County
Significant Natural Hazards Affecting Pitkin County
Avalanches
Dam Failure Flooding
Drought
Floods
Geologic Hazards (Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows and Rockfalls)
Lightning
Wildfires
Winter Storms (Severe Winter Storms)
Source: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
The Planning Team evaluated each of these natural hazards focusing on the number of
previous occurrences, probability of future events, and the estimated magnitude and
severity of impacts to community assets. Using the results of the previous risk
assessment in the 2012 HMP as a starting point, ratings-rankings were reevaluated and
modified by participants at the two planning workshops and through information
gathered in surveys and interviews. Although results of the risk assessment vary slightly
from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, the consensus of the Planning Team is that the
following three natural hazards pose the greatest risks to people and property
throughout Pitkin County and are priorities for planning and mitigation:
1. Wildfires
2. Geologic Hazards (Landslides/Debris Flows/Mudflows/Rockfalls)
3. Flooding.
P43
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
33
Other natural hazards that are not profiled in this updated plan, due to the low
probability of their occurrence or the low likelihood of serious impacts to people and
property in the rare event of an occurrence, are earthquake, extreme heat, hail,
subsidence, tornado/windstorm and volcano.
Although natural hazards are the focus of this hazard mitigation plan, the Planning Team
also rated the highest priority human-caused hazards, in this order:
1. Special Events
2. Infrastructure/Public Service Disruptions
3. Aviation Accidents.
The results of the 2017 Risk Assessment are exhibited in the tables below, based on
probability and magnitude. Probability is defined by FEMA as the likelihood of the
hazard occurring in the future, based on historical frequencies or statistical probability
models.
Table 4.3 - Categories for Estimating Probability of Future Hazard Occurrences
Probability Categories
Highly Likely Near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it
happens every year.
Likely 10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a
recurrence interval of 10 years or less.
Occasional 1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or it
has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
Unlikely Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence next 100 years
(recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years).
Magnitude refers to the scale or severity of a hazard event in terms of the impacts to
public safety, critical infrastructure, private property, natural resources and other
community assets.
Table 4.4 - Categories for Estimating Magnitude of Future Hazard Occurrences
Magnitude Categories
Catastrophic Multiple deaths; property destroyed and severely
damaged; and/or interruption of essential facilities and
services for more than 72 hours.
Critical Isolated deaths and/or multiple injuries and illnesses;
major or long-term property damage; and/or interruption
of essential facilities and services for 24-72 hours.
Limited Minor injuries and illnesses; minimal property damage;
and/or interruption of essential facilities and services for
less than 24 hours.
Negligible No or few injuries or illnesses; minor quality of life loss;
little or no property damage; and/or brief interruption of
essential facilities and services.
P44
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
34
Natural Hazards in the Fire Protection Districts
The Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) serves 87 square miles in Pitkin County
and encompasses the City of Aspen and several unincorporated areas, including Woody
Creek, Brush Creek and Starwood. The Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection
District (SWFPD) serves a 21-square mile area of the county that includes the Town of
Snowmass Village. Encompassing an area of 492 square miles that spans parts of Pitkin
and Eagle Counties, the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District (BRFPD) is
one of the largest fire districts in Colorado. The BRFPD boundaries include the Town of
Basalt and span Colorado 82 from mile-marker 18 to 30, following the Fryingpan River
east to the Continental Divide. A process to unify the Snowmass-Wildcat and Basalt and
Rural fire protection districts began in 2017 and will be completed in January 2019.
The types of natural hazards faced by the three fire protection districts participating in
this HMP update are the same hazards that could potentially impact municipalities and
other areas throughout the county. The evaluation of the risks posed by these hazards –
in terms of probability and magnitude – was conducted collaboratively by the fire
protection districts and the incorporated areas that they serve within the district. The
three fire districts are all at risk to the natural hazards profiled in this plan, with the
more populated areas of each fire district facing the most severe potential impacts to
people, property and other community assets.
All areas of Pitkin County are susceptible to wildfires, flooding and drought and High
(Class I) and Significant (Class II) dams are located in each of the fire protection
districts. Many hazard events, including avalanches, lightning, landslides and other
geologic hazards, occur with greater frequency in remote, backcountry areas of the fire
districts because of the large geographic area they cover. Impacts to people or improved
property from these events; however, are generally limited.
Pitkin County has been spared to date from the devastating impacts of a large wildfire,
major flood or other disaster event, although more minor natural hazard events occur on
a regular basis and are effectively managed by fire service and other public safety
agencies. The consensus reached between representatives of the fire districts,
municipalities and other stakeholders – concerning the probability and potential
magnitude of each hazard – are reflected in the tables in Section 4.3, Hazard Profile
Summary, of this chapter.
4.3 Hazard Profile Summary
The table below provides a composite summary of hazard ratings – by probability and
magnitude – across the participating jurisdictions.
P45
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
35
Table 4.5 - 2017 Composite Risk Assessment: Pitkin County and Partner
Jurisdictions
Pitkin County Composite Risk Summary
All Participating Jurisdictions
Hazard Probability Magnitude
Wildfire Likely Catastrophic
Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical
Flood* Occasional Critical Catastrophic
Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited
Avalanche Likely Critical
Lightning Likely Limited
Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic
Drought Occasional Limited
Legend
Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely
Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic
*Flood hazard rated potentially catastrophic by Aspen and Basalt and critical by
Snowmass Village and Pitkin County
The risk probability and magnitude rankings for each of the participating jurisdictions
are summarized in the tables below.
Table 4.6 - Aspen/Aspen FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and
Magnitude
Hazard Risk Summary
City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District
Hazard Probability Magnitude
Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical
Avalanche Highly Likely Critical
Wildfire Likely Critical
Flood Occasional Catastrophic
Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited
Lightning Likely Limited
Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic
Drought Occasional Limited
Legend
Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely
Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic
P46
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
36
Table 4.7 - Basalt/Basalt & Rural FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and
Magnitude
Hazard Risk Summary
Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
Hazard Probability Magnitude
Wildfire Likely Catastrophic
Flood Occasional Catastrophic
Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Limited
Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited
Avalanche Occasional Critical
Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic
Lightning Likely Limited
Drought Occasional Limited
Legend
Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely
Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic
Table 4.8 - Pitkin County Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude
Hazard Risk Summary
Pitkin County
Hazard Probability Magnitude
Wildfire Likely Catastrophic
Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical
Winter Storm Highly Likely Critical
Flood Occasional Critical
Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic
Lightning Likely Limited
Avalanche Likely Limited
Drought Occasional Limited
Legend
Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely
Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic
P47
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
37
Table 4.9 - Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated
Probability and Magnitude
Hazard Risk Summary
Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
Hazard Probability Magnitude
Wildfire Likely Catastrophic
Geologic Hazards Highly Likely Critical
Avalanche Highly Likely Critical
Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited
Flood Occasional Critical
Lightning Likely Limited
Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Critical
Drought Occasional Limited
Legend
Probability Unlikely Occasional Likely Highly Likely
Magnitude Negligible Limited Critical Catastrophic
4.4 Climate Change and Natural Hazards
Climate Trends
The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997 and the Earth’s surface
temperatures in 2016 were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880,
according to independent analyses by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). In 2016, globally-averaged temperatures were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit warmer
than the mid-20th century mean, continuing a long-term warming trend and making
2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.
The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2˚F (1.1˚C) since the late 19th
century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made
emissions into the atmosphere.13
Colorado’s climate has warmed 2˚F in the last 30 years and 2.5˚F over the last 50 years.
According to the Colorado Climate Plan, models project the state will experience an
additional 2 to 5 degrees of warming by 2050.14 Since 1940, average temperatures in
Aspen have increased more than 2˚F and trends indicate longer summers as
temperatures continue to rise. Since 1980, the length of the frost-free period in Aspen
has increased by 23 days as minimum temperatures increase more than maximum
temperatures.15
13 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, www.nasa.gov, January 18, 2017.
14 Colorado Climate Plan, State Level Policies and Strategies to Mitigate and Adapt (2015), Executive
Summary.
15 Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and Aspen: An
Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement , Aspen Global Change
Institute, p. 13.
P48
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
38
Table 4.10 - Summary of Climate Trends Observed in and around Aspen
Observation Trend: 1940-1979 Trend: 1980-2013
Average Temperature
1.0˚F increase 1.4˚F increase
Frost Free Days
11-day increase 23-day increase
Total Precipitation
2.6-inch increase 0.6-inch decrease
Snow Water Equivalent
(Independence Pass)
Data not available 1.2-inch decrease
Source: Climate Change and Aspen 2014
Note: Aspen’s weather station relocated in 1980 approximately 200 feet higher in elevation, which may
affect the trends observed since 1940.
In the Final Draft of the Climate Science Special Report (June 28, 2017) of the U.S.
Global Change Research Program, the authors indicate that the most recent data “adds
to the weight of evidence for rapid global-scale warming, the dominance of human
causes, and the expected continuation of increasing temperatures, including more
record-setting extremes,” adding: “The global, long-term, and unambiguous warming
trend has continued during recent years.”16
Effects of Climate Change on Natural Hazards
As the climate warms, it is expected that drought and severe weather-related hazard
events, including heavy rainfall and flooding, will increase in both frequency and
intensity. According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, temperatures in the U.S.
will continue to rise, heat waves will become more intense, and the frequency and
intensity of extreme precipitation events will increase. In the Southwest region that
includes Colorado, less winter and summer precipitation is projected and longer-term
drought events are expected to intensify, magnifying the risks and impacts of wildfires.17
The timing of peak river levels has changed since the middle of the last century in
response to warming trends. Snowpack and snowmelt-fed rivers have earlier peak flow
trends due to declines in spring snowpack, earlier snowmelt-fed streamflow, the effects
of dust on snow, and larger percentages of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow.18
Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events
Extreme weather events are caused by a variety of possible contributing factors, with
human-induced climate change now considered by a large majority of the scientific
community to be one of those factors.
All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather
now develops in a different environment than before. While natural variability
continues to play a key role in extreme weather, climate change has shifted the
16 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, June 28, 2017, Final Draft of the Climate
Science Special Report (CSSR), U.S. Global Change Research Program , p. 13.
17 National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program, nca2014globalchange.gov.
18 Melillo, J.M., Terice Richmond, and Gary Yoke, Eds. (2014), Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the
United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 72.
P49
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
39
odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather
more frequent and more intense.19
While climate extremes are a natural part of the climate system, “changing climate leads
to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme
weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and
climate events.”20 Although the role that climate warming plays in any single extreme
weather-related event cannot be measured, several unprecedented historic events have
occurred in the last five years, including near disasters -- like the Oroville Dam
emergency in Northern California in February 2017 -- and catastrophic disasters, most
notably the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey, a storm that generated the most
extreme rainfall event in U.S. history (51.9 inches).
There are also examples of record-setting events that have occurred in Colorado in the
last five years, including the worst wildfires in state history (Black Forest Fire in 2013
and Waldo Canyon Fire in 2012) and the worst flood in state history (Northern Front
Range in 2013). In 2014, the longest landslide in the state’s history (the West Salt Lake
slide at 2.8 miles) occurred in Mesa County, while other parts of the state were just
recovering from an extended drought period that rivaled the Dust Bowl-era in intensity.
Extreme Event Attribution
The science of “event attribution” involves estimating how much climate change affects
an individual event’s magnitude or probability of occurrence. Analysis of the attribution
of extreme weather events to changes in the climate system can provide valuable
information about future risks for land-use planners, emergency managers and policy
makers.
A solid understanding of extreme weather event attribution in the context of
changing climate can help provide insight into and confidence in the many risk
calculations that underpin much of society’s building codes; land, water, health
and food management; insurance; transportation networks; and many
additional aspects of daily life.21
Extreme event attribution studies attempt to determine how much of the credit or risk
for an event should go to global warming and how much should go to natural weather
patterns or random climate variability. Event attribution can help determine whether
global warming added to the existing mix of ingredients that already make extreme
weather happen, or whether global warming made an event more likely or more severe.
19 Climate Communication, climatecommunication.org.
20 IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to
Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D.
Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of
Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, p. 7.
21 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2016), Attribution of Extreme Weather
Events in the Context of Climate Change, Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change
Attribution, Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division of Earth and Life Studies, p. x.
P50
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
40
Knowing whether global warming influenced the probability or intensity of an
extreme weather event can help people in affected communities develop
recovery and resilience plans that match their future risk…The goal of extreme
event attribution is to provide a local-scale perspective that people,
communities, and businesses can use to better anticipate future changes in
extremes at their specific location.22
Climate Change in Pitkin County, Colorado
The report Climate Change and Aspen (2014), prepared by the Aspen Global Change
Institute, describes what living with natural hazards in the age of climate change will
look like in Aspen and its neighboring communities in the Roaring Fork Valley of Pitkin
County.
For Aspen, climate change will likely include longer summertime warm periods,
earlier onset of spring snowmelt, more precipitation arriving as rain rather than
snow, and longer dry periods with heavier precipitation events in between.
These types of changes could exacerbate already risky wildfire conditions, place
extra pressure on already stretched water providers and users, provide
additional challenges to ski area operators and other winter and summer
recreation providers, as well as result in other impacts to every sector important
to the Aspen community.23
Precipitation and snowfall in Pitkin County have been variable over the period 1940-
2013, but as temperatures continue to rise, duration of snowpack and percent of
precipitation falling as snow rather than rain may decline. Snowpack depth and duration
of snow cover are closely linked to water availability, watershed functions and winter
ecology.24
Like many areas of Colorado, the winter tourism-based economy in Pitkin County relies
on consistent winter storm fronts and adequate snowpack, but changes have already
been observed in the timing of snow-producing storms and current climate trends have
raised concerns about the possible impacts of a shortened winter sports season in the
future.
Response to Climate Change
Societal responses to climate change fall into one of two categories: (1) mitigation, which
in climate change vernacular refers to measures taken to reduce future human-induced
global warming, primarily by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) adaptation, or
efforts to reduce the vulnerability of society to the impacts of climate change. Strategies
and actions that implement both mitigation and adaptation measures are needed to
effectively address future impacts. Since carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere
at a rate approximately one-half of the current rate of human-caused emissions,
22 Lindsey, Rebecca, December 15, 2016, Extreme Event Attribution: The Climate Versus Weather Blame
Game, NOAAClimate.gov.
23 Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and Aspen: An
Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement , Aspen Global Change
Institute, p. 10.
24 Ibid, p. 60.
P51
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
41
mitigation measures are more challenging, but adaptation efforts will be less effective
and more expensive if significant mitigation actions are not taken.25
In light of recent high-profile extreme events and the ever-rising costs of disaster
recovery, the number of communities in the U.S seeking FEMA-approved hazard
mitigation plans has grown steadily in recent years. Hazard mitigation plans provide
communities with an opportunity to simultaneously meet FEMA pre-disaster planning
requirements while considering the implications of climate change for future natural
hazard events. States are now required by FEMA to include projected climate warming
effects in hazard mitigation plans, but the mandate has not been extended to local
governments as of updates to this plan. Climate change may eventually lead to changes
in the way natural hazards risks are assessed, with less emphasis on historical hazard
information and greater efforts to understand the implications of climate warming for
the frequency, severity and duration of future events.26
Integrating climate change and natural hazards into all community plans is an important
step that local governments can take to promote resiliency and disaster prevention and
encourage interagency and multi-jurisdictional coordination. Incorporating climate-
related risks into local codes and standards is an effective method for protecting existing
and future structures. Specific hazard mitigation actions that address climate change in
Pitkin County are included in Chapter Six, Mitigation Strategy, of this plan.
4.5 Public Health Impacts of Natural Hazards
The human costs of natural disasters are well documented: death, injury, disease, and
behavioral health impacts are the most evident consequences of extreme weather-related
events. A warming climate will change the frequency, intensity and geographic
distribution of weather extremes. Widespread consensus exists in the climate-science
community that the world’s climate is warming and that these changes will lead to more
variable weather, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, flooding, droughts, intense
storms and air pollution. Less obvious impacts of climate warming include changes in
the distribution of mosquitoes, ticks and rodents that carry diseases like West Nile virus
and Lyme disease.
Climate change can affect public health in two main ways: (1) by changing the frequency
or severity of health problems already affected by climate and weather factors, and (2) by
creating new, unanticipated health risks in areas where they have not previously
occurred.27 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the health
effects of a changing climate include increased respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events, threats to mental
health, and changes in the frequency and distribution of food- and water-borne illnesses
and other infectious diseases.28
25 Melillo, Jerry, Terise Richmond, and Gary Yohe, Eds. (2014), Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the
United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Research Program, pp. 62-64.
26 Stults, M., Climate Risk Management (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.004.
27 U.S Global Change Research Program, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United
States, 2016, GlobalChange.com.
28 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects.
P52
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
42
Figure 4.1 - Public Health Impacts of Climate Change
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects.
In Pitkin County, potential extreme events with important health impacts include
flooding, droughts and wildfires.
• Flooding poses direct risks of drowning and injury and can result in mold growth,
vector-borne disease transmission, and water contamination;
• Drought and extreme heat can cause water shortages, disrupt food production,
increase ground-level ozone, and lead to larger, more intense wildfires;
• Wildfires are expected to increase in frequency, size and intensity, with increased
emissions that are harmful to human health.
Depending on the type of extreme event, public health impacts may include increased
heart problems, increased respiratory illness (e.g., asthma attacks, pneumonia), vector-
borne disease transmission (e.g., Zika and West Nile viruses), longer allergy seasons,
environmental-related stress and anxiety, worsened mental health conditions (e.g.,
dementia, schizophrenia), and shorter life expectancies.
The threat of large wildfires in and around Pitkin County poses dangerous and
potentially lethal risks for individuals with chronic respiratory conditions. Smoke from
burning trees and vegetation can irritate eyes and respiratory systems, with higher risks
for those with chronic heart and lung diseases, and for children and the elderly. Wildfire
smoke contains particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile
organic compounds that can drastically reduce air quality. Smoke exposure increases
P53
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
43
hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and the number of people requiring treatment
for asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, COPD, respiratory infections and lung illnesses.29
4.6 Hazard Profile Methodology
Each of the hazards identified as posing a threat in Pitkin County are profiled in
subsequent sections. Each profile includes a summary of the overall risk and
vulnerability for each identified hazard. The sources used to collect information for the
hazard profiles include, but are not limited to the following:
• State of Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013);
• Information on past hazard events from the Spatial Hazard Event and Loss
Database; (SHELDUS), a component of the University of South Carolina Hazards
Research Lab, that compiles county-level hazard data for 18 natural hazard event
types;
• Information on past extreme weather and climate events from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental
Information (formerly the National Climatic Data Center or NCDC);
• Disaster declaration history from FEMA, the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI),
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA);
• State of Colorado datasets compiled by state and federal agencies;
• Existing plans and reports; and
• Information collected from members of the Pitkin County Planning Team and
additional stakeholders.
Each hazard is profiled in the format outlined below that describes hazard
characteristics, including hazard location, previous occurrences, probability,
magnitude/severity, and vulnerable community assets.
• Hazard Description - this subsection provides a general description of the
hazard and associated problems and considers the relationship between hazards;
• Geographic Location - this subsection identifies the areas within Pitkin
County that are vulnerable to each hazard, or whether potential impacts could
affect the entire county;
• Previous Occurrences - this subsection contains an overview of information
on historic incidents, including major incident impacts where known;
• Probability of Future Occurrences - the probability, or chance of
occurrence, was calculated based on existing data by dividing the number of
events observed by the number of years and multiplying by 100, then adjusting
based on the experience and expertise of members of the Pitkin County Hazard
Mitigation Planning Team;
• Magnitude/Severity - this subsection summarizes the extent or potential
extent of a hazard event in terms of deaths, injuries, property damage, and
interruption of essential facilities and services;
• Vulnerability Assessment - this subsection describes the county’s overall
vulnerability to each hazard; identifies existing and future structures, critical
29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects.
P54
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
44
facilities, and infrastructure in identified hazard areas; and estimates potential
losses to vulnerable structures, where data is available; and
• Potential Effects of Climate Warming - this subsection examines each
hazard with respect to possible changes in the occurrence, frequency, intensity
and duration of natural hazard events due to climate change, based on the latest
scientific research.
4.7 Wildfires
Hazard Description
According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, a wildfire is “an
unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped
wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires
where the objective is to put the fire out. Wildfires are divided into four categories:
• Wildland fire – fuel consists mainly of natural vegetation;
• Interface or intermix fire – urban/wildland fires that consist of vegetation
and manmade fuel;
• Catastrophic fire – a very intense event that makes suppression very difficult
and negatively impacts human values;
• Prescribed fire – Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific
objectives.”30
Three factors that contribute to fire ignition and growth are fuel, topography, and
weather. Fuel sources include dead tree needles, leaves, twigs, branches, dead standing
trees, live trees, brush, and cured grasses. Grasses and lighter fuels burn quickly and can
spread a ground fire up through brush into trees, leading to a crown fire in the upper
canopy that cannot be controlled. The topography of an area also influences wildfire
behavior. Due to the convection of heat, both fire intensity and rate of fire spread
increases as slope increases. Finally, weather also plays a key role in both fire starts and
the ability of firefighters to control and suppress large wildfires. Wind, temperature,
relative humidity and lightning are the weather factors that have the greatest effect on
fire behavior.
Geographic Location
The wildfire risk in Pitkin County is primarily associated with wildland-urban interface
(WUI) areas (areas where development occurs within or immediately adjacent to
wildlands, near fire-prone trees, brush, and/or other vegetation). Persistent drought in
Colorado since 2000, coupled with fire suppression, has resulted in extremely dry and
volatile fuels and a corresponding threat of large, erratic wildfires. Wildfires occur both
naturally (e.g., lightning strikes) and from human causes, including illegal outdoor fires,
sparks from trains, discarded cigarettes, and outdoor cooking grills.
30 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December 2013), Colorado Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management, p. 3-214
P55
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
45
The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) conducts regular assessments to evaluate
wildfire risks and hazards in the state. CSFS uses the following three GIS layers to
determine fire danger:
1) Risk – probability of ignition
• lightning strike intensity
• existence of 100-meter road and railroad buffers
2) Hazard – vegetative and topological features affecting intensity and rate of
spread
• Slope
• Aspect
• Vegetation (fuels)
3) Values
• natural or manmade components of the ecosystem on which a value can
be placed (e.g., housing density).
More than half of Pitkin County is forested with much of the remaining vegetation types
dominated by pinyon/juniper, alpine meadows, willows and riparian shrublands,
Gambel oak, sagebrush and agricultural grasslands. The forested areas are primarily
aspen stands with widespread mixed conifer stands.31
Previous Occurrences
Wildland fire occurrence in Pitkin County is tracked by three agencies: (1) the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS)/White River National Forest, (2) the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), and the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). The federal agencies record fire
data from federal lands and CSFS keeps records of fires on state and private lands. CSFSs
statistics only reflect those wildland fires reported by local fire departments. As in other
areas of Colorado, most fires in Pitkin County are started by human-caused (including
equipment) ignitions and a small number of fires account for the majority of acres
burned.
Historic occurrences of wildfire by county are not well documented. Although most are
controlled when they are small (one acre or less), fire protection districts in Pitkin
County respond to many wildfire events each year. Fortunately, Pitkin County has been
spared to date from large fires like the devastating fires that impacted counties across
Colorado in 2012 1nd 2013.
31 Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (June 2014), p. 11.
P56
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
46
Figure 4.2 - Historic Wildfire Occurrences in Pitkin County
Probability
The Planning Team has rated the probability of
future wildfire events as likely, with a
recurrence interval of 10 years or less (10-100%
chance in a given year). The frequency of large
wildfires and the total area burned have been
increasing in Colorado and the western U.S
with climate warming contributing to longer
fire seasons, drier conditions, more fuels, and
an increased number of lightning strikes.
Hazard: Wildfire
Probability
Pitkin County Likely
Aspen Likely
Basalt Likely
Snowmass Village Likely
P57
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
47
Magnitude/Severity
When conditions combine to cause a fast-
moving wildfire, potential impacts include
destruction of structures, vehicles, signage and
other property, as well as smoke damage to
buildings. Wildfires can also impact utilities,
watersheds, natural and cultural resources,
range and crop lands, and local economies (e.g.,
fire expenditures/loss of tourism). Smoke and
air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. As climate warming leads to
longer, more intense periods of drought, the risks and impacts of wildfires are expected
to grow, in turn leading to greater risks from landslides, mudflows and other geologic
hazards during heavy rainfall events. The magnitude/severity of the wildfire hazard in
Pitkin County, Basalt and Snowmass Village is rated catastrophic, while the hazard is
rated critical in and around Aspen.
Vulnerability Assessment
The potential for wildfire-caused damage to structures in Pitkin County is increasing as
wildland fuels accumulate and greater numbers of people choose to build homes in
wildfire-prone areas. Wildland fuels are comprised of both live and dead vegetation that
are available for combustion. The greatest concern in terms of hazard fuels are the
lodgepole pine forests and mixed-conifer stands that surround the WUI and are also
subject to insect infestation. Key public safety issues related to wildfire mitigation
include evacuation-route planning in “one-way-out” subdivisions, fuel reduction, water
storage, and emergency power for pump stations.
Throughout Pitkin County, approximately 11,000 structures are located within the WUI
(approximately 58% of all structures within the County), with a combined estimated
actual value of nearly $14.6 billion. Most of these structures are located in areas
classified as having at least a “Medium” wildfire hazard risk.32 The increased wildfire
risks related to climate warming may lead to reclassification of areas from low- or
medium-risk to high- or very high-risk.
32 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012).
Hazard: Wildfire
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Catastrophic
Aspen Critical
Basalt Catastrophic
Snowmass Village Catastrophic
P58
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
48
Figure 4.3 - Pitkin County Wildland-Urban Interface Hazards Map
In the Aspen area, the number of homes in proximity to the WUI is growing. The areas
coded in red in the map in Figure 4.4 below are considered at “High” risk for wildfire
(the mapped area extends one mile beyond the City boundaries). Approximately half of
the total acreage is classified “High” or “Very High.”33
33 City of Aspen, Community Development/Buildings, No Harm Map.
P59
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
49
Figure 4.4 - Proximate Areas Deemed High/Very High Wildfire Risk (as of Q1 2017)
Source: Anchor Point NoHARM Map/Guidance Documentation on Wildfire Risk Areas (June 2017).
In the Snowmass Village area, approximately 70% of the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire
Protection District is at higher risk for wildfire. Most of that area is in the Wildcat Ranch
area, which has low population density but very high property values. In Snowmass
Village proper, about 40% of the area has a “High” wildfire risk, but the area has both
high population density and high property values, so the Town is the highest risk area in
the district. In addition to residential areas, Town Hall, Snowmass Village Police
Department, the Town Maintenance Facility, Post Office, and Snowmass Center business
district are located within the incorporated area.
Brush Creek Road is the primary access to Snowmass Village and is vulnerable to both
wildland fire and landslide/mudslide hazards. Owl Creek Rd, the only other access road,
is also susceptible to these hazards. The Holy Cross electrical substation is in an area that
has moderate wildfire threat but is constructed of materials that reduce its vulnerability.
Like the other communities along the Roaring Fork River valley floor in Pitkin County,
the town of Basalt has experienced residential growth on the valley edges and within the
densely-forested hillsides outside of town above the valley. The Basalt & Rural Fire
Protection District spans parts of both Pitkin and Eagle Counties and its personnel are
trained to fight structural fires in the town of Basalt, urban interface fires in surrounding
areas and wildland fires in high terrain and backcountry areas.
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
Climate change affects multiple, critical elements of the wildland fire system: drought
conditions, ignition sources, insect infestations, fire behavior, fire management, and the
accumulation of woody fuels. According to the U. S. Forest Service, global warming
P60
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
50
associated with elevated greenhouse-gas concentrations has created an atmospheric and
fuel environment that is more conducive to large severe fires.34
According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, large fires burn more than
twice the area they did in 1970, and the average wildfire season is 78 days longer.35 The
frequency of large wildfires and the total area burned have been steadily increasing in
the western United States, with global warming being a major contributing factor in the
following ways:
• Longer fire seasons as spring runoff occurs earlier and warm conditions
extend further into fall (snowpack is now melting one to four weeks earlier than it
did 50 years ago);
• Drier conditions that increase the probability of fire occurrence;
• More fuel for forest fires due to widespread beetle and other insect
infestations, resulting in vast forest areas of dead and highly combustible trees;
and
• Increased frequency of lightning as thunderstorms become more severe.36
The health of forests in Pitkin County and around the state have been under long-term
stress as a result of extended periods of drought and disease. Adding a warming climate
to already-dangerous wildland fire conditions can only increase the risk of large
catastrophic fires in and near mountain communities. As population growth occurs in
the wildland-urban interface, the risk to people and property is compounded.
Overlaying the climate change context on this already challenging situation
adds complexity. As hotter, more damaging, more intense, and more frequent
wildfires have become the norm, scientists point to the trend as indicative of a
changing planet. It can be difficult to separate the many variables at play, but we
know that fire is a participant in the dynamics of climate change. As
temperatures increase and snow melts earlier, wildfires begin earlier in the
season and have become more frequent. At the same time, those fires release
CO2, contributing to the ongoing rise in global temperatures.37
A large proportion of Pitkin County’s population lives and recreates in and near forested
areas and wildfires pose serious risks to residents, visitors, property and wildlife, in
addition to increasing the potential for floods and debris flows in and near burn areas.38
34 McKenzie, D.; Heinsch, F.A.; Heilman, W.E. (January 2011), Wildland Fire and Climate Change. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource
Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildfire.
35 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, c2es.org
36 National Wildlife Federation (2008), Increased Risk of Catastrophic Wildfires: Global Warming’s Wake-
Up Call for the Western United States, www.nwf.org.
37 Colorado Climate Plan, State Level Policies and Strategies to Mitigate and Adapt (2015), p. 65.
38 Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and Aspen: An
Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement, Aspen Global Change
Institute, p. 69.
P61
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
51
4.8 Geologic Hazards: Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows
and Rockfalls
Hazard Description
The 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan defines landslides as the
“downward and outward movement of slopes composed of natural rock, soils, artificial
fills, or combinations thereof.” Landslides can damage infrastructure, destroy or
destabilize structures, and cover rail and roadways, resulting in extended closures and
temporary disruptions of utility services. Damage to oil and natural gas pipelines and
electrical conduits may result in an interruption of services both in the affected areas and
those further down the pipelines from affected areas. Geologic hazards are most
common in areas with steep slopes and grading, but may occur anywhere that natural or
artificial materials may shift or slide.39
The geologic hazards profiled in this section are landslides, debris flows, mudflows and
rockfalls. Although the term landslide refers to a wide range of earth and ground
movements, there are important distinctions between landslides, debris flows, mudflows
and rockfalls with respect to preparedness, insurance and hazard mitigation.
• Landslides are masses of soil and rock that move downward and outward from
a slope along a defined sliding surface. Factors that influence the occurrence of
landslides include steepness of slope, soil moisture, soil thickness and vegetation.
Landslides are commonly triggered by saturated soils caused by heavy rainfall
and/or melting snowpack.
• Debris flows are rapidly-moving masses of mud, sand, soil, rock and water that
can reach speeds of 100 miles per hour. Due to their high speed and destructive
forces, debris flows present a considerable threat to public safety and can destroy
structures and other improvements in their path. To be considered a debris flow,
more than half of the moving material must be larger than sand grains (i.e.,
gravel, pebble, cobble and boulders).
• Mudflows, or mud flows, are masses of water and fine-grained earth materials
that flow rapidly and turbulently downslope, usually in a drainageway. Mudflows
commonly have the consistency of pancake batter or freshly-mixed concrete and
can incorporate trees, rocks and other debris in its path, thereby increasing the
erosive and destructive power of the flow. To be considered a mudflow, more
than half of the particles in the mass must be sand-sized or smaller.
• Rockfalls, or rock falls, are the fastest type of landslide and occur most
frequently in the spring when there is high soil moisture and repeated freezing
and thawing. Most rockfalls only involve the movement of one or a few rocks or
boulders (sometimes referred to as rock topple). The failure of a large mass of
rocks, sometimes referred to as a rockslide or rock avalanche, presents a greater
potential risk to people and property that may be in the path. Indirect impacts
include maintenance costs associated with clearing highways ditches in rockfall
areas.40
39 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security &
Emergency Management, p. 3-180.
40 Colorado Geological Survey, http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/geologic-hazards/.
P62
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
52
Geographic Location
Debris flow and mudflow hazards are closely related to flash flooding, with heavy
rainfall, rapid snowmelt, or both being the common triggering event. Rapid runoff of
floodwaters in the drainageway can pick up and carry soil, rocks, vegetation and other
debris downstream with tremendous force. Debris flows and mudflows compound the
impacts of flash flooding by increasing the destructive power of the event and by
depositing large volumes of accumulated material. In the lower reaches of the channel
near the valley floor, the mud and debris slow down and spread out to form a debris fan,
or mud deposit. Like flash floods, debris flows and mudflows occur with little or no
warning, cause extensive erosion, and can potentially pose a substantial risk to life and
property.41
Figure 4.5 - Mudflow near Redstone, July 31, 2010
Source: USGS (photo by Jeff Bier).
Landslides, debris flows, mudflows and rockfalls are widespread, frequent occurrences in
the Rocky Mountain West. Correlated closely with elevation change, landslides and other
geologic hazards occur naturally in Pitkin County on a continuous basis and can also be
triggered through human activity related to land development, mining and other
disturbances. Due to its topography, most areas of Pitkin County are vulnerable to
geologic hazards. Landslides and other geologic hazard events have been recorded at
Aspen Mountain, Snowmass Village, Independence Pass, Redstone and other areas in
the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and Crystal River valleys.
Previous Occurrences
In the 1970s and 1980s, Pitkin County experienced a spike in landslide problems in
developing residential areas near ski slopes. Since then, several notable, destructive
events have occurred, as indicated in the table below, but loss of life and large-scale
41 Ibid.
P63
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
53
property damages have to date been averted, with the exception of the death of a hiker in
a rockslide in 2012 near the county line between Pitkin and Gunnison Counties.
Table 4.11 - Significant Geologic Hazard Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017
Year Location Event Description
1984 Woody Creek Mudslide washed out Woody Creek Rd. 7 miles from
intersection with River Rd., causing several injuries.
1993 Castle Creek A large mudslide on Castle Creek damaged the Aspen
Music School.
1994 Shale Bluffs A large mudslide occurred in the area known as Shale
Bluffs, west of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, during
a visit by President Clinton.
1996 Aspen
Mountain
Two debris flow events on the west side of Aspen
Mountain in May 1996 deposited 5-ft. deep mud and
debris, burying cars and damaging the Music Hall.
1997 Aspen
Country Day
School
A spring landslide in a tributary drainage of Castle
Creek damaged buildings, grounds and cars and
forced relocation of classes for remainder of school
year.
2010 Redstone Multiple debris flows and mudflows in July-August
2010 covered parts of Colorado 133, Redstone Blvd.
and Redstone Campground ($34,000 to remove,
including geotechnical studies).
2011 Independence
Pass
A mudslide closed Independence Pass for 3 hours in
June 2011 near the ghost town of Independence,
stranding motorists, but causing no injuries.
2011 Buttermilk Ski
Area
Rapid warmup after heavy snowfall in May 2011
caused mudflow that sent 2 feet of mud into one home
($2 million).
2012 Hagerman
Peak
One hiker killed, one injured in rockslide about 11
miles southeast of Aspen.
Sources: Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013), Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2 012),
The Aspen Times (August 27, 2012), Aspen Daily News (July 8, 2015).
P64
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
54
Probability
According to the Colorado Geological Survey
(CGS), landslides do not present an immediate
risk to populated areas, transportation systems,
public infrastructure or the economy. Geologic
studies can determine the location of historic
landslide paths and deposits and instruments
can measure activity to determine whether
movement is occurring. Due to the steep terrain
in most of Pitkin County, the Planning Team has
rated the probability of future landslide occurrences highly likely (near 100 percent
chance of occurrence next year or it happens every year).
Magnitude/Severity
Saturated soils due to heavy precipitation or
melting snowpack are often the determining
factors in the frequency and magnitude and
frequency of land movements. Landslides can
also be triggered by loss of vegetation after a
wildfire and erosion of the toe of the slope by
rivers, earthquakes or land development
activities.
As noted in the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan, the potential for property and infrastructure damage is considerable:
“Landslides occur commonly throughout Colorado, and the annual damage is estimated
to exceed $3 million dollars to buildings alone.” Transportation infrastructure is typically
the most impacted infrastructure from landslides in Colorado, although residential
structures have also been impacted.42
Although rare, deaths and injuries can occur from landslides. On May 25, 2014 the
longest landslide in the state’s history occurred in Mesa County, six miles southeast of
the town of Collbran, resulting in the deaths of three local men. The landslide was 2.8
miles long and dropped approximately 2,100 feet in elevation, moving at speeds of up to
85 miles per hour. The landslide covered almost a square mile of West Salt Creek valley,
stopping just short of active gas-production wellheads and irrigation ditches and ponds
used by local farmers and ranchers.43
42 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, p. 3-185.
43 Colorado Geological Survey, coloradogeologicalsurvey.org.
Hazard: Landslide, Debris Flow,
Mudflow and Rockfall
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Critical
Aspen Critical
Basalt Limited
Snowmass Village Critical
Hazard: Landslide, Debris Flow,
Mudflow and Rockfall
Probability
Pitkin County Highly Likely
Aspen Highly Likely
Basalt Highly Likely
Snowmass Village Highly Likely
P65
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
55
Figure 4.6 - West Salt Creek Landslide (Mesa County)
Source: Colorado Geological Survey
More typically, landslide events are gradual movements in areas of steep topography and
where the soil conditions contribute to the movement of the slope. Damages are often
limited to cracks in foundations and damage to roads. Individual property owners may
experience more or less damage depending on site specific movement.
Rockfall, on the other hand, is a sudden movement, and could potentially result in
significant damages, injuries, or death. A hiker was killed August 25, 2012 in a rock slide
on Hagerman Peak, about 11 miles southeast of Aspen. Two people in a party of five were
reported injured, one seriously, according to the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office. Mountain
Rescue responded through a mutual-aid arrangement with Gunnison County. The rock
slide occurred at nearly 13,000 feet.44
A deadly rockfall in September 2013 claimed five lives of a family following heavy rains
near a popular hiking location near Buena Vista, Colorado. Rockfall events are less
frequent but remain a constant threat, particularly to Colorado’s mountain roadways.
Few hazards exceed the potentially devastating consequences of debris flows, fast-
moving, high-density slurries of water, sediment, and vegetative debris with enormous
destructive power that generally are triggered in response to periods of intense rainfall or
rapid snowmelt on steep hillsides.45 The magnitude severity of landslides and other
geologic hazards is rated critical in Aspen, Pitkin County and Snowmass Village and
limited in and around the Town of Basalt.
44 The Aspen Times, August 27, 2012.
45 Stevens, M. R., J. L. Flynn, V. C. Stephens, and K.I. Verdin (2011), Estimated Probabilities, Volumes, and
Inundation Area Depths of Potential Postwildfire Debris Flows from Carbonate, Slate, Raspberry, and
Milton Creeks, near Marble, Gunnison County, Colorado , U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2011-5047, 30 p.
P66
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
56
Vulnerability Assessment
Geologic hazards are highly localized events and the nature and extent of risk associated
with each hazard is specific to local terrain conditions such as slope stability, vegetative
cover, and geologic and soil composition beneath the surface. Other factors include
seasonal, climate, and weather-related phenomena (including other hazards) that can
alter the local conditions that affect an area’s current risk. Geologic hazards may
endanger the built environment and can damage or destroy buildings, roads, and other
infrastructure when proper land use or mitigation practices are not implemented.46
The conditions resulting in a landslide are site-specific. A major landslide could
potentially destroy anything in its path. The vulnerability of individual structures can be
assessed through detailed studies of buildings and infrastructure located within known
landslide areas. Ongoing pressures for residential and business growth in areas highly
impacted by landslides will continue as available land for development decreases in
mountain communities. Future development in areas where landslide potential exists
should undergo geotechnical studies to determine slope stability.
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
Communities in the Roaring Fork Valley have enacted strict development standards for
development on slopes and hillsides, but the potential for extreme precipitation events
fueled by climate warming may present increased risks to people and property in or near
geologically-sensitive areas. Heavy rain events reduce slope stability that can result in
landslides, debris flows, mudflows, rockfall, rockslides and other types of mass
movement of soil and rock. Higher streamflow during these events can transport more
sediment downstream, impacting roads, highways and other infrastructure.
Although uncertainty exists in the evaluation of the impacts of climate change on
landslides and the stability of natural and engineered slopes, an increase in the
frequency and intensity of severe rainfall events -- a primary trigger of rapid-moving
landslides that can cause fatalities -- will result in more people and property exposed to
landslide risk.47
According to a 2012 special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), “There is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat, and/or
permafrost degradation will affect slope instabilities in high mountains, and medium
confidence that temperature-related changes will influence bedrock stability. There is
also high confidence that changes in heavy precipitation will affect landslides in some
regions.”48
46 Planning for Hazards: Land Use Solutions for Colorado (March 2016), Colorado Department of Local
Affairs, https://planningforhazards.com.
47 Gariano, Stefono and Fausto Guzzetti, Landslides in a Changing Climate, Earth-Science Reviews,
November 2016, Volume 162, pp. 227-252.
48 Seneviratne et al., Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation (2012), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
P67
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
57
Communities can address changing landslide and other geologic hazard risks through
targeted regulations, climate-informed design, and floodplain infrastructure aimed at
mitigating anticipated impacts.
4.9 Flooding
Hazard Description
According to the 2013 Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, “A flood is a general and
temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from:
(1) the overflow of stream banks, (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of
surface waters from any source, or (3) mudflows or the sudden collapse of shoreline
land. Flooding results when the flow of water is greater than the normal carrying
capacity of the stream channel.”49 Flooding in Pitkin County can occur as a result of rain,
melting snow, or rainfall-on-melting snow (or due to a stream ice jam or the failure of a
dam).
Pitkin County is at risk to riverine, stormwater, flash flood, and ice-jam flood events.
Riverine flooding occurs when a stream exceeds its “bank- full” capacity and generally
occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with soils already
saturated from previous rain events. The area adjacent to a river channel is its floodplain
(i.e., the area that is inundated by the 100-year flood).
Flash flooding usually occurs as a result of very heavy rains in a short period of time
over a small geographic area. Flash flood events commonly trigger and accompany
debris flows and mudflows, magnifying the risks to lives and property in the drainageway
where a flash flood occurs. The extreme terrain in much of Pitkin County increases the
potential for severe flash flood events.
Stormwater refers to water that collects on the ground surface or is carried in the
stormwater system when it rains. In runoff events where the amount of stormwater is
too great for the system, or if the channel system is disrupted by vegetation or other
debris that blocks inlets or pipes, excess water remains on the surface. This water may
pond in low-lying areas, often in street intersections. Stormwater ponding, also
known as localized flooding, may result in deep water and pollution. Stormwater can
pick up debris, chemicals, dirt, and other pollutants from impervious surfaces.
Ice-jam floods can occasionally occur when a surge of runoff breaks up river ice and
forms an ice debris dam at a bridge or other channel obstruction. Upstream flooding can
occur as water is held back and downstream flooding may occur when the jam finally
breaks. In addition to localized flooding, ice jams can disrupt transportation, affect
hydropower operations, cause riverbank erosion, and adversely impact wildlife habitat.50
The 100-year flood is the national standard to which communities regulate their
floodplains through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Participation in the
NFIP requires adoption of a local floodplain management ordinance and its enforcement
49 Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, Colorado Water Conservation Board, November 2013, p. 16.
50 National Weather Service, www.floodsafety.noaa.gov/hazards.
P68
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
58
within a mapped Special Flood Hazard Area. Regulation of floodplain development by
the community entitles citizens to purchase federal flood insurance.
The potential for flooding is altered by land use changes that change the impervious
characteristics of the land surface, and by changes in the environment brought about by
other natural hazards such as drought, wildfires, and extreme weather events. In
Colorado, the timing of peak river levels has changed since the middle of the last century
in response to warming trends. Snowmelt-fed rivers have earlier peak flow trends due to
declines in spring snowpack, the effects of dust on snow, and larger percentages of
precipitation falling as rain instead of snow. Wildfires create hydrophobic soils, a
hardening of the earth’s surface that prevents rainfall from being absorbed into the
ground, which can increase runoff, erosion, and downstream sedimentation of channels.
Geographic Location
From its headwaters on Independence Pass, the Roaring Fork River runs 70 miles
through Aspen, Basalt, and Carbondale until it reaches its confluence with the Colorado
River in Glenwood Springs. Over that span, the water drops over 6,000 feet in elevation
(more than the Mississippi River drops in its entire length). Many species of wildlife rely
on the river corridor for their survival, making it a great place to view elk, bald eagles,
osprey, great blue herons, moose, mule deer, and more. The Roaring Fork River offers
abundant recreational opportunities including white water rafting, stand-up paddle
boarding, kayaking, and fishing. Gold Medal trout waters can be found within the section
between Basalt and Glenwood Springs.
The Fryingpan River is a main tributary of the Roaring Fork River and flows into Ruedi
Reservoir. The Fryingpan River is a renowned Gold Medal trout fishery whose
designation stretches 14 miles from Ruedi Dam to its confluence with the Roaring Fork
River in the town of Basalt. This river boasts healthy rainbow, brown, and cutthroat trout
populations, providing year-round fishing opportunities.
The Crystal River begins in the Elk Mountains of Gunnison County in Colorado and
flows for 40 miles before it reaches the confluence with the Roaring Fork River in
Carbondale. This scenic valley is home to bald eagles, bighorn sheep, large elk
populations, Lewis’s woodpeckers, geothermal hot springs, rare orchids such as the
stream orchid, and one of the few places in the state to view fireflies. The Crystal River
valley is a popular kayaking and fishing location, provides drinking water to 7,000
people, and continues to support a strong ranching and agriculture industry.51
Previous Occurrences
Flooding is a natural event and all streams and rivers in Pitkin County have experienced
periodic flooding with associated debris and mudflows. In May 1984, Pitkin County was
one of 15 Western Slope counties designated a federal disaster area by FEMA for
damages from severe storms, mudslides, landslides and flooding. Runoff from an above-
average snowpack resulted in floods and mudslides that damaged infrastructure in
Aspen and Snowmass Village, including roads, bridges, recreational facilities and other
publicly-owned property.
51 Roaring Fork Conservancy, www.roaringfork.org.
P69
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
59
To date, Pitkin County has not experienced a catastrophic flood event that resulted in
loss of life or large-scale property damages. Flash floods that produce debris flows and
mudflows; however, are fairly common events and have caused significant damages in
the past to homes, roads, bridges and culverts. Areas in the county that are subject to
flash floods, debris flows and mudflows are generally drainages and channels that are
outside of the FEMA-mapped, regulatory floodplains.
The table below provides information about some of the more notable flood, flash flood
and mudflow events that have occurred in Pitkin County in recent history, compiled
from several sources.
Table 4.12 - Significant Flood/Flash Flood Events in Pitkin County, 1980-2017
Date Location Description
May 1984 Aspen,
Snowmass
Village, Pitkin
County
Federally-declared disaster (FEMA-719-DR) for Public
Assistance ($172,000) due to flooding and
mudslides.
July 11,
1995
Basalt 25-year flood event on Roaring Fork R. flooded a
mobile home park and basements in Basalt, eroded a
levee, and washed out a section of old Hwy. 82.
July 22,
1997
Redstone Heavy rains triggered mudflows closing a 5-mile
stretch of Hwy. 133 near Redstone with mud up to 5-
ft. deep.
August 4,
1997
Carbondale,
Redstone
Mudflows caused by heavy rain buried a 30-ft. stretch
of Hwy. 133 near Carbondale with 2-4 ft. of mud and
blocked a subdivision road near Redstone.
July 21-
31, 1998
Pitkin County Heavy rains resulted in flood, debris flow and
mudflow events at various locations, including
Maroon Creek Rd., Castle Creek Rd., and along
Avalanche Creek.
July 28,
1999
Pitkin County Heavy rains resulted in multiple flood, debris flow and
mudflow events, closing Hwy. 133 and causing
$180,000 damage to roads and culverts 6 miles
northeast of Redstone.
August 6,
2001
Pitkin County Heavy rainfall resulted in flooding with mud and
rocks covering roads in 2 locations: (1) Hwy. 133
south of Redstone and (2) Maroon Creek Rd.
July 18-
19, 2007
Pitkin County Heavy rains produced flooding and mudflows that
caused damages to Maroon Creek Rd., Maroon Creek
Day Use Area (trailhead/parking lot), and a USFS road
between Hwy. 133 and Avalanche Creek
Campground.
Spring
2008
Pitkin County Heavy runoff in upper Castle Creek Valley washed out
Pearl Pass Rd. and a bridge below the intersection
with Montezuma Rd. (bridge rebuilt in 2010).
July 26,
2009
Pitkin County Heavy rains produced flooding and mudflows that
covered Hwy. 133 4-ft. deep in mud.
July 29,
2011
Pitkin County Heavy rains resulted in flood, debris flow and
mudflow events at various locations, including the Rio
Grande Trail, Stein Trail, and Aspen/Pitkin County
Airport.
Source: Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2013); SHELDUS; National Centers for Environmental
Information; Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012).
P70
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
60
Probability
The 1% annual chance flood event is the
standard national measurement for flood
mitigation actions and insurance. This
recurrence level is an average and does not
mean that a flood of that magnitude will occur
exactly every 100 years. Likewise, a 500-year
flood event has a 0.2% (or 1 in 500) chance of
occurring in a given year. Although serious
flood events in Pitkin County are rare, severe weather and snowmelt runoff present a
threat of serious flooding along rivers and creeks in the county each year. The probability
of serious flooding is rated occasional across jurisdictions in Pitkin County, meaning a
1-10 percent chance of occurrence in a given year or a recurrence interval of 11 to 100
years.
Magnitude/Severity
Major flood events present a risk to life and
property, including buildings, contents, and
their use. Floods can also affect lifeline utilities
(e.g., water, sewage and power), transportation,
the environment, jobs and the local economy.
The extent of damage depends on the depth and
velocity of floodwaters. Past flood events in
Pitkin County have damaged roads, bridges,
private property, businesses, and public facilities. Future events may result in greater
damages depending on patterns of growth, land use development and climate change.
The communities of Aspen and Basalt have rated the potential magnitude/severity of a
major flood as catastrophic, meaning that multiple deaths, damaged and destroyed
structures, and/or interruption of essential facilities and service for more than 72 hours
can be expected in a major flood event. Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village
have rated the magnitude/severity of the flood hazard as critical, meaning that isolated
deaths/injuries; major or long-term impacts to property, infrastructure and critical
services; and service disruptions of 24-72 hours are possible.
Vulnerability Assessment
Pitkin County has experienced frequent incidents of localized flooding and mudflow
events in the past 20 years. Fortunately, most of these events occur outside of developed
areas and impacts have been limited to roads, bridges, culverts and recreational
facilities. The City of Aspen, Town of Basalt and unincorporated areas of Pitkin County
including Redstone have all experienced events that have closed roads and, in some
cases, caused damage to public and private property. Historically, the town of Basalt has
been one of the more flood-prone areas of the county due to its location at the confluence
of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers. Likewise, the area in and around the
community of Redstone, located at the confluence of Coal Creek and Crystal River, is
susceptible to flood events.
Hazard: Flooding
Probability
Pitkin County Occasional
Aspen Occasional
Basalt Occasional
Snowmass Village Occasional
Hazard: Flooding
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Critical
Aspen Catastrophic
Basalt Catastrophic
Snowmass Village Critical
P71
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
61
Like other mountainous areas in Colorado, Pitkin County is vulnerable to hazards from
both (1) riverine floods, or the overbank flooding associated with basin- or watershed-
wide flood events, and (2) flash floods, which occur within a channel or drainageway
and frequently produce debris flow or mudflow events.
Riverine flooding occurs when a watershed and downstream channels receive too much
water from above-normal rainfall or snowmelt and the excess water flows over its banks
and into adjacent floodplains. The velocity of moving water in a riverine flood event,
measured in feet per second, is generally much slower than the velocity of a flash flood or
mudflow flood event.
Flash floods associated with debris flows and mudflows typically cause more damage
than riverine, or “clear-water” flooding due to the combination of the debris and
sediment with the force of the debris-filled water. The NFIP provides flood insurance
coverage for damages caused by mudflow flooding but does not map or require
floodplain management measures in these areas.52
During the previous update of this plan in 2011-2012, new digital Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (DFIRMs) for Pitkin County were in development as part of FEMA’s Risk MAP and
were not available for analysis. Similarly, at this update, the new maps have been
developed and made available for public review, comment and appeals, but have yet to
be approved by FEMA and are still unavailable for analysis. Once the new DFIRMS are
approved and locally adopted, they will be the most accurate data and will become the
official regulatory floodplain maps.
For the purpose of updates to this hazard mitigation plan, data for riverine flooding in
Pitkin County was generated using HAZUS-MH, FEMA’s software program for
estimating potential losses in a flood disaster. HAZUS-MH was used to generate a map
of the 100-year floodplain, or the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year (see HAZUS 100- and 500-year floodplain maps in Appendix
E). Although the HAZUS-MH modeling software provides a less accurate estimate of the
floodplain than DFIRMs, the information is useful for general hazard mitigation
planning and for disaster planning by emergency managers. For normal local planning
and development review, the most current DFIRM is the regulation standard.
The HAZUS-MH flood analysis results provide the number of buildings impacted,
estimates of the building repair costs, and the associated loss of building contents and
business inventory. Building damage can cause additional losses to a community as a
whole by restricting the building’s ability to function properly, resulting in vacant homes
and businesses. Income loss data accounts for losses such as business interruption and
rental income losses as well as the resources associated with damage repair and job and
housing losses. These losses are calculated by HAZUS-MH using a methodology based
on the building damage estimates. Flood damage is directly related to the depth of
flooding. For example, a two-foot flood results in approximately 20% of the structure
being damaged (or 20% of the structure’s replacement value).
52 Ibid.
P72
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
62
HAZUS estimates for direct economic losses for buildings are shown in the table below.
The results are for comparative analysis only and assume that a flood event occurred
throughout the entire modeled area, rather than as localized events.
Table 4.13 - Potential Flood Losses in Pitkin County: HAZUS-MH Estimates
Type of Loss Damage Estimate
100-Year Flood
Damage Estimate
500-Year Flood
Building Damage $24,320,000 $27,590,000
Contents Damage $45,590,000 $48,610,000
Inventory Loss $950,000 $990,000
Income Loss $290,000 $300,000
Relocation Loss $60,000 $60,000
Wage Losses $320,000 $330,000
Rental Income Loss $60,000 $60,000
Total Losses $71,590,000 $77,940,000
Source: HAZUS-MH, Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012).
HAZUS-MH estimates total damages and economic losses of over $71 million for a 100-
year flood event in Pitkin County. Damages and losses for a 500-year event are estimated
to be nearly $78 million. Out of a total of 9,671 structures modeled by HAZUS-MH, 56
structures would be damaged in a 100-year flood event and 70 structures would be
damaged in a 500-year flood event. In addition, HAZUS-MH estimates that the number
of households displaced by a 100-year flood event to be 305 and the number of people
requiring short-term sheltering to be 528. For a 500-year event, 331 households would
be displaced and 583 people would seek short-term shelters.
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
To date, projections from climate models have been mixed about whether climate
warming will increase or decrease precipitation in Colorado.53 However, because warmer
air can hold more moisture, events producing heavy rainfall and flooding can be
expected to increase as temperatures rise in the years to come. In general, heavier rains
lead to a larger fraction of rainfall running off and, depending on the surface conditions,
more potential for flash flooding.54
Warming is likely to directly affect flooding in many mountain settings, as
catchment areas receive increasingly more precipitation as rain rather than
snow, or more rain falling on existing snowpack. In some such settings, river
flooding may increase as a result – even where precipitation and overall river
flows decline.55
53 Saunders, Stephen and Tom Easley, Climate Change in the Headwaters: Water and Snow Impacts
(2018), a report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization to Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments, p. 9.
54 National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program, nca2014globalchange.gov.,
p. 40.
55 National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program, nca2014globalchange.gov.,
p. 75.
P73
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
63
According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, southwestern river basins including
the Colorado River Basin will experience gradual runoff declines during this century, but
flooding in the region is generally expected to increase. In Colorado; however, there are
no specific projections or trends that have been noted to indicate that more substantial
or more frequent flooding events can be expected to occur.56
Global warming may also lead to more ice-jam flooding along mountain streams, when
heavy rainfall or upstream melting raises stream flows to the point of breaking up the ice
cover, which can pile up on bridge piers or other channel obstructions and caus e flooding
behind the jam.
Once the ice jam breaks up, downstream areas are vulnerable to flash floods.
Global warming could create conditions ripe for ice-jam floods. The increasing
possibility of midwinter thaws and heavy rainfall events could increase the risk
of sudden ice break up. Flooding can be further exacerbated if the ground is still
frozen and unable to soak up rainwater.57
Other influences on flood generation that should be considered in projections of future
flood risks are land cover, flow and water-supply management, soil moisture and
channel conditions. In addition to discouraging development in flood-prone areas and
protecting natural systems such as wetlands, local government planners and engineers
should design infrastructure with the capacity to accommodate heavy rains and manage
stormwater runoff during extreme events.
4.10 Winter Storm
Hazard Description
Heavy snow, ice, severe winter storms, and blizzards are common occurrences in Pitkin
County. “Hazardous winter weather includes events related to heavy snow, blowing
snow, ice, sleet or freezing rain, and extreme cold temperatures. Blizzards are severe
winter storms that pack a combination of blowing snow and wind resulting in very low
visibilities. While heavy snowfalls and severe cold often accompany blizzards, they are
not required. Sometimes strong winds pick up snow that has already fallen, creating a
blizzard.”58
Some winter storms are accompanied by strong winds, creating blizzard conditions with
blinding wind-driven snow, severe drifting, and dangerous wind chills. Extreme cold
often accompanies or follows a winter storm.
The National Weather Service Glossary defines common winter storm characteristics as
follows:
56 Saunders, Stephen and Tom Easley, Climate Change in the Headwaters: Water and Sno w Impacts
(2018), a report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization to Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments, p. 16.
57 National Wildlife Federation (2009), Increased Flooding Risk: Global Warming’s Wake -Up Call for
Riverfront Communities, www.nwf.org.
58 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, December 2013, p. 3-120.
P74
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
64
• Blizzard: A blizzard means that the following conditions are expected to prevail for
a period of 3 hours or longer:
Sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and
Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., reducing visibility frequently to
less than ¼ mile).
• Heavy Snow: This generally means:
snowfall accumulating to 4" or more in depth in 12 hours or less; or
snowfall accumulating to 6" or more in depth in 24 hours or less.
In forecasts, snowfall amounts are expressed as a range of values, e.g., "8 to 12
inches." However, in heavy snow situations where there is considerable
uncertainty concerning the range of values, more appropriate phrases are used,
such as "...up to 12 inches..." or alternatively "...8 inches or more...”
• Ice Storm: An ice storm is used to describe occasions when damaging
accumulations of ice are expected during freezing rain situations. Significant
accumulations of ice pull down trees and utility lines resulting in loss of power and
communication. These accumulations of ice make walking and driving extremely
dangerous. Significant ice accumulations are usually accumulations of ¼" or
greater.59
Geographic Location
All of Pitkin County is subject to occasional blizzard, heavy snowfall and ice storm
conditions. The size of events varies and may range from isolated (impacting only a
portion of the area) to statewide. Most severe winter storms are widespread events,
impacting multiple counties simultaneously and for extended time periods. Ice and snow
accumulation that closes Colorado 82, the most important corridor and only route
available in the winter for the transport of people and the provisions in and out of the
county, presents the greatest public safety challenges during severe winter storms.
Previous Occurrences
According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Pitkin County
experienced 47 winter storm events between 1960 and 2013, resulting in two deaths, one
injury, $1o6,657 in crop damages, and approximately $1 million in property damages
(for a total of $1,079,412 in damages during this period). According to the National
Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), there have been 215 winter storm events
and two blizzard events in Pitkin County from January 1, 1950 to July 31, 2017. Notable
recent winter storm events are identified in the table below. Damage figures shown have
been adjusted for inflation (2017).
59 National Weather Service, National Weather Service Glossary Website, w1.weather.gov/glossary/
P75
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
65
Table 4.14 - Significant Winter Storms in Pitkin County, 1980-2017
Date Description
December 23, 1982 Blizzard two days before Christmas caused $1,949,314
in damages.
November 26, 1983 Heavy snow and wind caused $18,886 in damages.
February 1, 1989 Extreme cold temperatures and snow from a November
cold front resulted in $153,217 in damages.
February 8, 1995 Heavy snowfall resulted in damages totaling $63,294.
December 8, 1998 Winter storm caused $21,811 in damages.
Source: SHELDUS; National Centers for Environmental Information
Pitkin County has received three USDA Secretarial Disaster Designations related to
severe winter weather:
1. 2012 (S3307) due to freezing conditions;
2. 2013 (S3583) due to frost and freezing conditions; and
3. 2014 (S3760) as a contiguous county to Chaffee County, for freezing conditions.
Probability
Even in a global-warming climate, the
atmospheric activity that produces winter
weather conditions such as ice, snow, extreme
cold, and high winds will continue to occur on a
regular basis in Pitkin County for the
foreseeable future. Severe winter weather is a
common, and usually welcome, occurrence in
Pitkin County, where residents are well-
prepared, but newcomers and visitors are often
inexperienced and unskilled to handle conditions. Severe winter storms are highly
likely in Pitkin County (near 100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it happens
every year).
Magnitude/Severity
Although common in Pitkin County, heavy
snowstorms can occasionally present major
public safety challenges for communities in the
Roaring Fork Valley. Severe winter storms can
immobilize transportation systems and strand
motorists, stop the flow of supplies, halt air
traffic, disrupt emergency and medical services,
and isolate residents and communities. Heavy
accumulations of snow and ice and strong
winds can collapse roofs and bring down trees, power lines, telephone poles and lines,
and communication towers, causing extended communication and power disruptions.
Loss of power can impact emergency and medical services without working backup
generators and also affects homes, businesses, and water, sewer, and other services
operated by electric pumps.
Hazard: Winter Storms
Probability
Pitkin County Highly Likely
Aspen Highly Likely
Basalt Highly Likely
Snowmass Village Highly Likely
Hazard: Winter Storms
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Critical
Aspen Limited
Basalt Limited
Snowmass Village Limited
P76
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
66
Blowing snow can severely reduce visibility and create icy road conditions that lead to
serious, sometimes fatal vehicle accidents. The cost of snow removal, damage repairs,
and business losses can be significant. Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite
or hypothermia and can become life-threatening, especially for infants and the elderly.
Heavy snowstorms can also lead to more life-threatening avalanches. Each year,
Colorado leads the nation in avalanche deaths and more lives are lost due to avalanches
in Pitkin County than any other county in the state. Avalanches pose a serious threat to
residents, road maintenance crews, and backcountry travelers. The communities of
Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass Village have rated the magnitude/severity of the winter
storm hazard as limited and Pitkin County rates the magnitude/severity critical.
Vulnerability Assessment
Winter storms will continue to occur with high frequency throughout Pitkin County and
occasionally cause widespread impacts. The greatest risk is to the safety of the public,
including travelers on the county’s highways and roads. Highway closures and power
outages can present a need to open and manage public shelters and provide mass care
services. Winter storms can occasionally lead to school and business closures, road
closures, and extraordinary requirements to remove snow and maintain critical
emergency services.
Fortunately, structural damage from severe winter storms is typically minimal and
covered by property insurance. New structures and facilities built to code should be able
to withstand snow loads associated with winter storms. Future development, particularly
in more isolated areas, will create emergency access issues and increase demand on road
crews and emergency services.
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
As the atmosphere holds more moisture, winter storms may become more intense,
producing heavier than normal precipitation, including heavier snowfall. But, winter has
become increasingly unpredictable in recent decades due to climate change, scientists
and ski industry experts say. As mid-winter temperatures increase, warmer oceans may
fuel stronger winter storms, but snow cover may not stay around as long. Shorter winters
are sure to have significant impacts for the local economy and snow sports industry,
including resorts, hotels, restaurants and ski shops and the individuals they employ.
While climate researchers cannot determine if climate change caused a specific extreme
winter storm, or even a specific seasonal change, climate warming will continue to cause
a decrease in annual snowfall amounts overall and a shortening of the length of the snow
season. However, when severe winter storms do occur, there may be added moisture in
the air to generate more intense rates of snowfall. Fortunately, communities in the
Roaring Fork Valley are well accustomed and prepared to deal with extreme winter
weather and provide for the safety of residents and visitors.
4.11 Avalanche
Hazard Description
According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, an avalanche is a mass
of snow, ice, and debris flowing and sliding rapidly down a steep slope. Avalanches are
P77
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
67
also referred to as snow slides. Snow avalanches are defined in Colorado state statutes as
a geologic hazard.
Deep snow deposits often become susceptible to avalanche based on the slope stability
and the structure of the snow deposits through multiple storms. An avalanche occurs
when the deposit reaches its breaking point, whether triggered naturally or by human
intervention. Avalanches can be naturally-triggered (by wind, snow, rain, etc.) or
human-triggered (skiers, snowboarders, snowmobilers, climbers, etc.). Slab avalanches
are the most dangerous type of avalanche. They form when stronger snow overlies
weaker snow. Often, human-triggered slab avalanches are one to two feet deep, have an
area about half the size of a football field, and can reach speeds over 20 mph within
seconds.60
Geographic Location
There are more avalanche-related deaths in Colorado than any other state and more
average annual fatalities due to avalanche in Pitkin County than any other county in the
state.
Figure 4.7 - U.S. Avalanche Fatalities by State
60 Colorado Department of Transportation, www.codot.gov
P78
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
68
Figure 4.8 - Colorado Avalanche Fatalities by County
The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) and the Colorado Avalanche Information Center
(CAIC) have mapped the State’s areas susceptible to avalanche activity. The CAIC
forecasts backcountry avalanche and mountain weather conditions for 10 Zones in the
mountains of Colorado. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has
mapped avalanche corridors on the state highway system, and the approximate number
of slide paths that CDOT and CAIC crews monitor and/or control on each.
Figure 4.9 - Colorado Avalanche Zones
Source: Colorado Avalanche Information Center
P79
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
69
The Aspen and Independence Pass areas of Pitkin County are considered especially
susceptible to avalanche activity. The Aspen Highlands ski area has seen a number of
previous occurrences. Small avalanches and sloughs frequently cover parts of the
roadways along Castle Creek Rd., Little Annie Rd., and Fryingpan Rd. Avalanche-prone
areas can be determined with some accuracy, since under normal circumstances
avalanches tend to run down the same paths year after year.
Previous Occurrences
The CAIC documented 15 avalanche fatalities between the 1997-98 winter and the winter
of 2016-17, as indicated in the table below.
Table 4.15 - Pitkin County Avalanche Fatalities, 1997-98 to 2016-17
Date Location Description
March 1998 Aspen Mountain 1 out-of-bounds skier caught,
partially-buried and killed.
January 1999 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught; 1 buried
and killed.
January 2000 Aspen Mountain 1 backcountry skier caught on
backside of Aspen Mtn., buried and
killed.
March 2000 Aspen Highlands 2 out-of-area skiers caught, buried
and killed.
February 2002 Aspen Highlands 1 skier caught, buried and killed.
March 2002 Aspen Mountain 1 out-of-area skier caught, buried and
killed.
March 2005 Five Fingers Bowl
(Aspen)
1 backcountry skier caught, buried
and skilled.
December
2006
Rayburn Area
(Snowmass Ski Area)
1 skier caught, buried and killed.
December
2008
Aspen Backcountry 1 skier caught, buried and killed.
February 2011 E. Snowmass Creek
Valley/Sand’s Chute
1 skier caught, buried and killed.
April 2011 Highlands Ridge,
Desolation Row
(Aspen Zone)
1 skier caught, buried and killed.
January 2012 Burnt Mtn. (near
Snowmass Ski Area)
2 out-of-area skiers caught, 1 buried
and killed.
December
2012
Snowmass Ski Area 1 ski patroller caught, swept over cliff
and killed.
February 2015 Ophir Gulch (near
Aspen Mtn.)
1 skier caught, buried and killed.
Source: Colorado Avalanche Information Center
P80
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
70
Probability
According to the 2013 Colorado Natural
Hazards Mitigation Plan, it is difficult to
determine the number of persons at risk from
avalanche, but a half dozen can be expected
every year in Colorado. “There is no way to
determine the number of people caught or
buried in avalanches each year, because non-
fatal avalanche incidents are increasingly under
reported. The American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education reports that 90
percent of avalanche victims die in slides triggered by themselves or a member of their
group. Obtaining a better understanding of outdoor recreation in avalanche-prone areas
may lead toward a better understanding of future probability for this hazard.”61
The likelihood of an avalanche increases with heavy accumulation of snow. The
probability of future occurrence will depend on weather patterns and levels of
recreational activity within known avalanche zones. The avalanche hazard is rated
highly likely in Aspen and Snowmass Village and likely in Pitkin County and the
Town of Basalt.
Magnitude/Severity
According to the CAIC, avalanches have killed
more people in Colorado than any other natural
hazard since 1950, and Colorado accounts for
one-third of all avalanche deaths in the United
States. In an avalanche, the impact forces of the
rapidly moving snow and debris and the burial
of areas in the run-out zone can result in the
destruction of structures and anything else in
its path. Avalanches causing death or injury are usually human-triggered in the
backcountry and can result in isolated injuries or fatalities. On rare occasions, roads,
highways and railroads may be damaged and blocked by snow and debris, resulting in
travel delays and costly efforts to clear and repair transportation routes. The
communities of Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass Village have rated the avalanche hazard
critical and the hazard is rated limited by Pitkin County.
Vulnerability Assessment
Every year, snow avalanches kill and injure winter recreationists in Colorado’s high
country, including cross-country skiers, downhill skiers/snowboarders, snowshoers,
hikers, climbers and snowmobilers. Private property losses are rare, due to local
regulation of known avalanche zones, although lack of knowledge of avalanche run-out
potential (the farthest reach of snow and debris) has occasionally resulted in damages to
residences and private vehicles in other parts of Colorado. In particularly heavy snow
61 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, p. 3-142
Hazard: Avalanche
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Limited
Aspen Critical
Basalt Critical
Snowmass Village Critical
Hazard: Avalanche
Probability
Pitkin County Likely
Aspen Highly Likely
Basalt Likely
Snowmass Village Highly Likely
P81
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
71
years, the avalanche risk is greater. With prime conditions of wind or snow load,
avalanches can be triggered easily.
According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, the avalanche hazard
is localized in mountain regions: “Avalanche-prone areas are well known; avalanche
chutes identify where they will likely occur again…the complex interaction of weather
and terrain factors contributes to the location, size, and timing of avalanches. In the
absence of detailed scientific observation, any accumulation of snow on a slope steeper
than 20 degrees should be considered a potential avalanche hazard.”62
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
Warmer weather can weaken a mountain's snowpack and make it more difficult for the
layers of snow to stick together. Climate warming affects the quality of mountain snow
cover, possibly leading to more frequent and deadly avalanches.63 The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that warming temperatures
have destabilized mountain climates, leading to more avalanches, melting glaciers and
more intense storms.64
Less snow and thinner snowpacks may actually lead to more avalanches in years when
early winter snowpack is thin and weak and fails to hold on to new snow that falls due to
weak bonds between the crystals, forming a weak-base layer. Dry weather can help to
form a base of what avalanche experts call “depth hoar” that can take months to stabilize.
Also referred to as “sugar snow,” the snow grains resemble raw sugar and don’t bond
well. Once these weak layers are buried by new snow, the weakness is preserved. New
snow falling on top of weak layers can be easily dislodged by backcountry recreationists,
setting off deadly slides.65
4.12 Drought
Hazard Description
According to the 2013 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, “Drought is a
complex and a gradual phenomenon in Colorado. Although droughts can be
characterized as emergencies, they differ from other emergency events in that most
natural disasters, such as floods or forest fires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little
time for preparing for disaster response. Droughts typically occur slowly, over a multi -
year period, and it is often not obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and
ends.”
62 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, p. 3-149
63 In 2014, an avalanche on Mount Everest killed 16 Sherpas, the deadliest disaster in Mount
Everest history. In 2015, another avalanche buried Mount Everest's base camp, killing 19, including 10
Sherpas.
64 IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K.
Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
65 Climate Central, February 24, 2012, Avalanches Taking Toll; Foreshadowing the Future?,
www.climatecentral.org.
P82
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
72
Drought is defined as a period of time where the amount of water available is insufficient
to meet the demands on that water supply. Scientists and researchers also distinguish
between the different types of drought:
• Meteorological drought is usually defined by a period of below average
precipitation.
• Agricultural drought occurs when there is an inadequate water supply to meet
the needs of agricultural operations, based on soil moisture deficiencies relative
to water demands of crops and rangeland.
• Hydrologic drought refers to deficiencies in surface and subsurface water
supplies and is measured as streamflow, snowpack, reservoir, and groundwater
levels.
• Socioeconomic drought occurs when a drought impacts health, well-being, and
quality of life, or when drought effects start to have an adverse economic impact
on a region.66
There are also distinctions between drought mitigation planning and water conservation
planning:
• Drought mitigation planning identifies temporary responses to potential
water supply shortages, such as mandatory restrictions on certain water uses,
water allocation or the temporary use of an alternative water supply. These
measures are intended to be temporary responses to water supply shortages
• Water conservation planning involves long-term improvements in water
use efficiency, such as managing landscape irrigation, implementing conservation
water rate structures, and replacing or retrofitting water fixtures.
Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as
emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events. Most natural disasters, such as
floods or wildfires, occur relatively rapidly and afford little time for preparing for
disaster response. Droughts occur slowly, over a multi-year period, and it is often not
obvious or easy to quantify when a drought begins and ends.
Geographic Location
Drought is a regional phenomenon that affects all areas within the county with equal
frequency and severity. Drought impacts are most severe for commercial and agricultural
interests that rely on an uninterrupted supply of water. With annual precipitation in
Pitkin County averaging only 11-15 inches per year, any decrease in moisture over a
single year or for a multi-year period can have significant impacts on the tourism and
recreation economy. Many Pitkin County residents rely on individual ground wells and
constructed water retention structures for their water resources. Local ranchers depend
on ponds and ditches for livestock and irrigation of crops. The U.S. Drought Monitor
provides online maps of the current drought status nationwide, updated weekly.
66 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, Colorado Water Conservation Board, August 2013, p.
19.
P83
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
73
Previous Occurrences
Colorado has experienced seven multi-year droughts since 1893, with the most
devastating taking place in the 1930s and 1950s. Historic dry and wet periods are shown
in the table below.
Table 4.16 - Historic Dry and Wet Periods in Colorado
Date Dry Wet Duration (Years)
1893-1905 X 12
1905-1931 X 26
1931-1941 X 10
1941-1951 X 10
1951-1957 X 6
1957-1959 X 2
1963-1965 X 2
1965-1975 X 10
1975-1978 X 3
1979-1999 X 20
2000-2006 X 6
2007-2010 X 3
2010-2012 X 2
Source: 2013 Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan (Colorado Water Conservation Board)
The most intense single year of drought in state history occurred in 2002, an extremely
dry year imbedded in an extended dry period between 2000 and 2006. Drought
conditions in 2002 resembled those of 1934, the worst of the Dust Bowl years between
1931 and 1941. The magnitude of drought conditions in 2002 was rated as “exceptional”
by the U.S. Drought Monitor, making 2002 the most severe drought in the state since the
1930s.67 In Colorado, snowpack statewide on April 1, 2002 measured just 52% of normal.
The lack of snow resulted in major adverse impacts to the ski industry and tourism in
Pitkin County, which spilled over into the summer of 2002 with river levels too low for
rafting and fishing and fire bans that kept campers and other recreationists away. Pitkin
County was part of a statewide drought declaration that year, approved by USDA based
on the Governor’s request, which cited an estimated $1.1 billion in losses to Colorado’s
agricultural, tourism and recreational industries. Since then, Pitkin County has received
two additional USDA Secretarial declarations for drought: (1) designation in 2006 for
losses due to heat, high winds and drought (S2351), and (2) designation in 2013 for
losses due to drought (S3575).
One historic dry spell of note in Pitkin County occurred during the winter of 1976-1977,
when lack of snow delayed the opening of lifts at Aspen Mountain and Buttermilk until
January and, even then, conditions were very poor. That season, free soup was given out
on the mall, town residents did snow dances (to no avail), and parents sent plane tickets
to their ski-bum kids so they could come home.68
67 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, p. 3-22
68 Drought of 1976-77, Aspen Times, January 16, 2012.
P84
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
74
Probability
Based on historical dry periods, Colorado
experiences a dry period every 15 to 20 years.
As the climate warms, drought is expected to
persist and intensify throughout Colorado and
across the southwestern United States and the
probability of drought may increase to “likely.”
For this update, the probability rating drought
remains occasional for all four participating
jurisdictions (1-10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or a recurrence interval
of 11 to 100 years).
Magnitude/Severity
Although no injuries or property damages are
typically associated with drought, the loss of
farmland, diminishing domestic water supply
and tourism impacts can stress Pitkin County’s
local economy. According to the Colorado
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Drought
impacts are wide reaching and may come in
different forms, such as economic,
environmental, and/or societal. The most
significant impacts associated with drought in Colorado are those related to water
intensive activities such as agriculture, wildfire protection, municipal usage, commerce,
tourism, recreation, and wildlife preservation. A reduction of electric power generation
and water quality deterioration are also potential effects. Drought conditions can also
cause soil to compact, decreasing its ability to absorb water, making an area more
susceptible to flash flooding and erosion.”69
Drought can also cause structural damage to dams and ditches (high sedimentation
loads from pulling water from the bottom of reservoirs can damage dam works). The
objective of drought mitigation planning is to identify actions for responding to a supply
shortage before an actual water supply emergency occurs. The State Water Availability
Task Force (WATF) monitors conditions that affect Colorado’s water supply (i.e.,
snowpack, precipitation, reservoir storage, streamflow and weather forecasts) and
determines when there is a need to activate the Colorado Drought Mitigation and
Response Plan to address physical, social and economic impacts due to drought. The
WATF is comprised of Colorado’s water supply specialists, emergency management
professionals, federal land managers, scientists and experts in climatology and weather
forecasting.70
69 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, p. 3-26
70 Colorado Water Conservation Board, cwcb.state.co.us/technical-resources/drought-planning-toolbox/
Hazard: Drought
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Limited
Aspen Limited
Basalt Limited
Snowmass Village Limited
Hazard: Drought
Probability
Pitkin County Occasional
Aspen Occasional
Basalt Occasional
Snowmass Village Occasional
P85
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
75
Vulnerability Assessment
The most significant impacts from drought are related to water-intensive activities, such
as agriculture (both crops and livestock), wildfire protection, municipal usage,
commerce, recreation, and wildlife preservation, as well as a reduction of electric power
generation and water quality deterioration. Secondary impacts of drought are wildfires,
wind erosion, and soil compaction that can make an area more susceptible to flooding.
Drought impacts increase with the length of a drought.
Drought does not usually present life safety issues or directly impact critical
infrastructures such as roads, bridges, utilities, communications systems, or public safety
resources. However, drought presents ongoing challenges for most Colorado
communities, requiring sustained planning and conservation efforts to ensure a reliable
water supply to meet current and future needs. Although communities in the Roaring
Fork Valley have addressed conservation and water supply issues on a number of levels,
the persistence of the hazard will require sustained mitigation efforts. Water supply
planners must also be cognizant of the effects of climate change on the frequency and
severity of future droughts.
The City of Aspen, which relies on stream flow for its water supply rather than surface
water storage, is vulnerable to a warming climate even though historic hydrology
conditions indicate water supply will be sufficient to meet future demands. The drought
of 2012 followed by a lower-than-normal snowpack the next winter cost the City $1.2
million in additional power purchased due to lost hydroelectric generation. As a result,
the City has developed several water supply projects to prepare for an uncertain future.71
The Drought Impact Reporter documented 89 drought impacts from drought conditions
in Pitkin County between March 2010 and May 2013. The highest number of impacts in
Pitkin County were related to Relief, Response and Restrictions (21), but impacts were
also felt in a range of sectors such as Public Health (15), Business/Industry (10),
Tourism/Recreation (10), and Water Supply and Quality (8).
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
As temperatures have warmed over the past century, the frequency and duration of
drought has increased across the western United States. While individual drought
periods can be analyzed as discrete weather events, climate changes occur over much
longer periods of time and can be observed as changes in the patterns of weather events.
When considering the relationship of drought to climate change, it is important
to make the distinction between weather and climate. Weather is a description
of atmospheric conditions over a short period of time, while climate is how the
atmosphere behaves over relatively long periods of time.72
Declines in spring snowpack over the past half-dozen or more decades are related to a
reduction in precipitation falling as snow -- with more falling as rain -- and a shift in the
71 Extreme Weather Adaptation Aspen, CO: A Story Map,
www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=23135bceee1948e7b2abb8039bf77549
72 Konstantinos and Leetenmaier. (2006), Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United
States. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.10.
P86
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
76
timing of snowmelt. Earlier snowmelt can lead to water supply being increasingly out of
phase with water demands. Warming affects water supplies by changing the overall
annual volume of precipitation and altering the balance of rain versus snowfall.
Precipitation changes interacting with warming are expected to cause longer term and
more frequent droughts, as well as larger and more numerous floods.73
In all likelihood, the direct impacts of climate change on water resources will be
hidden beneath natural climate variability. With a warmer climate, droughts
and floods could become more frequent, severe, and longer-lasting. The
potential increase in these hazards is a great concern given the stresses being
placed on water resources and the high costs resulting from recent hazards.74
4.13 Lightning
Hazard Description
Lightning is one of the more dangerous weather hazards in Colorado. Each year,
lightning is responsible for deaths, injuries, and property damage, including damage to
buildings, communications systems, power lines, and electrical systems. According to the
National Lightning Safety Institute (NLSI), Colorado ranks third in the nation in deaths
due to lightning strikes with 39 fatalities recorded between 1990 and 2003 (behind only
Florida and Texas). Over the same period, Colorado also ranks third nationally in deaths
per million people (behind only Utah and Wyoming). Nationwide, estimates of property
damage, increased operating costs, production delays, and lost revenue from lightning
and secondary effects exceed $8-10 billion per year.75
Cloud-to-ground lightning is the most damaging and dangerous type of lightning, though
it is also less common. It frequently strikes away from the rain core, either ahead or
behind the thunderstorm and can strike 5-10 miles from the storm in areas that most
people do not consider to be a threat. According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan, Colorado averages 529,000 cloud-to-ground lightning strikes per year
and deaths and injuries due to lightning occur on a regular basis.76
Geographic Location
Lightning can occur anywhere in Pitkin County, and poses a similar risk to all areas
within the county.
Previous Occurrences
The table below identifies the number of deaths and injuries due to lightning over the
last 10 years in Colorado.
73 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (November 2014), Managing Water in the West:
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, pp. 3-5.
74 National Drought Mitigation Center, drought.unl.edu.
75 National Lightning Safety Institute web page. Available at www.lightningsafety.com
76 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management
P87
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
77
Table 4.17 - Colorado Deaths and Injuries due to Lightning, 2008-2016
Year Deaths Injuries
2017 2 2
2016 2 2
2015 1 13
2014 2 17
2013 0 25
2012 0 2
2011 0 9
2010 1 6
2009 1 14
2008 4 10
Source: Struckbylightning.org
According to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information and
SHELDUS, lightning is responsible for three fatalities in Pitkin County, in addition to
injuries and minor property damage. The table below describes several notable lightning
events that occurred in Pitkin County in the last 20 years.
Table 4.18 - Significant Lightning Events in Pitkin County, 2008-2017
Date Location Description
April 23, 1994 Capitol Peak Lightning struck 3 climbers near the summit,
killing one climber and injuring the other two.
July 24, 1997 Capitol Creek A man was struck by lightning and fell off a cliff
(cause of death ruled lightning, not fall).
July 15, 2000 Conundrum Hot
Springs
A hiker was struck by lightning, shredding her
clothes, blowing off her boots, and causing
serious bleeding and burns.
July 29, 2006 Aspen Mountain Lightning struck and damaged aviation
navigational equipment, resulting in cancelled
flights while repairs were made (14 hours).
July 6, 2008 American Lake
Trail
A family of 5 was struck by lightning while
hiking, injuring 2 including 15-yr. old girl
needing CPR to be resuscitated.
Source: National Centers for Environmental Information; SHELDUS
Probability
Lightning can occur anywhere there is a
thunderstorm. The average number of lightning
flashes by month is shown in the table below.
Over 4,000 lightning flashes are expected to
occur on any given day during the months of
July and August. Most lightning strikes that
result in casualties occur between the hours of
noon and 5:00 pm, spiking between 2:00 and
4:00 pm. In all four communities, the probability of the lightning hazard is rated likely
(10-100 percent chance of occurrence next year or it has a recurrence interval of 10 years
or less).
Hazard: Lightning
Probability
Pitkin County Likely
Aspen Likely
Basalt Likely
Snowmass Village Likely
P88
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
78
Table 4.19 - Average Lightning Flashes in Colorado per Day by Month
Month Number of Lightning Strikes
January 1
February 4
March 39
April 225
May 1,203
June 2,621
July 4,035
August 4,215
September 1,457
October 261
November 11
December 1
Source: 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
Magnitude/Severity
People attending large outdoor gatherings (i.e.,
sporting events, concerts, fairs, festivals, etc.)
are particularly vulnerable to death and injury
from lightning strikes. Men are notably more
likely to die from a lightning strike than women.
According to the National Weather Service,
during the period 2006-2015, male fatalities
outnumbered female fatalities 246-63. Outdoor
recreationists generally face a higher risk when hiking or camping in the lightning-prone
high country. Wildfires and grassfires are frequently ignited by lightning strikes.
Buildings and equipment exposed to lightning strikes may be damaged and power surges
can damage electronic equipment. Direct flash strikes near utility infrastructure can
disrupt services. Many critical facilities are equipped with grounding systems. Most
lightning events result in only personal property damage and do not significantly impact
infrastructure or the delivery of critical services. Disruptions of electrical power due to
lightning are generally short in duration (less than 24 hours). The severity of the
lightning hazard is rated limited by all four communities, meaning that minor injuries
and minor property damages are possible, with minimal disruptions to infrastructure
and critical services.
Vulnerability Assessment
Although the frequency of lightning strikes in Pitkin County is relatively high, damages
are usually limited to single buildings and in most cases, personal hazard insurance
covers any losses. The greatest threat that lightning presents to community assets is the
risk of death or injury. Hikers and climbers who are caught in lightning storms are
extremely vulnerable. Many tourists who travel to the Roaring Fork Valley are unaware
of the speed with which a thunderstorm can build in the mountains and can easily be
caught in a storm while outdoors or traveling in the high country.
Hazard: Lightning
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Limited
Aspen Limited
Basalt Limited
Snowmass Village Limited
P89
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
79
Colorado is one of the most lightning-prone states in the nation. People attending large
outdoor gatherings (i.e., sporting events, concerts, fairs, festivals, etc.) are particularly
vulnerable to death and injury from lightning strikes. In light of this vulnerability,
prudent mitigation measures (e.g., building standards, grounding systems,
preparedness, guidelines for outdoor events, lightning detection/warning systems)
should be considered. While lightning frequently accompanies thunderstorms, the
occasion of a thunderstorm is not necessary for lightning to occur. Lightning may strike
as far away as ten miles from any precipitation.
The preparation of site-specific emergency procedures for outdoor events by event
organizers, response agencies and emergency management can help mitigate the public
safety risk, especially when combined with technology that provides adequate early
detection, monitoring, and warning of approaching thunderstorms. Communications
systems are also at risk. Structure damage is typically limited and covered by insurance.
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
Since the locations of lightning strikes correlate closely with locations where heavy
rainfall and convective activity occur, projections about the effects of climate change on
these atmospheric factors can be considered together. Climate researchers at the
University of California Berkeley used the relationship of the three factors to predict
changes in lightning rates due to climate change.
Two central factors set the atmospheric stage for lightning: the amount of precipitation
and the level of instability in the atmosphere, conditions that allow air to rise rapidly.
Since both heavy precipitation and storm energy are related to the amount of water
vapor available in the atmosphere, and given projections of a moister climate as
temperatures rise, more vigorous thunderstorms and more lightning can be expected.
The study found that lighting rates will increase 12 percent for every two degrees
Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures, an estimated 50 percent increase by the end of
the century.77
With more water in the atmosphere to fuel convection, thunderstorms are expected to
become more explosive. Lightning is already the trigger for more than half of U.S.
wildfires, fires that are often the hardest to fight. In Pitkin County, lightning is second to
human-caused ignitions, but more wildfire ignitions due to lightning strikes mean
greater risks to public health and safety, and more disruptions to ecosystems and the
environment.
4.14 Dam Failure Flooding
Hazard Description
Dams are constructed for a variety of uses, including flood protection, power generation,
agriculture, water supply, and recreation. Dams typically are built of earth, rock,
concrete, or mine tailings. Two factors that influence the potential severity of a full or
partial dam failure are the amount of water impounded and the density, type, and value
of development and infrastructure located downstream. Dam failure floods result from a
77 Thompson, Andrea, Lightning may Increase with Global Warming, November 13, 2014, Scientific
American.
P90
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
80
sudden uncontrolled release, or excessive controlled release, of water from an
impounding structure. The release may be caused by damage to or failure of the
structure, flood conditions unrelated to failure, or any condition that may affect the safe
operation of the dam. Depending on dam conditions and the location of downstream
development, a dam failure flood may present a danger for human life, downstream
property, or the operation of the structure.78
Dams are classified based on the potential loss of life and property to the downstream
area resulting from failure of the dam or facilities, not from the condition or probability
of the dam failing. Dams are categorized into four classes. The 2013 Colorado Natural
Hazards Mitigation Plan defines Class I (High Hazard) dams as structures that, in the
event of a failure, would be expected to cause loss of life and/or significant property
damage within the floodplain areas below the dams. Class II (Significant Hazard) dams
as those rated based on expected significant damage, but not loss of human life.
Significant damage refers to structural damage where humans live, work, or recreate; or
to public or private facilities exclusive of unpaved roads and picnic areas. Damage refers
to making the structures uninhabitable or inoperable.79
Privately-owned Class I and II dams are required by Colorado regulations to have
Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) in place. Federally-owned Class I dams are also required
to have EAPs by federal regulations. According to the 2013 State Hazard Mitigation Plan,
all high-hazard dams in Colorado have EAPs in place that detail the emergency response
procedures in the event of a dam emergency event. According to the Colorado Division of
Water Resources, there are a total of 373 Class I dams in Colorado (federal and non-
federal) and 333 Class II dams (federal and non-federal) in the state.80
Geographic Location
There are five Class I dams (High Risk) and seven Class II dams (Significant Risk) in
Pitkin County.
78 Federal Guidelines for Emergency Action Planning for Dams, FEMA P-64 (July 2013), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (p. I-2)
79 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December 2013), Colorado Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management, p. 3-48
80 State Engineer’s 27th Annual Report on Dam Safety to the Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Division
of Water Resources (April 2013)
P91
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
81
Figure 4.10 - Pitkin County Dams
Ruedi Reservoir is the newest Class I dam in the county (1968) and by far and away the
largest reservoir at over 100,000-acre feet (the next largest Class I dam is Wildcat at
1,100-acre feet). The oldest Class I dam, Lake Ann, is over 100 years old (built in 1912).
The table below identifies the hazard class of each dam, the year built, stream where the
P92
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
82
dam is located, closest downstream community, and the distance in miles to the closest
downstream community.
Table 4.20 - Location and Age of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County
Dam Name Hazard
Class
Year
Built
Stream Downstream
Community
Miles*
Christenson Class II
Significant
1907 Snowmass
Creek
Old
Snowmass
5
Grizzly Class I
High
1930 Lincoln Creek Aspen 18
Ivanhoe Class II
Significant
1928 Ivanhoe Creek Thomasville 16
Lake Ann (Dinkle
Lake)
Class I
High
1912 W. Sopris
Creek
El Jebel 8
Lake Deborah
(Ziegler Res.)
Class I
High
1962 Brush Creek Snowmass
Village
0.4
Lazy O Reservoir
#2
Class II
Significant
1990 Capital Creek Snowmass 3
Leonard Thomas
Reservoir
Class II
Significant
1964 Castle Creek Aspen 3
Ruedi Reservoir Class I
High
1968 Fryingpan
River
Basalt 12
Sheer Bliss Class II
Significant
2007 N/A Snowmass
Village
2
Thomas (Lewis
Lake)
Class II
Significant
1938 Thomas Creek Carbondale 3
Valana K Reservoir
#1
Class II
Significant
1972 E. Sopris
Creek
Basalt 3
Wildcat Class I
High
1953 Wildcat Creek Basalt 6
Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources
Distance to nearest downstream community
All five Class I (High Hazard) dams in Pitkin County have current EAPs. One Class II
(Significant Hazard) dam – Christenson Dam – faces a zero-storage restriction by the
State Engineer’s Office, until the small dam is rehabilitated or breached by the owner.
The table below identifies the current date of each facility’s Emergency Action Plan
(EAP) and provides information about each dam’s normal storage capacity, in acre feet,
and ownership.
P93
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
83
Table 4.21 - Status of Class I and Class II Dams in Pitkin County: EAPs, Storage
Capacity and Ownership
Dam Name EAP Storage
(Acre Feet)
Owner
Christenson No 13 Gunther Covers
Grizzly 2017 590 Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co.
Ivanhoe 2015 752 Pueblo Water Works
Lake Ann (Dinkle Lake) 2015 460 Big 4 Ranch
Lake Deborah (Ziegler
Reservoir)
2011 248 Snowmass Village Water &
Sanitation District
Lazy O Reservoir #2 1990 16 Otis Company/Lazy O Ranch
Leonard Thomas Reservoir 2016 10 City of Aspen
Ruedi Reservoir 2011 102,369 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Sheer Bliss 2016 11 Aspen Skiing Company
Thomas (Lewis Lake) 2012 172 Ranch Lake
Valana K Reservoir #1 2014 19 Ian Willis
Wildcat 2016 1,100 Wildcat Ranch Association
Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources
Previous Occurrences
There are no significant dam failure incidents on record for Pitkin County.
Probability
Dams are considered “high potential loss
facilities” by the Department of Homeland
Security and FEMA and are also a critical part
of the infrastructure system. The Class I and
Class II dams listed in the tables above are
routinely inspected, structurally sound and have
emergency action plans in place. The only
exception is Christenson dam, a small, 13-acre-
feet impoundment that is under a state storage
restriction. The probability of future occurrences is rated unlikely (less than 1 percent
chance of occurrence in the next 100 years or it has a recurrence interval of greater than
every 100 years).
Magnitude/Severity
Dam failure flooding, similar to the earthquake
hazard, is a low-risk/high-consequence hazard.
Although the likelihood of a partial or complete
failure of a Class I or II dam in Pitkin County is
very low, if an incident did occur, local officials
would be faced with an immediate threat to
lives and potentially widespread property
damages. Given the extreme nature of the
Hazard: Dam Failure Flooding
Probability
Pitkin County Unlikely
Aspen Unlikely
Basalt Unlikely
Snowmass Village Unlikely
Hazard: Dam Failure Flooding
Magnitude/Severity
Pitkin County Catastrophic
Aspen Catastrophic
Basalt Catastrophic
Snowmass Village Critical
P94
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
84
impacts that an unlikely event would cause, the magnitude/severity of the dam failure
flood hazard is rated catastrophic by Pitkin County and the communities of Aspen and
Basalt, and critical by Snowmass Village.
Vulnerability Assessment
The State of Colorado requires Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for all Class I and Class II
hazard dams due to the potential for loss of life and/or property damage in the event of a
dam failure. The EAP is a formal document that outlines possible emergency conditions
at a dam, sets forth actions to minimize damages and danger, and includes a plan for the
dam owner to moderate or alleviate the problems at the dam. The EAP contains
inundation maps to help emergency management authorities identify the critical areas
for action in case of an emergency. Should an emergency arise, the dam owner should
refer to preplanned EAP procedures for issuing an early warning and notifying
downstream public safety authorities of the situation.
Potential Effects of Climate Warming
Dams represent one category of the Nation’s infrastructure that is aging, relics of an age
when Western rivers were tamed by the structures in the name of water supply, flood
protection and hydroelectric power production. Concerns about the effects of climate
change on the safety of dam operations have less to do with structural integrity and focus
more on original design standards that may not have anticipated the potential for
extreme rainfall events that exists today.
Weather and streamflow patterns that framed the development of water and power
systems across the West are changing, placing at risk the ability of dams to fulfill their
primary mission of delivering needed quantities of water and hydropower to agricultural,
tribal, municipal, and industrial users, as well as water to maintain environmental flows
and ecosystems.
Increased intensity of droughts and floods also raise concerns about
infrastructure safety, the resiliency of species and ecosystems to these changes,
and the ability to maintain adequate levels of hydropower production.81
When changes in weather patterns produce a hydrograph that is different from the one
used in a dam’s design, the structure may lose some of its designed margin of safety, or
freeboard, requiring dam operators to release increased volumes that could potentially
cause downstream flooding. Older dams may not be designed to deal with the intense
rainfall patterns and heavy downpours as temperatures increase and as more moisture
falls as rain instead of snow.
In the future, operators of water supply and flood protection facilities that were designed
based on historical hydrologic data will need to take into account changing precipitation
and runoff patterns, as well as the possibilities of extreme climatic events, in dam safety
plans. Leaving more space in the reservoir to accommodate flooding must be balanced
with water demands, which will likely increase as temperatures continue to rise.
81 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (November 2014), Managing Water in the West:
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, p. 7.
P95
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
85
Chapter Five: Capability Assessment
5.1 Vulnerability Assessment Summary
According to the 2013 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, “Coloradans become
vulnerable to hazards when they live, work, or visit an area where these events occur.
Individuals and communities that prepare for the occurrence of a hazard are less
vulnerable to its consequences than those that do not. The vulnerability of Colorado’s
population is rooted in a relationship between the occurrence of hazard events, the
proximity of people and property to these occurrences, and the degr ee that a community
and its members are committed and prepared to cope with these occurrences and
mitigate their effects.”82
Table 5.1 - Priority Hazards – Key Issues
Key Issues Related to Priority Hazards in Pitkin County
Key Issues: Wildfires
A large proportion of Pitkin County’s population lives and recreates in and near
forested areas and wildfires pose serious risks to residents, visitors, property and
wildlife. The potential for wildfire-caused damage to structures in Pitkin County is
increasing as wildland fuels accumulate and greater numbers of people choose to
build homes in wildfire-prone areas. As climate warming leads to longer, more intense
periods of drought, the risks and impacts of wildfires are expected to grow, in turn
leading to greater risks from landslides, mudflows and other geologic hazards during
heavy rainfall events. The potential magnitude of a large wildfire is considered by the
participating jurisdictions to be critical-to-catastrophic.
Key Issues: Geologic Hazards: Landslides, Debris Flows, Mudflows and Rockfalls
In the high country, heavy rain events reduce slope stability that can result in
landslides, debris flows, mudflows, rockfalls and other types of mass movement of
soil and rock. While communities in the Roaring Fork Valley have enacted strict
development standards for development on slopes and hillsides, the potential for
extreme precipitation events fueled by climate warming may present increased risks
to people and property in Pitkin County. Due to the steep terrain in most of the
county, the probability of future occurrences of landslides and other geologic hazards
is considered highly likely.
Key Issues: Flooding
Although serious flood events in Pitkin County are rare, severe weather and snowmelt
runoff present a threat of serious flooding along rivers and creeks in the county each
year. The town of Basalt has been one of the more flood-prone areas of the county
due to its location at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers. Basalt
is also located downstream of one Class I (high hazard) and two Class II (significant
hazard) dams. The area in and around the community of Redstone, located at the
82 Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (December 2013), Colorado Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management.
P96
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
86
confluence of Coal Creek and Crystal River, is also susceptible to flood events.
Because warmer air can hold more moisture, events producing heavy rainfall can be
expected to increase as temperatures rise in the years to come, which in turn will
increase the potential for flash flooding.
Key Issues: Other Hazards
Although common in Pitkin County, severe winter storms can occasionally present
major public safety challenges for communities in the Roaring Fork Valley. As the
warming atmosphere holds more moisture, winter storms may become more intense,
producing heavier snowfall. On the other hand, climate warming may result in more
frequent, intense and prolonged droughts. With annual precipitation in Pitkin County
averaging only 11-15 inches per year, any decrease in moisture over a single year or
for a multi-year period can have significant impacts on the tourism and recreation
economy. As backcountry recreation grows in popularity, the risk of death and injury
due to avalanches and lightning strikes will likely grow.
The wildfire risk in Pitkin County is primarily associated with wildland-urban interface
(WUI) areas (areas where development occurs within or immediately adjacent to
wildlands, near fire-prone trees, brush, and/or other vegetation). Key public safety issues
related to wildfire mitigation include evacuation-route planning in “one-way-out”
subdivisions, fuel reduction, water storage, and emergency power for pump stations.
Throughout the county, thousands of structures are located within the WUI, with a
combined value in the billions of dollars. Most of these structures are in areas classified
as having at least a “Medium” wildfire hazard risk.
The greatest wildfire risks within the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) are in and
around the City of Aspen. In the Aspen area, the number of homes in proximity to the
WUI is growing. In Aspen and an area extending one mile beyond the city limits,
approximately half of the total acreage is classified “High” or “Very High” for wildfire
risk.
According to the Snowmass Community Wildfire Protection Plan, approximately 70% of
the Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District (SWFPD) is at higher risk for wildfire,
including the Wildcat Ranch area, which has low population density but very high
property values. In Snowmass Village proper, about 40% of the area has a “High”
wildfire risk. The following areas are also at risk from wildland fires: Upper Horse Ranch
Drive, Oak Ridge Road area, Upper Sinclair Road, Upper Faraway Road, Two Creeks
Subdivision, The Pines Subdivision, and The Divide Subdivision.
Like the other communities along the Roaring Fork River valley floor in Pitkin County,
the Town of Basalt has experienced residential growth on the valley edges and within the
densely-forested hillsides outside of town above the valley. According to the Eagle
County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2011), areas of “elevated risk” within the
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (BRFPD) include Buck Point, Upper Missouri
Heights, Lower Missouri Heights, Cedar Drive, Seven Castles/Big Hat, and Ruedi
Shores.
P97
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
87
5.2 Community Asset Inventory
There is a total of 17,420 residents in Pitkin County (2015 census), most of whom live in
the communities in the Roaring Fork River valley. Population growth in Pitkin County
from 2010 to 2015 was mostly flat, with very slow growth in Aspen, Snowmass Village
and Pitkin County as a whole, and a slight decline in population in Basalt. As a result of
the tourism-based economy, especially in the communities of Aspen and Snowmass
Village, the number of people in the county at any given time can surge to many times
the official number of local residents.
In 2016, the total assessed value of residential property in Pitkin County was more than
two billion dollars ($2,046,748,130), a 1.4% increase from 2015. The value of commercial
real estate in 2016 was $655,877,150, a 1.4% decline from 2015. The value of vacant land
in the county was assessed in 2016 at $201,485,500 (a roughly 10% decline from 2015).
HAZUS-MH was used to estimate the exposure of people and buildings in Pitkin County
to a 100-year and 500-year flood event. HAZUS-MH estimates total damages and
economic losses of over $71 million for a 100-year flood event in Pitkin County. Damages
and losses for a 500-year event are estimated to be nearly $78 million. Out of a total of
9,671 structures modeled by HAZUS-MH, 56 structures would be damaged in a 100-year
flood event and 70 structures would be damaged in a 500-year flood event. In addition,
HAZUS-MH estimates that the number of households displaced by a 100-year flood
event to be 305 and the number of people requiring short-term sheltering to be 528. For
a 500-year event, 331 households would be displaced, and 583 people would seek short-
term shelters.
Critical Facilities, Infrastructure, and Other Important Community Assets
Critical facilities and infrastructure are the structures and systems in the community that
are integral to day-to-day functions and, if damaged, would have serious adverse impacts
on disaster response and recovery operations. Infrastructure and facilities that are
commonly considered critical include law enforcement facilities, fire service facilities,
health care facilities, ambulance services, government facilities, emergency operations
centers, public shelters, transportation systems, water supply facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, agricultural production facilities, electrical power systems and other
utilities. In addition, critical facilities are those that house vulnerable populations, such
as schools and assisted living or senior housing.
Several critical facilities in Pitkin County have recently been remodeled and expanded or
are currently under construction. A new Aspen Police Department facility (540 E. Main
St.) and new Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office facility (530 E. Main St.) were under
construction at the time of updates to this plan. A major renovation and expansion of
Aspen Valley hospital was also recently completed.
Natural, Historic and Cultural Resources
Pitkin County has a wealth of natural, historic and cultural resources that are highly-
valued community assets by residents and visitors alike. The protection of these types of
resources is an important goal of hazard mitigation planning. Natural resources can have
beneficial functions that reduce the impacts of natural hazards, such as wetlands and
P98
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
88
riparian habitat, which help absorb and attenuate floodwaters. Wetlands also improve
water quality, limit erosion, and protect wildlife.
In the preparation of benefit-cost analyses for future mitigation projects, the need to
protect natural, historic and cultural resources can be used to leverage additional
funding for projects that contribute to other community goals. Pitkin County and its local
partners enjoy an abundance of natural resources, including legendary alpine terrain,
wilderness, wetlands and endangered species.
An endangered species is any species of fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or most of its range. A threatened species is a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. Both endangered
and threatened species are protected by law and any future hazard mitigation projects
are subject to these laws. Candidate species are plants and animals that have been
proposed as endangered or threatened but are not currently listed. Endangered,
threatened, and candidate species located in Pitkin County are listed in the table below.
Ta ble 5.2 - Rare Species in Pitkin County
Common Name Scientific Name Type of
Species
Status
Canada lynx
Lynx canadensis Mammal Threatened
Greenback cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus clarki
stomias
Fish Threatened
Mexican spotted owl
Strix occidentalis lucida Bird Threatened
Uncompahgre fritillary
butterfly
Boloria acrocnema Insect Endangered
Ute ladies’-tresses
orchid
Spiranthes diluvialis Flowering
Plant
Threatened
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus Bird Threatened
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National and state historic inventories were reviewed to identify historic and cultural
assets in Pitkin County. The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official
list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The Colorado State Register of Historic
Properties is a listing of the state’s significant cultural resources worthy of preservation
for the future education and enjoyment of Colorado’s residents and visitors. The tables
below list the properties in Pitkin County that are on the Colorado State Register of
Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places.
Table 5.3 - Historic Aspen Properties and Districts on National Register
Property Location Year Listed
Armory Hall/Fraternal Hall 130 S. Galena St. 1975
Aspen Community Church 200 N. Aspen St. 1975
Boat Tow 700 S. Aspen St. 1990
Bowles-Cooley House 201 W. Francis St. 1987
Matthew Callahan Log Cabin 205 S. 3rd St. 1987
P99
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
89
Collins Block-Aspen Lumber & Supply 204 S. Mill St. 1987
Dixon-Markle House 135 E. Cooper Ave. 1987
D.E. Frantz House 333 W. Bleeker St. 1987
Samuel L. Hallett House 432 W. Francis St. 1987
Holden Mining & Smelting Company 1000 W. Hwy. 82 1990
Hotel Jerome 330 E. Main St. 1986
Hyman-Brand Building 203 S. Galena St. 1985
Thomas Hynes House 303 E. Main St. 1987
La Fave Block 405 S. Hunter St. 1987
New Brick/The Brick Saloon/Red Onion 420 E. Cooper Ave. 1987
Riede’s City Bakery 413 E. Hyman Ave. 1987
Judge Shaw House/Newberry House 206 Lake Ave. 1987
Sheely Bridge Mill St. Park 1985
Shilling-Lamb House 525 N. 2nd St. 1987
Smith-Elisha House 320 W. Main St. 1989
Smuggler Mine Smuggler Mountain 1987
Ute Cemetery Ute Ave. 2002
Davis Waite House 234 W. Francis St. 1987
Henry Webber House/Pioneer Park 442 W. Bleeker St. 1987
Wheeler Opera House 330 E. Hyman Ave. 1972
Wheeler-Stallard House 620 W. Bleeker St. 1975
Source: Directory of Colorado State Register Properties
P100
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
90
Table 5.4 - Historic Pitkin County Properties and Districts on National Register
Property Location Year Listed
Ashcroft White River National Forest 1975
Independence/Independence Mill Site Independence/Hwy. 82 1973
Maroon Creek Bridge Hwy. 82/Aspen Vicinity 1985
Osgood Castle/Cleveholm Redstone Vicinity 1971
Osgood Gamekeeper’s Lodge 18679 Hwy. 133 1989
Osgood-Kuhnhausen House 642 Redstone Blvd. 1983
Pitkin County Courthouse 506 E. Main St. (Aspen) 1975
Redstone Coke Ovens Historic District Redstone Vicinity 1990
Redstone Historic District Redstone 1989
Redstone Inn 82 Redstone Blvd. 1980
Source: Directory of Colorado State Register Properties
According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), any property over 50 years
of age is considered an historic resource and is potentially eligible for the National
Register. As a result, alterations to listed properties must be evaluated under the
guidelines set forth by NEPA. Structural mitigation projects are considered alterations
for the purpose of this regulation.
Economic Assets
According to the State Demography Office, total employment in Pitkin County was
estimated to be 20,367 in 2015, down about 1,600 jobs from the county’s 2008
employment peak of 21,937. The employment drop that occurred in 2015 was due to
reclassification of temporary-help workers to surrounding counties. Two-thirds of the
industries in Pitkin County employ fewer people than prior to the recession. Average
weekly wages in the county increased by 18% between 2010 and 2015, compared to the
state which increased by 13%. Between 2015 and 2030, the total number of jobs in Pitkin
County is projected to increase from 23,541 to 26,189, an increase of 11.25%.83
In addition to direct impacts and damages to critical facilities, major disasters can result
in large amounts of debris, business interruptions, increased emergency response times
and costs, loss of income for businesses and residents, increased demands for health
services, and the need to replace roads, bridges and public buildings. After a disaster,
economic recovery is the highest recovery priority, next to public health and safety.
When major employers are unable to return to normal operations, long-term impacts
may be felt throughout the community.
The table below lists the top employers in Pitkin County by number of employees for
calendar year 2016. The total number of workers for these top employers represents
49.87% of total employment in Pitkin County.
83 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov
P101
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
91
Table 5.5 - Top Employers in Pitkin County in 2016
Employer Number of
Employees
Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Hotel 3,887
Aspen Valley Hospital 800
Little Nell Hotel 400
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 370
St. Regis Aspen Resort 325
Viceroy Snowmass Resort 300
City of Aspen 293
Pitkin County 266
Aspen School District 254
Hotel Jerome 250
Westin Snowmass Wildwood Resort Hotel 180
Ritz Carlton 176
Source: Pitkin County, Colorado Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; Year Ended December 31, 2016
5.3 Social Vulnerability
Certain demographic and housing characteristics affect overall vulnerability to hazards.
These characteristics, such as age, race/ethnicity, income levels, gender, building quality,
public infrastructure, all contribute to social vulnerability. Factors of social vulnerability
hold many implications for disaster response and recovery and are important
considerations when identifying and prioritizing mitigation goals and actions. Age can
affect the ability of individuals to safely evacuate away from hazardous conditions.
Language and cultural barriers can affect the communication of warning information
and access to post-disaster information. Low-income residents generally have fewer
resources available for mitigation, preparedness, and recovery and are more likely to live
in vulnerable structures.
Individuals and communities with higher average incomes have more ability to absorb
disaster impacts and losses, due to factors such as insurance and social safety nets.
Compared to other counties in Colorado, Pitkin County’s social vulnerability is low (i.e.,
less socially vulnerable than most counties and most of the state’s population).
Table 5.6 - Social Vulnerability Indicators from U.S. Census (2015)
Jurisdiction Total
Population
Housing
Units
Percent
Female
17 Yrs.
and
Under
65
Yrs.
and
Over
Non-
English
at
Home
Individuals
Below
Poverty
Level (%)
Pitkin
County
17,420 13,027 47.0% 16.5% 15.2% 15.2% 9.9%
Aspen
6,740 5,961 45.9% 13.4% 19.8% 17.4% 8.8%
Basalt
3,791 1,865 45.2% 15.5% 10.4% 16.5% 6.4%
Snowmass
Village
2,865 2,698 47.6% 15.1% 10.3% 10.2% 9.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey
P102
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
92
5.4 Growth and Development Trends
This section provides a general description of growth and development trends within the
county and includes data on growth in population and housing units for each
jurisdiction. Population growth in Pitkin County from 2010 to 2015 was mostly flat, with
very slow growth in Aspen, Snowmass Village and Pitkin County as a whole, and a slight
decline in population in Basalt.
Table 5.7 - Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2010-2015
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 Percent Change
Pitkin County 17,148 17,420 1.59
Aspen 6,658 6,740 1.23
Basalt* 3,857 3,791 -1.71
Snowmass Village 2,826 2,865 1.38
Source: Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog
Basalt population figures include both portions of Town in Pitkin County and Eagle County
The table below shows the rate of growth in housing units for Pitkin County, Aspen,
Basalt and Snowmass Village between 2010-2015. Snowmass Village experienced a
healthy increase of almost 15% in the number of housing units during the period, with
little or no increase in the other jurisdictions.
Table 5.8 - Growth in Housing Units in Pitkin County, 2010-2015
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 Percent Change
Pitkin County 12,953 13,027 0.57
Aspen 5,929 5,961 0.54
Basalt* 1,912 1,865 -2.46
Snowmass Village 2,355 2,698 14.56
Source: Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog
Basalt housing figures include both portions of Town in Pitkin County and Eagle County
According to the State Demography Office, Pitkin County is projected to grow at a slow-
to-moderate rate (approximately 4.0-5.0% per 5-year period) between 2015 and 2050,
with a total population increase of 36.23% over the period, as indicated in the table
below.
Table 5.9 - Projected Population Growth in Pitkin County, 2015-2050
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Population 17,845 18,806 19,829 20,791 21,714 22,605 23,458 24,311
Percent
Change
5.39 5.44 4.85 4.44 4.10 3.77 3.64
Source: Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office, www.dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog
P103
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
93
According to the State Demography Office, job growth in Pitkin County is expected to
continue to exceed population growth for the period from 2015 to 2020, after which
population growth will slightly exceed job growth during the period 2020 to 2030. The
transition to lower job growth is a reflection of short-term economic growth and longer-
term population aging. As the population ages, labor force growth will decline, and older
adults may require additional housing, more accessible housing, and more community
services.84
5.5 National Flood Insurance Program
Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Towns of Basalt and Snowmass Village
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Pitkin County also participates in
the Community Rating System (CRS) with a rating of 8. There is a total of 365 policies
and there have been 27 total claims by the NFIP participating jurisdictions. There are no
repetitive loss properties in Pitkin County.
Table 5.10 - NFIP Community Participation
Community
Initial
FHBM
Initial
FIRM
Current
Effective Map
Date
Regular
Emergency
Date
Pitkin County
10/25/1977 06/04/1987 10/19/2004 06/04/1987
City of Aspen
02/15/1974 12/24/1976 06/04/1987 12/04/1985
Town of Basalt
06/28/1974 03/18/1980 12/04/2007 03/18/1980
Town of
Snowmass Village
06/04/1987 09/30/1988 06/04/1987
Source: FEMA Community Status Book Report, Colorado, September 26, 2017.
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) completed for southside Basalt in November 2016.
Table 5.11 - NFIP Policies in Force as of July 31, 2017
Community
Policies
in Force
Insurance
in Force
Written Premiums in
Force
Pitkin County
137 $40,161,000 $158,976
City of Aspen
122 $31,967,700 $92,807
Town of Basalt
89 $27,587,300 $73,897
Town of
Snowmass Village
17 $5,161,500 $7,160
Source: FEMA NFIP Policy Statistics, bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports.
84 State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov.
P104
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
94
Table 5.12 - NFIP Claims, January 1, 1978 to July 31, 2017
Community
Total
Losses
Closed
Losses
Open
Losses
CWOP
Losses*
Total
Payments
Pitkin County 15 9 0 6 $45,990.52
City of Aspen 9 4 0 5 $168,270.56
Town of Basalt 1 1 0 0 $3,815.81
Town of
Snowmass Village
2 1 0 1 $5,717.30
Source: FEMA NFIP Claims Statistics, bsa.nfipstat.fema.gov/reports.
* Closed without payment
5.6 Capability Assessment
Mitigation capabilities refer to the programs and policies currently in place to reduce
hazard impacts, principally through the identification and implementation of cost-
effective hazard mitigation measures. Capabilities can take the form of regulatory
requirements (e.g., building codes or hazard-specific zoning ordinances), plans (e.g.,
hazard mitigation plans or stormwater master plans), certification programs (e.g.,
Firewise or the Community Rating System), personnel (e.g., floodplain administrators
and community planners), insurance (e.g., National Flood Insurance Program), and
structural projects that protect critical facilities and other property. Hazard awareness
and public education programs are also proven measures for preparing citizens to cope
with hazard events that cannot be avoided.
Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
The political jurisdictions within Pitkin County enforce a range of regulations that
support mitigation goals and principles by restricting development in areas prone to
natural hazards, including stringent floodplain policies and regulations. Pitkin County
participates in the NFIP’s Community Rating System program, with a class rating of 8,
thereby providing a 10% discount on flood insurance policies for properties in Special
Flood Hazard Areas.
Applicants for new construction or redevelopment in Pitkin County must complete a
Wildfire Hazard Analysis, including a wildfire hazard assessment for the property based
on fuels, slope, aspect and access. Permitted construction is required to include
supplemental fuels mitigation (thinning) and homes within high-hazard areas have more
stringent building materials and construction requirements.
Pitkin County’s Land Use and Subdivision regulations related to natural hazard
mitigation include grading and filling standards, standards for development on unstable
slopes, floodplain regulations, maintenance of historical flow/runoff patterns, limits on
development where geologic hazards exist, and standards for development in wildfire
hazard areas.
In 2000, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly adopted an Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) which identifies the land surrounding the City as either appropriate for
urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside
the UGB). By limiting urban sprawl, the UGB deters urban development patterns in rural
P105
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
95
areas that are more susceptible to risks from natural hazards, such as land within the
wildland-urban interface.
Figure 5.1 - City of Aspen/Pitkin County Urban Growth Boundary
Complementing the Urban Growth Boundary is Pitkin County’s Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program, originally adopted to encourage the relocation of development
from the backcountry to areas closer to existing services and infrastructure, but since
expanded to encourage the protection of environmentally-sensitive areas and to
discourage development in environmentally-hazardous areas.
The City of Aspen’s Land Use Code requires “heightened review” of proposed
development in environmentally sensitive areas, including areas subject to flooding and
geologic hazards, and in Specially Planned Areas (SPAs) in order to evaluate suitability
considering the potential for mudflow, rockfall, avalanche and flood hazards. The PUD
section of the Land Use Code limits the density of development on steep slopes with the
goal of reducing wildfire, mudslide and avalanche hazards. The Subdivision section
restricts the location of subdivisions on land unsuitable for development because of flood
or geologic hazards
The City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan contains the floodplain ordinance
and regulations and outlines the inspection and permitting process followed by the City
of Aspen Engineering Department. The plan requires that all new development occurring
within the identified mudflow plain perform a mudflow analysis. Additionally, the plan
P106
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
96
requires that all new and substantially-changed critical facilities be located outside of the
500-year floodplain and requires a mudflow analysis for development on slopes of 15%
or greater or for sites in the mudflow plain.
The Land Use and Subdivision regulations in the Town of Snowmass Village limit
development in identified wildfire hazard areas and requires implementation of
mitigation measures related to structural design, access, water supply, appropriate
vegetation, and maintenance. The regulations also include storm drainage standards
intended to preserve the integrity of existing and natural runoff patterns and limit
flooding, erosion and pollution. The regulations restrict development in geologic hazard
areas where slopes are excessively steep (greater than 30%), unstable or hazardous. The
floodplain section of the regulations requires all proposed development to be located
outside of the limits of the 100-year floodplain.
The Town of Basalt’s Land Use and Subdivision regulations also specifically address
natural hazards, including discouraging development on slopes that exceed 30% and in
areas prone to subsidence, unstable soils, rockfall hazards and flooding. The regulations
specify floodplain development restrictions and describe recommended mitigation
techniques, including elevation, floodproofing, slope stabilization, catchment walls,
diversion structures and structural reinforcement. Subdivision preliminary plat
requirements include an engineering analysis and drainage plan that addresses potential
flood and mudflow risks. Basalt also has specific regulations for the Reach II and
Southside floodplains that require new development to prove that it does not increase
the base flood elevation.
The existing regulatory tools and planning mechanisms for Pitkin County and partner
jurisdictions are summarized in the table below.
Table 5.13 - Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
Regulatory Mitigation
Capability
Pitkin
County
City of
Aspen
Town of
Snowmass
Village
Town of
Basalt
Comprehensive or Master Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Emergency Operations Plan Yes Yes* Yes* Yes*
Economic Development Plan No Yes No Yes
Capital Improvements Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Yes
(2014)
Yes** Yes** Yes**
Building Code Year 2015 2015 2015 2015
Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes
Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes No Yes
Stormwater Ordinance No Yes No Yes
Growth Management
Ordinance
Yes Yes No No
Site Plan Review
Requirements
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Erosion/Sediment Control
Program
Yes Yes Yes Yes
P107
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
97
Stormwater Management
Program
No Yes Yes Yes
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs)
Yes*** Yes*** Yes*** Yes****
National Flood Insurance
Program Participant
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Community Rating System
(CRS) Participant
Yes
(Rating: 8)
No No No
* City and Towns are signatories to county-level EOP
** City and Towns are signatories to county- and local-level CWPPs
*** Approval of new Digital FIRMs in process (current FIRMs dated 1987)
**** Town of Basalt amended FIRMs effective November 2017
The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (March 2011) provides a set of regional guidelines that
address natural hazard mitigation in the river corridor. The watershed plan was
developed to protect and restore riparian areas, ensure adequate stream setbacks, and
increase awareness of the importance of riparian areas. Plan objectives include: (1)
ensuring coordination of local land use actions to mitigate watershed impact s, (2)
reducing the negative impacts of drought and floods, and (3) preserving and enhancing
native riparian and instream flora and fauna.
The City of Aspen has emerged as a leader in climate action in the U.S. and around the
world. In an effort to reduce the threat of climate change, Aspen's City Council adopted
the City of Aspen’s Canary Action Plan in 2007, which commits to reducing community
emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels. A testament to Aspen’s
commitment to sustainability performance is the achievement of 100% renewable energy
in 2015. The City of Aspen electric utility uses 46% hydroelectric, 53% wind power, and
1% landfill gas (2015 figures). Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and the Town of Basalt
have all adopted new Climate Action Plans and the Town of Basalt has also adopted the
2015 ICC building energy code.
Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities
The tables below identify the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation
and loss prevention in Pitkin County and the financial resources available to
participating jurisdictions to implement recommended hazard mitigation activities.
Table 5.14 - Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities
Administrative and
Technical Resources
Pitkin
County
City of
Aspen
Town of
Snowmass
Village
Town of
Basalt
Planner/Engineer Yes Yes Yes Yes
Engineer/Professional Yes Yes Yes Yes
GIS Capabilities Yes Yes Yes Yes
HAZUS Analysis Yes Yes Yes Yes
Full-Time Building Official Yes Yes Yes Yes
Floodplain Administrator Yes Yes Yes Yes
Emergency Manager Yes No No No
Grant Writer No Yes Yes Yes
Warning Systems/Services Yes Yes Yes Yes
P108
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
98
Table 5.15 - Financial Resources
Financial Resources Pitkin
County
City of
Aspen
Town of
Snowmass
Village
Town of
Basalt
Community Development
Block Grants
No No No No
Capital Improvements Project
Funding
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for
Specific Purposes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or
Electric Services
No Yes Yes Yes
Impact Fees for New
Development
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Incur Debt through General
Obligation Bonds
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Incur Debt through Special
Tax Bonds
N/A Yes Yes Yes
Fire Protection District Capabilities
In response to the growing wildfire threat, Pitkin County and the fire protection districts
(FPDs) within the county have developed a comprehensive program for reducing risks
and strong capabilities for suppressing fires before they grow out of control, including:
• establishment of the Pitkin County Wildfire Council and Wildfire Planning Team;
• preparation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) for Pitkin County,
Snowmass Village, Basalt (Eagle County CWPP), Conundrum, and Starwood;
• completion of subdivision-level CWPPs
• development of the Pitkin County Annual Operating Plan and participation in the
State Emergency Fire Fund;
• maintenance of mutual aid agreements with local partners and
intergovernmental agreements with state and federal government agencies; and
• enhanced mapping and site-specific risk assessment programs.
In addition to these capabilities developed within the fire service and wildland fire
communities, many of the authorities supporting the mission of the fire protection
districts can be found in county, city and town land use regulations, building codes, and
other local government authorities for managing growth and ensuring safe development.
The fire protection districts enforce wildland fire prevention and are responsible for all
wildland fire suppression activities on private and state lands within their fire districts,
with support from the Colorado State Forest Service and the Pitkin County Sheriff. While
the Sheriff has ultimate authority over all fires on state and private lands in the county,
FPD’s typically handle routine wildfire suppression within their districts and rely on the
Sheriff to summon additional assistance as needed.
FPD personnel are trained to fight structural fires, urban-interface fires, and wildland
fires in the backcountry. The FPDs also manage fire prevention and emergency
preparedness programs, including fire inspections, hazardous process permitting, burn
P109
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
99
permits, fire code enforcement, community education, and business emergency planning
in accordance with Colorado laws. In an ongoing effort to promote defensible spacing
and Firewise community standards, FPDs partner with local homeowners’ associations
to complete annual wildfire mitigation projects, including right-of-way tree removal,
public chipping programs, and removal of fuels.
FPDs in Pitkin County have extensive wildland firefighting-related skills, equipment and
incident command experience and generally conduct initial attack and extended attack
actions, with support from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Access to USFS and BLM resources, including personnel, engines,
interagency dispatch center and air support (helicopter/air tanker), is provided through
cooperative agreements and interagency contracts between the FPDs and federal agency
partners.
The Aspen Fire Protection District operates from four strategically-located stations
housing a total of 10 apparatus, including four structure engines, two wildfire engines,
two rescue trucks, one water tender and one 104-foot ladder truck. The Snowmass-
Wildcat Fire Protection District operates 13 pieces of apparatus out of one station in
Snowmass Village and the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District maintains four fire
stations in Snowmass, Basalt, Thomasville and El Jebel, each equipped with a four-wheel
drive ambulance and various fire response trucks.
P110
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
100
Chapter Six: Mitigation Strategy
This chapter describes the mitigation strategy developed by the Pitkin County Hazard
Mitigation Planning Team (Planning Team), based on the risk assessment that was
updated at both planning workshops, survey feedback, and interviews with local officials.
The Planning Team developed goals and mitigation actions according to the following
definitions:
• Goals are general guidelines that explain what the plan means to achieve. Goals are
defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent
on the means of achievement. They are meant to be achieved over the long term
and typically consist of broad policy statements.
• Mitigation Actions are specific actions that implement the objective and provide
clear direction towards fulfilling the goals.
6.1 Plan Goals
Participants at the initial planning workshop approved the first two goal statements
below and recommended drafting an additional goal related to the implications of
climate change for natural hazards.
1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards.
2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused
hazards.
3. Recognizing the common issues and mutual goals of hazard mitigation and
climate adaptation, promote collaborative planning and identify opportunities
to dovetail actions that reduce risks from both natural hazards and climate
warming.
6.2 Incorporation of 2012 Plan Elements into Other
Planning Mechanisms
The 2012 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan encouraged the incorporation of
recommended mitigation actions into other local government planning mechanisms,
such as master or comprehensive land-use plans, when appropriate. As described in
Chapter Five, Capability Assessment, local governments and special districts in Pitkin
County have strong capabilities to address and mitigate risks from local natural hazards.
Pitkin County and the other jurisdictions participating in this mitigation planning effort
enforce a range of regulations that support mitigation goals and principles by restricting
development in areas prone to natural hazards. Mitigation concepts are built into the
day-to-day operations of local governments in Pitkin County, principally the
administration of land use codes, subdivision regulations, building codes and regulations
related to floodplain and stormwater management.
P111
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
101
The 2012 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is referenced in the following documents
and resources:
• 2017 Sustainability Report, City of Aspen;
• Climate Change and Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning
and Stakeholder Engagement, Arnott et al (December 2014); and
• Extreme Weather Adaptation in Aspen, CO: A Story Map.
The 2017 update of this plan provides additional opportunities for improving integration
with other local plans and programs. Multiple disciplines are reflected in Planning Team
membership, broadening opportunities for identifying and supporting meaningful
mitigation actions. Outside of formal meetings, Planning Team members can promote
mitigation plan goals by (1) attending other planning/program meetings, (2)
participating in other planning processes, and (3) remaining cognizant of outreach
opportunities to engage stakeholders. Pitkin County Emergency Management will be
responsible for conducting an annual hazard mitigation plan review to assess progress
and identify opportunities for implementing recommended actions.
6.3 Identification of Mitigation Action Alternatives
Prior to evaluating potential mitigation for the 2017 update, the Planning Team reviewed
the types and categories of mitigation actions, as identified in the table below.
Table 6.1 - Types of Mitigation Actions
Mitigation
Type
Description Examples
Local Plans
and
Regulations
These actions include
government authorities, policies,
or codes that influence the way
land and buildings are
developed and built.
∙Comprehensive plans
∙Land use ordinances
∙Subdivision regulations
∙Development review
∙Building codes/enforcement
∙NFIP Community Rating
System
∙Capital improvement
programs
∙Open space preservation
∙Stormwater management
plans and regulations
Structure and
Infrastructure
Protection
These actions involve modifying
existing structures and
infrastructure to protect them
from a hazard or remove them
from a hazard area. This could
apply to public or private
structures as well as critical
facilities and infrastructure.
This type of action also involves
structural projects that reduce
the impact of hazards.
∙Acquisition/removal of
structures in hazard-prone
areas
∙Utility undergrounding
∙Structural retrofits
∙Floodwalls and retaining walls
∙Detention/retention
structures
∙Culverts
∙Safe rooms
Natural
Systems
Protection
These are actions that minimize
damage and losses and also
∙Sediment and erosion control
∙Stream corridor restoration
∙Forest management
P112
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
102
preserve or restore the functions
of natural systems.
∙Conservation easements
∙Wetland restoration and
preservation
Education and
Awareness
Programs
These are actions to inform and
educate citizens, elected
officials, and property owners
about hazards and potential
ways to mitigate them.
These actions may also include
participation in national
programs, such as StormReady
or Firewise Communities.
Although this type of mitigation
reduces risk less directly
than structural projects or
regulation, it is an important
foundation. A greater
understanding and awareness of
hazards and risk among local
officials, stakeholders, and the
public is more likely to lead to
direct actions.
∙Radio or television spots
∙Websites with maps and
information
∙Real estate disclosure
∙Presentations to school
groups or neighborhood
organizations
∙Mailings to residents in
hazard-prone areas
∙StormReady Communities
∙Firewise Communities
Source: Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, FEMA (March 2013)
6.4 Prioritization of Mitigation Actions
The Planning Team discussed a wide range of possible mitigation actions, and employed
the STAPLEE methodology (see description below) to evaluate and prioritize each
proposed action. For each recommended action, the Planning Team developed a project
summary that included a description of the action, the department or agency responsible
for implementing it, and an estimated timeframe for completion. While STAPLEE
provided a template for the Planning Team to evaluate a range of specific mitigation
actions and projects, the results of the risk assessment were also considered (i.e.,
probability and severity of impacts for each hazard). Planning Team members also
weighed the pros and cons of proposed actions based on their judgement, subject matter
expertise and experience with local hazards.
The STAPLEE evaluation tool was used as one method for evaluating the effectiveness of
each action item. STAPLEE considers social, technical, administrative, political, legal,
economic, and environmental constraints and benefits of a proposed activity.
• Social: Does the measure treat people fairly?
• Technical: Will it work? Does it solve the problem? Is it feasible?
• Administrative: Is there capacity to implement and manage the project?
• Political: Who are the stakeholders? Did they get to participate? Is there public
support? Is political leadership willing to support the project?
• Legal: Does your organization have the authority to implement? Is it legal? Are
there liability implications?
• Economic: Is it cost-beneficial? Is there funding? Does it contribute to the local
economy or economic development? Does it reduce direct property losses or
indirect economic losses?
P113
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
103
• Environmental: Does it comply with environmental regulations or have adverse
environmental impacts?
6.5 Completed Projects and Accomplishments Since 2012
Since 2012, substantial progress has been made implementing recommended actions,
including a number of projects that have been completed and many others that are in
process. The following mitigation actions that were identified in the 2012 plan have been
completed:
• Establishment of the Pitkin County Emergency Operations Center (EOC), the
Pitkin County Incident Management Team (IMT), and the Emergency Support
Function (ESF) staff;
• Updates to Land Use Code to incorporate new State of Colorado floodplain
regulations;
• Establishment of Pitkin County Mud & Flood Management Team and the Pitkin
County Wildfire Planning Team, in cooperation with Aspen, Carbondale and
Snowmass Village;
• Completion of City of Aspen Mud-Debris Flow Study; and
• Completion of stormwater drainage improvements at Aspen/Pitkin County
Airport business center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District wastewater
treatment plant.
A number of 2012 mitigation actions have been partially-completed, including new and
updated mutual aid agreements, delivery of EOC staff training, completion of
subdivision-level Community Wildfire Protection Plans, outreach and coordination with
dam owners and operators, removal of beetle-killed trees in residential/public use areas,
and outreach efforts to educate businesses and the public about natural hazards using
multiple media, including local television, internet, safety fairs and public forums.
Wildfire, the highest priority hazard for all communities in Pitkin County, has been the
focus of substantial mitigation activity in the past five years, including the establishment
of the Pitkin County Wildfire Council in cooperation with the municipalities and fire
protection districts. The goals of the Wildfire Council are to promote wildfire education,
outreach and mitigation.
Pitkin County has partnered with fire districts in the county to facilitate wildfire
mitigation projects, including right-of-way clearing projects and the chipping program,
and has conducted wildfire risk assessments in most HOAs and subdivisions in the
county in the last five years. Pitkin County facilitates activities of the Wildfire Planning
Team each spring and was recently awarded a BLM wildfire mitigation grant.
Annually, Pitkin County produces wildfire education and outreach material, to promote
preparedness in the community, and maintains pitkinwildfire.com. The County assists
facilitation of the Annual Operating Plan which brings all local, state, and federal
partners together every winter to review wildfire plans and mutual aid agreements for
the upcoming wildfire season. The County annually participates and pays into the State
Emergency Fire Fund which can be used to offset the cost of fires that exceed local
capabilities and qualify for reimbursement. The County ensures that all state and federal
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) are maintained.
P114
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
104
In Snowmass Village, the Town continues to partner with Snowmass-Wildcat Fire
Protection District and local homeowners’ associations to complete annual wildfire
mitigation projects, including right-of-way tree removal, public chipping programs, and
removal of fuels.
The City of Aspen Wildfire Mitigation Program includes four priority areas of focus: (1)
enhanced mapping and risk assessment, (2) evacuation routes and utility infrastructure,
(3) defensible spaces and fuel removal, and (4) wildfire risk communication. During
2016-2017, the City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District updated the wildfire
map to identify wildland, intermix and interface areas up to one-mile beyond the city
borders as low, moderate or high potential for wildfire. For new roofs, fire-resistive roof-
covering and roof assemblies are required by the building code. From an environmental
health perspective, the City upgraded its air quality monitoring system to include a
website that can be used by the public to understand the impacts to air quality caused by
wildfires or dust storms. The system provides real-time monitoring of ozone, PM2.5 and
PM10 to facilitate risk communication to the public.
In the spring of 2016, the U.S. Forest Service conducted a successful 900-acre prescribed
fire in the Hunter Creek Valley near Aspen. The burn project was part of the Hunter-
Smuggler Cooperative Plan (2014), which seeks to improve forest resiliency and
recreational values in the area.
Debris flow and mudflow hazards have also been the subject of considerable attention in
the last five years, especially in Aspen, where events periodically result in damage to
property and the environment, and in and near the Town of Basalt and the
unincorporated community of Redstone. Each spring, Pitkin County convenes and
facilitates the countywide Mud and Flood Planning Team. In 2017, the City of Aspen
completed a Mud and Debris Flow Study that updates hazard mapping and risk
assessments and identifies projects for reducing risks.
The City of Aspen also maintains reports that can be used to determine vulnerability to
flooding, debris flows and mudflows as they relate to capacity and maintenance of
stormwater infrastructure and streets (in general, city infrastructure can carry a 10-year
flood event in its stormwater network without significant flooding of streets and
buildings). In addition, the Building and Engineering Departments were crafting a policy
at the time of updates to this plan that enables mitigation measures to be completed on
the site or on the building when necessary to ensure compliance with codes.
6.6 Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions
At the initial planning workshop, participants reviewed the status of 2012 projects and
determined which incomplete actions to retain in the updated plan. Table 6.2 below
provides a report on the status of Mitigation Actions identified in the previous 2012
version of this plan. The Planning Team recommended organizing the 2017 Mitigation
Actions matrix by jurisdiction (rather than by objectives) and including Lead or
Responsible agencies and Supporting agencies in the table.
P115
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
105
Table 6.2 - Status of 2012 Mitigation Actions
#
Description
Status
(Completed, Partially Complete, In
Process, Ongoing, Retain, Withdraw)
1.1 Continue Public Safety Council. Ongoing/Retain
1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve
interoperability.
Ongoing/Retain
1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Complete (development of Emergency
Support Function [ESF] teams ongoing)
1.4 Provide training and drills for EOC staff;
conduct annual tabletop and tri-annual airport
exercises.
Ongoing
1.5 Maintain mutual aid agreements and establish
new Law and Public Works agreements.
Ongoing/Partially Complete
2.1 Designate enforcement body within policy
and regulation.
Ongoing/In Process (reword to include
inspection)
2.2 Ensure communication between agencies on
development applications that could be
impacted by hazards.
Ongoing/In Process (reword: change
“Establish” to “Continue the practice….”)
2.3 Create/refine enforceable flood and mudslide
policies through permit restrictions.
Table and revisit/investigate further
2.4 Update Land Use Code to incorporate new
State regulations into local floodplain
regulations.
Complete
2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. Retain (new DFIRM’s in appeal process;
maps to be adopted after FEMA
approval)
2.6 Strengthen regulations requiring mandatory
clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas.
Ongoing/In Process (reword: delete
“require mandatory clearing” to
“promote management of” and include
references to “defensible spacing” and
“existing” development)
2.7 Prioritize Community Wildfire Protection Plans
for subdivisions identified in 2011 Pitkin
County CWPP.
Ongoing/Partially Complete (reword and
add Snowmass Village CWPP/show
Pitkin County CWPP completed in 2014)
2.8 Continue to conduct wildfire hazard
inspections and distribute information to fire
protection districts.
Ongoing/Retain
2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire
codes (brush management, weed abatement,
building code/materials).
Ongoing/Retain (reword based on input
from SMEs)
3.1 Update/maintain annual hazard occurrences
maps and critical facilities.
Ongoing/Retain (reword)
3.2 Develop/maintain access to ownership and
property-value information in hazard areas.
Ongoing/Retain
3.3 Create a web map application with property
information, including hazards.
Ongoing/Retain
3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire
County.
Merge action with 2.5
3.5 Create usable flood and debris flow mapping. Ongoing/Retain
3.6 Create avalanche-prone area mapping and
historical occurrences.
Delete action for 2017
P116
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
106
4.1 Continue to use/market early warnings and
alerts using multimedia.
Ongoing/Partially Complete (add
Communications as Responsible
Agency)
4.2 Identify hazard areas for each of the four
priority hazards and pre-build notification
lists; develop subscription groups for Pitkin
Alert.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to incorporate
IPAWS/PSAP and Communications)
4.3 Continue to improve Mud and Flood
management team and involve
Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale.
Complete
4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver Water, other water
entities.
Ongoing/Partially Complete (reword to
delete BUREC/add dam owners based
on identified water owners; add
Emergency Management as Responsible
Agency)
5.1 Create multi-jurisdiction team to implement
mitigation actions and update annually.
Ongoing/Retain
5.2 Complete Basalt levee project. Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town
of Basalt on project details)
5.3 Improve levee conditions at Roaring Fork
Mobile Home Park and adjacent areas.
Complete – mobile home park removed
so no longer a threat
5.4 Continue to pursue stormwater mitigation
projects through Capital Improvements Plan.
Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town
of Basalt on project details)
5.5 Improve drainage at Aspen Airport Business
Center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District WWTP.
Complete
5.6 Identify cross-boundary fuel reduction
projects within wildland urban interface areas.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to “continue to
identify”)
5.7 Remove/down pine-beetle-killed trees in
residential/public use areas.
Ongoing/Retain/Partially Complete
(reword to incorporate “forest health”)
5.8 Install concrete barriers along roadways
susceptible to mud and rock slides.
Ongoing/Retain (consult CDOT and
reword to reference CDOT schedule)
5.9 Conduct study to identify risks/potential
damages from mudslides on Aspen Mountain.
Addressed in new Aspen Mud and
Debris Flow Study (delete for 2017)
5.10 Conduct study at base of Buttermilk ski area
to analyze drainage, mud and vegetation
conditions.
Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult
Aspen, County Engineering and Aspen
Skiing Co. for project details)
5.11 Conduct study at base of Ajax ski area to
analyze drainage, mud and vegetation
conditions.
Addressed in new Aspen Mud and
Debris Flow Study (delete for 2017)
5.12 Improve/restore river alignment at confluence
of Coal Creek and Crystal River.
Responsibility of Roaring Fork
Conservancy in cooperation with local
officials/residents (delete for 2017)
6.1 Develop comprehensive public/business
outreach program to improve awareness and
educate public about hazards.
Ongoing/Partially Complete (6 out of 7
sub-tasks accomplished; reword to
change “develop” to “continue”)
6.2 Improve warning signage at rockfall areas,
flood areas, and areas at risk from seasonal
fires.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to change
“improve public signage” to “utilize
variable message boards as needed for
public safety”)
7.1 Identify secondary emergency shelter and
intermediate care facilities.
Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and
actions 7.1-7.3
7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure
(including city-county-public safety bases.
Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and
actions 7.1-7.3
P117
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
107
7.3 Conduct annual threat analysis to prioritize
critical infrastructure and strengthen
vulnerability points.
Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and
actions 7.1-7.3
8.1 Create all-hazard team to address planning
and recovery needs.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to change
“create” to “utilize” and add “ongoing”
after “address”)
8.2 Create funding source for planning, training,
exercises and recovery.
Complete
8.3 Initiate/develop use of ESF -8 role (disaster
recovery/surge capacity) at local medical
center level.
Delete/Withdraw
6.7 2017 Mitigation Actions
The Planning Team ranked proposed mitigation actions high or medium, based on the
risk assessment, evaluation process, and the goals that were established (actions
considered low priority are not included in the update of this plan). The results of this
effort are summarized in the tables below, including a description of each mitigation
action, the action’s priority, and the lead agency.
Pitkin County
Table 6.3 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Pitkin County
2017 Mitigation Actions – Pitkin County
Action
#
Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
PC 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council,
which provides multi-agency and
multi-jurisdictional coordination for
hazard planning and incident
management.
High Public Safety
Council,
Emergency
Management
PC 1.2 Provide training to improve
communications between different
agencies and remote locations and
interoperability with statewide 800
MHz radio system.
Medium Pitkin County
Radio
PC 1.3 Provide training and drills for EOC
staff and conduct, at a minimum,
one annual EOC tabletop exercise
and tri-annual airport exercises.
High Emergency
Management
Emergency
Support
Function (ESF)
Teams
PC 1.4 Ensure that mutual aid agreements
are current and establish new
intergovernmental agreements for
Law and Public Works.
Medium Agencies and
Departments
Involved
Public Safety
Council
PC 1.5 Enforce Land Use Code regulations
and policies related to natural
hazard mitigation.
Medium Community
Development
Code
Enforcement,
Fire Marshals
PC 1.6 Continue the policy and process of
inter-agency communication
regarding proposed development
that could be impacted by natural
Medium Community
Development
City of Aspen,
Town of
Snowmass
Village, Town
P118
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
108
hazards, and inform policy- and
decision-makers of potential risks.
of Basalt,
Pitkin County
PC 1.7 Adopt new digital flood insurance
rate maps (DFIRMs) following
approval by FEMA.
High Community
Development
Engineering
PC 1.8 Update/maintain records on annual
hazard occurrences and display
impacts on maps.
Medium GIS
PC 1.9 Continue to maintain access to
ownership and property-value
information for properties in
identified hazard areas.
High GIS Assessor
PC 1.10 Continue to enhance web map
application with property
information, including hazards.
Medium GIS
PC 1.11 Create useable flood- and debris-
flow mapping (including dry gulch
and alluvial fan).
High GIS Engineering,
Public Works,
Community
Development,
CGS
PC 1.12 Continue to use and market various
means of communicating early
warnings and alerts using
multimedia. Review and improve
process quarterly.
High Communications Public Safety
Council,
Community
Relations
PC 1.13 Obtain Integrated Public Alert &
Warning System (IPAWS) Wireless
Emergency Alert (WEA) users license
and pre-build notification lists and
subscription groups (for priority
hazards) for emergency notification
on Pitkin Alert.
High Emergency
Management,
Communications
GIS
PC 1.14 Improve coordination with owners
and operators of High- and
Significant-Hazard dams within
Pitkin County.
Medium Emergency
Management
Administration
and
Downstream
Communities
PC 1.15 Continue Pitkin County Wildfire
Council to implement physical
mitigation actions and
review/update annually.
High Pitkin County
Wildfire Council
PC 1.16 Reduce hazards and improve forest
health in locations where residential
areas interface with public-use areas
by downing and removing trees
killed by insect infestations.
Medium-
High
Open Space BLM, USFS
PC 1.17 Continue to design and install
mitigation measures (concrete
barriers) in areas along roadways
that are susceptible to mud and
rock slides, in cooperation with
CDOT maintenance schedules.
Medium Public Works CDOT
PC 1.18 Continue to develop comprehensive,
proactive, ongoing public and
business outreach program to
High Emergency
Management
Public Safety
Council,
P119
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
109
improve awareness and educate
citizens about seasonal and other
natural hazards.
Community
Relations
PC 1.19 Utilize various messaging systems
(e.g., Pitkin Alert) as needed for
public safety, including warning
information about wildfires,
flooding, mudflows, rock slides and
other natural hazards.
High Public Safety
Council
Public Works,
City of Aspen,
Town of Basalt,
Town of
Snowmass
Village
PC 1.20 Utilize all-hazard team from Public
Safety Council membership to
address ongoing planning and
recovery needs.
High Emergency
Management,
Pitkin County
Incident
Management
Team (IMT)
Public Safety
Council
PC 1.21 Update the Pitkin County Continuity
of Operations Plan (COOP).
Medium Emergency
Management
Administration
PC 1.22 Initiate planning process to develop
warning system for alerting campers
in campgrounds and dispersed-
camping areas downstream of
Grizzly Reservoir to move to higher
ground in case of dam failure or
other problems at the Class I dam
(incorporate signage/Pitkin Alert).
Medium Emergency
Management
(Planning Lead),
USFS (Project
Lead)
City of Aspen
PC 1.23 Implement new Addressing Program
to name roadways and assign
addresses to properties along such
roadways to ensure that emergency
services are able to locate structures
and respond quickly.
Medium GIS (Address
Services)
PC 1.24 Implement the 2017 Pitkin County
Climate Action Plan by developing
work programs for departments
within the County organization to
facilitate greenhouse gas emissions
reduction.
Medium Community
Development
All
Departments
City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD)
Table 6.4 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: City of Aspen
2017 Mitigation Actions – City of Aspen
Action
#
Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
A 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct
inspections and enforce regulations
and policies related to natural hazard
mitigation, including roof covering
inspections in identified high fire
hazard areas.
High Building, AFPD,
Engineering
Administration,
Community
Development
A 1.2 Continue the policy and process of
inter-agency communication
High Community
Development
Pitkin County,
Town of Basalt,
P120
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
110
regarding proposed development
that could be impacted by natural
hazards, and inform policy- and
decision-makers of potential risks.
Town of
Snowmass
Village
A 1.3 Implement Stormwater Capital
Improvement Plan (estimated cost
$17 million).
High Engineering City of Aspen
A 1.4 Conduct study at Buttermilk ski area
to analyze drainage, mud and
vegetation conditions and risks and
potential damages from mudslides.
Medium Engineering Aspen Skiing
Company, Pitkin
County
Engineering
A 1.5 Evaluate and identify appropriate
measures for hardening the City of
Aspen Water System, including steps
related to water storage,
groundwater well development,
backup power generators, and
access to hydroelectric power.
TBD Water TBD
A 1.6 Implement mitigation actions
recommended in the 2017 Mud and
Debris Flow Study.
High Engineering/
Stormwater
Development
A 1.7 Implement recommendations of
Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (2018-
2020)
High Climate Action
Table 6.5 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Aspen Fire Protection District
2017 Mitigation Actions – Aspen Fire Protection District
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies
AFPD
1.1
Implement recommended actions
identified in the Pitkin County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(2014), including ongoing efforts to
reduce fuel loads, coordinate open
burns, and create defensible and
survivable spaces.
High CSFS, USFS
AFPD
1.2
Prioritize and develop needed
Community Wildfire Protection Plans
for subdivisions, as identified in the
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (estimated cost: $11
million).
High City of Aspen, CSFS
AFPD
1.3
Continue to conduct voluntary wildfire
hazard inspections and disseminate
wildfire mitigation and preparedness
information to property owners.
High Pitkin County Community
Development, City of Aspen
AFPD
1.4
Develop, implement and maintain
wildfire codes (including brush
management, weed abatement,
building codes, construction types).
High Shared with Pitkin County
Community Development, City
of Aspen
AFPD
1.5
Continue to identify cross-boundary
fuel reduction projects within wildland
urban interface areas, in accordance
High Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, Basalt
and Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, USFS
P121
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
111
with the Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan.
AFPD
1.6
Work with the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA) to ensure
that owners and tenants are aware of
wildfire danger and mitigation
strategies.
High APCHA, Pitkin County
Emergency Management
Town of Basalt and Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (BRFPD)
Table 6.6 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Basalt
2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Basalt
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
B 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct
inspections and enforce regulations
and policies related to natural hazard
mitigation.
High Administration Building,
Planning
Manager
B 1.2 Continue the policy and process of
inter-agency communication regarding
proposed development that could be
impacted by natural hazards, and
inform policy- and decision-makers of
potential risks.
High Planning Pitkin County,
City of Aspen,
Town of
Snowmass
Village
B 1.3 Monitor implementation of new
Southside Floodplain mapping and
determine next steps (timeframe:
2018-2019).
High Manager,
Planning
Eagle County,
Pitkin County
CDOT, HOAs
B 1.4 Implement flood conveyance
improvements identified in the River
Master Plan.
High Public Works,
Engineering
B 1.5 Develop and implement a system for
monitoring mudflows and mudflow-
impacts to infrastructure in the Two
Rivers Road area.
High Public Works BRFPD
B 1.6 In cooperation with Pitkin and Eagle
Counties, assess downstream impacts
of a failure of Ruedi Reservoir dam and
prepare plan for warning the public.
High Pitkin County,
Eagle County
Town of
Basalt
Table 6.7 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
2017 Mitigation Actions – Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies
BRFPD
1.1
Implement recommended actions
identified in the Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including
ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads,
coordinate open burns, and create
defensible and survivable spaces.
High
BRFPD
1.2
Prioritize needed Community Wildfire
Protection Plans for subdivisions, as
High Town of Basalt, CSFS
P122
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
112
identified in the Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan.
BRFPD
1.3
Continue to conduct required and
voluntary wildfire hazard inspections and
disseminate wildfire mitigation and
preparedness information to property
owners.
High Pitkin County Community
Development
BRFPD
1.4
Develop, implement and maintain wildfire
codes (including brush management, weed
abatement, building codes, construction
types).
High Pitkin County
Administration, Town of
Basalt
BRFPD
1.5
Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel
reduction projects within wildland urban
interface areas, in accordance with the
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan.
High Carbondale and Rural FPD,
Snowmass-Wildcat FPD,
CSFS, BLM, USFS
BRFPD
1.6
Work with the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA) to ensure that
owners and tenants are aware of wildfire
danger and mitigation strategies.
High APCHA, Pitkin County
Emergency Management
Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection
District
Table 6.8 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Town of Snowmass Village
2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Snowmass Village
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
SV 1.1 Evaluate natural hazards and
determine priorities for mitigation.
High Community
Development
Public Works
SV 1.2 Continue the policy and process of
inter-agency communication
regarding proposed development that
could be impacted by natural hazards,
and inform policy- and decision-
makers of potential risks.
High Community
Development
Pitkin County,
City of Aspen,
Town of
Basalt
SV 1.3 In cooperation with Snowmass-Wildcat
FPD and local homeowners’
associations, complete wildfire
mitigation projects in 2017 to include
right-of-way tree removal, public
chipping programs, and hazard fuel
removal.
High Town of
Snowmass
Village
SWFPD, HOAs
SV 1.4 Develop new stormwater management
master plan to evaluate current
capacity and infrastructure needs
(estimated timeframe: 5 years).
High Public Works
SV 1.5 Improve network cabling at various
locations to connect municipal
buildings and enhance
communication and redundancy in
case of power outages (estimated
timeframe: 5 years).
Medium Town of
Snowmass
Village
P123
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
113
Table 6.9 - 2017 Mitigation Actions: Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
2017 Mitigation Actions – Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies
SWFPD
1.1
Implement recommended actions identified in
the Snowmass Community Wildfire Protection
Plan and Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing
efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open
burns, and create defensible and survivable
spaces (estimated cost: $100,000/year).
High Town of Snowmass
Village, SWIFT
SWFPD
1.2
Prioritize needed Community Wildfire
Protection Plans for subdivisions, as identified
in the Snowmass and Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plans.
High Town of Snowmass
Village, CSFS
SWFPD
1.3
Continue to conduct required and voluntary
wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate
wildfire mitigation and preparedness
information to property owners.
High Pitkin County
Community
Development
SWFPD
1.4
Develop, implement and maintain wildfire
codes (including brush management, weed
abatement, building codes, construction types).
High Pitkin County
Administration, Town
of Snowmass Village
SWFPD
1.5
Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel
reduction projects within wildland urban
interface areas, in accordance with the
Snowmass and Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plans.
High Aspen FPD, Basalt and
Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM,
USFS
SWFPD
1.6
Work with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing
Authority (APCHA) to ensure that owners and
tenants are aware of wildfire danger and
mitigation strategies.
High APCHA, Pitkin County
Emergency
Management
6.8 Mitigation Funding Sources
The Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (CDHSEM),
Mitigation and Recovery Section (MARS), is the primary state entity responsible for
coordinating and facilitating technical and financial assistance in support of local hazard
mitigation planning. The mission of CDHSEM-MARS is to promote community
resilience and sustainability for the people of Colorado by fostering partnerships and
maximizing the availability of mitigation and recovery resources.
Federal Programs
Federal mitigation programs serve as critical funding sources to reduce the risk of
natural hazards to Colorado’s people, property, environment, and economy. Colorado
and its mitigation partners attempt to maximize the application of federal funding from
FEMA, USDA, USACE, HUD, SBA, and other agencies each year. Mitigation money from
FEMA supports several mitigation projects each year. The State applies for federal
mitigation grants through the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Program as the
availability of funds is announced. The HMA Program includes the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grants, and the Flood
Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. These grants support the development of local
P124
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
114
hazard mitigation plans as well as the implementation of structural mitigation actions
(e.g., construction of flood-control facilities) or other physical mitigation measures (e.g.,
elevation or removal of structures).
Other types of mitigation actions that have been effectively implemented in Colorado
include hazard awareness and public education projects, development of early detection
and warning/notification systems, and the acquisition of generators for backup power
and chippers for slash and mulch projects. Although there is strong competition among
states for limited federal hazard mitigation grant dollars, the State of Colorado has been
successful in obtaining a steady stream of resources to maintain programs,
install/upgrade systems and support other community-level projects.
State Programs
The State of Colorado administers loan and grant programs for which hazard mitigation
activities are eligible. Funding sources traditionally used include energy impact funds,
gaming funds, general funds, and severance tax funds. Many state agencies have grant
programs, including, but not limited to, DHSEM, Colorado State Forest Service and the
Departments of Agriculture, Local Affairs, and Natural Resources. State agencies
continually work to identify new strategies for implementing mitigation projects,
including new funding sources. The DHSEM Mitigation Team works with local
communities to expand the number of FEMA HMA grant programs for which
communities are eligible to qualify.
P125
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
115
Chapter Seven: Plan Implementation and
Maintenance
7.1 Formal Plan Adoption
In accordance with protocols established by the Colorado Division of Homeland Security
& Emergency Management (CDHSEM), the final draft of this updated plan is submitted
to CDHSEM for state-level review and recommended changes prior to FEMA review.
FEMA then reviews the plan and, pending any required changes, issues a notice that the
plan is Approvable Pending Adoption (APA) by the governing body of each participating
jurisdiction. According to CDSHEM requirements, the plan must be formally adopted by
participating jurisdictions within eight months of receiving notice of FEMA APA status.
7.2 Plan Maintenance and Evaluation
Regular maintenance of this plan will help maintain a focus on hazards that pose the
greatest risks and on the recommended measures for reducing future potential hazard
losses. The Pitkin County Emergency Manager will serve as the primary point of contact
and will coordinate all local efforts to monitor, evaluate, and update this plan.
Participating jurisdictions and individual departments are responsible for implementing
their specific mitigation actions and reporting on the status of these actions to the
Emergency Manager.
Plan maintenance involves an ongoing effort to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of identified action items in the plan, and to update the plan as progress,
opportunities, obstacles, or changing circumstances are encountered.
The Planning Team will convene at least once each year to review and update the status
of recommended mitigation actions. The Emergency Manager will schedule these
meetings and invite members of the Planning Team to attend. At this review meeting, the
Planning Team will review new hazards data or studies, discuss new capabilities or
changes in capabilities, consider any input received from the public, evaluate the
effectiveness of existing mitigation actions, and modify or add mitigation actions.
The results of the formal review meeting will be captured by the Emergency Manager
and summarized in an annual progress status report. These progress status reports will
guide and inform future five-year plan updates. Throughout the year, the Emergency
Manager will monitor the progress of mitigation efforts through site visits, phone calls,
emails or other communication with the agencies responsible for mitigation actions.
Updates to this plan will follow the most current FEMA and CDHSEM planning
guidance. The Emergency Manager will initiate a five-year plan update process within
the time necessary to ensure that the current plan does not expire before the updated
plan is approved. The schedule should allow time for contracting of technical or
professional services, state and FEMA reviews, revisions based on FEMA review
comments, and the formal adoption process.
P126
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
116
7.3 Mitigation Actions and Other Plans and Programs
Mitigation is most successful when it is incorporated within the day-to-day operations of
land use planning, road and bridge/public works, public health and other mainstream
functions of local government. Multi-objective projects that mutually benefit partners
and stakeholders are usually more cost-effective and more-broadly supported. Many
other local plans present opportunities to address hazard mitigation in a way that can
support multiple community objectives.
Ideally, identified mitigation actions should be implemented through existing plans and
policies, which already have support from the community and policy makers. The
incorporation of elements of this plan into existing planning mechanisms requires
coordination between the Emergency Manager and the staff of each department
responsible for implementing specific mitigation actions.
The Emergency Manager, with support and guidance provided by the Planning Team,
will work with the responsible agencies to incorporate this Plan into the following
existing planning mechanisms:
• Aspen Canary Initiative/Action Plan
• Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (2018-2020)
• Aspen Land Use Code
• Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan
• Basalt Climate Action Plan
• Basalt Land Use and Subdivision Regulations
• Eagle County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2011, includes Town of
Basalt)
• Pitkin County Climate Action Plan (2017)
• Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2014)
• Pitkin County Emergency Operations Plan
• Pitkin County Land Use and Subdivision Regulations
• Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (2011)
• Snowmass Village Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2012)
• Snowmass Village Land Use and Subdivision Regulations
• Other plans, policies, programs and regulations as appropriate, including
floodplain ordinances/regulations.
The Risk Assessment (Chapter Four) included in this plan provides data, analysis, and
maps that can be integrated into other plans to inform policies and decision-making.
Considering hazard information in land use plans, zoning and subdivision codes, and the
development review process is a proven method for guiding future development away
from identified hazard areas. This information can also be used to design and site future
public facilities to minimize exposure to hazards.
7.4 Continued Public Involvement
In order to provide an ongoing opportunity to raise community awareness of natural
hazards, this plan will be posted on the Pitkin County Emergency Management web page
and public comments can be addressed to the Emergency Manager at the contact
P127
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
117
information provided. The five-year update process provides an opportunity to build
public support by publicizing success stories related to implementation of mitigation
actions.
All stakeholders in the planning process will be invited to participate in the next five-year
update of this plan and additional participation will be solicited from the public, partner
agencies, new entities and community groups in the future. The plan maintenance and
update process will include continued opportunities for public and stakeholder
involvement and input through attendance at open public meetings, web postings, and
press releases to local media.
In addition, the Emergency Manager and other members of the Planning Team will
identify opportunities to raise community awareness, including attendance and
provision of materials at county, municipal, and school-sponsored events, activities of
the fire protection districts, and through the American Red Cross and public mailings.
All public comments received about the plan will be collected by the Emergency
Manager, incorporated into mitigation progress status reports, and considered in future
plan updates.
P128
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
118
Appendices
Appendix A: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
Appendix B: Acronyms
Appendix C: References and Resources
Appendix D: Documentation of the Planning Process
Appendix E: HAZUS Flood Maps
Appendix F: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)
Appendix G: Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances
Appendix H: FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
P129
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
119
Appendix A: Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning
Team
Name Position Jurisdiction/
Department
Email Address/Phone
Scott Arthur Captain Snowmass-Wildcat FPD,
Basalt & Rural FPD
sarthur@swfpd.com
ReRe Baker Animal Safety Pitkin County Sheriff's
Office (PCSO)
970-618-9835
Rick Balentine Chief Aspen Fire Protection
District (FPD)
970-379-1758
Pat Bingham Community Relations PCSO pat.bingham@pitkincounty.com
Kent Blackmer Director of Operations Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority
Boyd Blerbaum Public Works Director Town of Basalt boydb@basalt.net
Alex Burchetta Director of Operations PCSO alex.burchetta@pitkinsheriff.com
Catherine
Christoff
Floodplain Manager Pitkin County catherine.christoff@pitkincounty.com
Melanie Crandall Trauma Program Mgr. Aspen Valley Hospital mcrandall@aspenhospital.org
Kurt Dahl Environmental Health Pitkin County kurt.dahl@pitkincounty.com
Courtney DeVito Risk Generalist City of Aspen courtney.devito@cityofaspen.com
Joe DiSalvo Sheriff Pitkin County joe.disalvo@pitkinsheriff.com
Alex Durant GIS/Public Safety Pitkin County alex.durant@pitkincounty.com
Travis Elliott Assistant to the Town
Manager
Town of Snowmass
Village
telliott@tosv.com
Rich Englehart COO Pitkin County rich.englehart@pitkincounty.com
Gerald Fielding County Engineer Pitkin County 970-920-5206
John Filippone Safety Manager Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority
jfilippone@rfta.com
Jessica Garrow Community Development
Director
City of Aspen jessica.garrow@cityofaspen.com
Patricia Gavelda State & Local Hazard
Mitigation Planning
Program Manager
CDHSEM patricia.gavelda@state.co.us
Linda Giudice Management Analyst City of Aspen linda.giudice@coo.com
David Hornbacher Utilities Director City of Aspen david.hornbacher@cityofaspen.com
John Hughes Citizen Crystal River Valley
Community
hughes@ptd.net
Kevin Issel Deputy Chief Snowmass-Wildcat FPD 970-319-3129
Todd Jacobs Holy Cross Energy
Ken Josselyn Battalion Chief Aspen FPD ken.josselyn@aspenfire.com
Stephen Kanipe Chief Building Official City of Aspen stephen.kanipe@cityofaspen.com
Peter King Aspen Mountain Mgr. Aspen Skiing Company pking@aspensnowmass.com
Greg Knott Chief Basalt Police Department 970-927-4316
Sharon Kurtz ARC Volunteer American Red Cross
Mary Lackner GIS Pitkin County mary.lackner@pitkincounty.com
Parker Lathrop Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal Aspen FPD parker.lathrop@aspenfire.com
Lee Ledesma Utilities/Finance Manager
(ESF #12)
City of Aspen 970-429-1975
P130
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
120
Mitzi Ledingham Strategic Partnership Mgr. Pitkin County Human
Services Department
mitzi.ledingham@pitkincounty.com
James Lindt Assistant Planning
Director
Town of Basalt jamesl@basalt.net
Bill Linn Assistant Chief Aspen Police Department bill.linn@cityofaspen.com
Brett Loeb Communications Director PCREDC-911 970-471-5237
April Long Stormwater/Flood and
Mudflows
City of Aspen april.long@cityofaspen.com
Valerie
MacDonald
Emergency Manager Pitkin County valerie.macdonald@pitkinsheriff.com
Anne Martens Public Works Director Town of Snowmass
Village
amartens@tosv.com
Phylis Mattice Assistant Manager Pitkin County phylis.mattice@pitkincounty.com
Scott Mattice Road and Bridge
Superintendent
Pitkin County Public
Works Department
scott.mattice@pitkincounty.com
Karen McConnell Utilities-Water City of Aspen karen.mcconnell@cityofaspen.com
Fil Meraz Acting Director of
Operations
Aspen/Pitkin County
Airport
fil.meraz@aspenairport.com
Dick Merritt Citizen Roaring Fork Club 970-309-2752
Jed Miller Assistant Solid Waste
Manager
Pitkin County Solid Waste
Center
jed.miller@pitkincounty.com
Gabriel Muething Director Aspen Ambulance
District
gmuething@aspenhospital.org
Aaron Munch Patrol Sergeant Basalt Police Department aaron.munch@basaltpolice.com
Denis Murray Plans Manager City of Aspen 970-429-2711
Heather Nelson Administrator PCSO heather.nelson@pitkinsheriff.com
Adam Olson Maintenance Manager Colorado Mountain
College
aolson@coloradomtn.edu
Brian Olson Chief of Police Snowmass Police Dept. bolson@tosv.com
Doug Paul Fire Management USFS/BLM dpaul@blm.gov
Ashley Perl Climate Action Manager City of Aspen ashley.perl@cityofaspen.com
Brian Pettet Director Pitkin County Public
Works Department
brian.pettet@pitkincounty.com
Richard Pryor Chief Aspen Police Department richard.pryor@cityofaspen.com
Angela
Rittenhouse
Administrative Assistant Aspen School District 970-309-4573
Ron Ryan Undersheriff PCSO ronryan@pitkinsheriff.com
Heather Rydell Citizen Community of Lenado heather8401@yahoo.com
Ellen Sassano Long Range Planning Pitkin County ellen.sassano@pitkincounty.com
Jason Smith Operations Supervisor Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority
970-987-4627
Scott Thompson Chief Basalt & Rural FPD,
Snowmass-Wildcat FPD
970-618-9401
Mike Tracey Sergeant Aspen Police Department 970-274-4107
Chuck Vale NW Regional Field Mgr. Colorado DHSEM chuck.vale@state.co.us
Jannette
Whitcomb
Environmental Health
Specialist
City of Aspen jannette.whitcomb@cityofaspen.com
Suzanne Wolff Assistant Director Pitkin County Community
Development
suzanne.wolff@pitkincounty.com
P131
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
121
Appendix B: Acronyms
AFPD Aspen Fire Protection District
ARC American Red Cross
BFE Base Flood Elevation (The 100-year-flood, the 1% event)
BRFPD Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
CDHSEM Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CGS Colorado Geological Survey
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment
CMC Colorado Mountain College
CRS Community Rating System
CSFS Colorado State Forest Service
CSP Colorado State Patrol
CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
DFPC Division of Fire Protection and Control
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DMA Disaster Mitigation Act (2000)
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOLA Department of Local Affairs
DWR Division of Water Resources (Colorado Department of Natural Resources)
DWSA Drought & Water Supply Assessment
EAP Emergency Action Plan
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHBM Flood Hazard Boundary Map
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (Program)
P132
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
122
GIS Global Information System
HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (FEMA Umbrella Grant Program)
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
LEOP Local Emergency Operations Plan
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
NCEI National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly the National
Climatic Data Center)
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWS National Weather Service
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation (Program)
RFTA Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
RMIIA Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association
SBA Small Business Administration
SDO State Demography Office
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SWFPD Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
P133
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
123
Appendix C: References and Resources
References
Arnott, James, Elise Osenga and John Katzenberger (December 2014), Climate Change and
Aspen: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement ,
Aspen Global Change Institute
Aspen Sustainability Report 2017, City of Aspen, www.aspenpitkin.com
Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (2018-2020): A Roadmap to Our Sustainable Future
Colorado Climate Plan, State Level Policies and Strategies to Mitigate and Adapt (2015)
Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan, August 2013, Colorado Water Conservation
Board (CWCB)
Colorado Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, November 2013, CWCB
Colorado Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, December 2013, Colorado Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management
Drought of 1976-77, The Aspen Times, January 16, 2012
Federal Guidelines for Emergency Action Planning for Dams, FEMA P-64, July 2013
Gariano, Stefono and Fausto Guzzetti, Landslides in a Changing Climate, Earth-Science Reviews,
November 2016, Volume 162, pp. 227-252.
Highland, L.M., 2012, Landslides in Colorado, USA – Impacts and Loss Estimation for 2010,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1204, 49 p.
IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Field, C.B., et al, A Special Report of Working
Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press
IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland
Konstantinos and Leetenmaier. (2006), Trends in 20th century drought over the continental
United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 33.10
Lindsey, Rebecca, December 15, 2016, Extreme Event Attribution: The Climate Versus Weather
Blame Game, NOAAClimate.gov
Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, March 2013, FEMA
McKenzie, D.; Heinsch, F.A.; Heilman, W.E. (January 2011), Wildland Fire and Climate Change.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource
Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildfire
Melillo, J.M., Terice Richmond, and Gary Yoke, Eds. (2014), Highlights of Climate Change
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change
Research Program
Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards, January 2013, FEMA
P134
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
124
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2016), Attribution of Extreme
Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change, Committee on Extreme Weather Events and
Climate Change Attribution, Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division of Earth and
Life Studies
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, June 28, 2017, Final Draft of the
Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), U.S. Global Change Research Program
National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Human-caused wildfires expand fire
niche across the United States (Balch, Bradley, Abotzoglou, Nagy, Fusco, Mahood), February 27,
2017
National Climate Assessment (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program,
nca2014globalchange.gov
National Wildlife Federation (2008), Increased Risk of Catastrophic Wildfires: Global
Warming’s Wake-Up Call for the Western United States, www.nwf.org
Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCCWPP), June 2014
Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012)
Saunders, Stephen and Tom Easley, Climate Change in the Headwaters: Water and Snow
Impacts (2018), a report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization to Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments
Seneviratne et al., Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation (2012), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
State Engineer’s 27th Annual Report on Dam Safety to the Colorado General Assembly, Division
of Water Resources (April 2013)
Stevens, M. R., J. L. Flynn, V. C. Stephens, and K.I. Verdin (2011), Estimated Probabilities,
Volumes, and Inundation Area Depths of Potential Postwildfire Debris Flows from Carbonate,
Slate, Raspberry, and Milton Creeks, near Marble, Gunnison County, Colorado , U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5047, 30 p.
Stults, M., Climate Risk Management (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.06.004
Thompson, Andrea, Lightning may Increase with Global Warming, November 13, 2014,
Scientific American
Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses, August 2001, FEMA
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (November 2014), Managing Water in the
West: Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
U.S Global Change Research Program, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the
United States, 2016, GlobalChange.com
Resources
Aspen Canary Initiative/Action Plan
Aspen Fire Protection District, aspenfire.com
P135
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
125
Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan
City of Aspen Web Page, www.aspenpitkin.com
City of Aspen, Community Development/Buildings, No Harm Map
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, www.basaltfire.org
Town of Basalt Web Page, www.basalt.net
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, c2es.org
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects
Climate Central, February 24, 2012, Avalanches Taking Toll; Foreshadowing the Future?,
www.climatecentral.org
Climate Communication, climatecommunication.org
Colorado Department of Local Affairs, www.dola.colorado.gov
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe
Colorado Department of Transportation, www.codot.gov
Colorado Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, www.coemergency.com
Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), coloradogeologicalsurvey.org
Colorado State Demography Office, https://demography.dola.colorado.gov
Colorado State Forest Service, csfs.colostate.edu/wildfire -mitigation
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), cwcb.state.co.us
Colorado Water Conservation Board, cwcb.state.co.us/technical-resources/drought-planning-
toolbox/
Department of Homeland Security, www.ready.gov
Extreme Weather Adaptation Aspen, CO: A Story Map,
www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=23135bceee1948e7b2abb8039bf77549
Federal Emergency Management Agency, www.fema.gov
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, www.nasa.gov
National Centers for Environmental Information (formerly National Climatic Data Center),
www.ncdc.noaa/gov
National Drought Mitigation Center, drought.unl.edu
National Lightning Safety Institute, www.lig htningsafety.com
National Institute of Building Sciences, Multihazard Mitigation Council, www.nibs.org
P136
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
126
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service,
www.nws.noaa.gov
Pitkin County Government – www.pitkincounty.com
Pitkin County Healthy Rivers – www.pitkincountyrivers.com
Planning for Hazards: Land Use Solutions for Colorado (March 2016), Colorado Department of
Local Affairs, https://planningforhazards.com
Roaring Fork Conservancy, www.roaringfork.org
Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (2011)
Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association (RMIIA), www.rmiia.org
Town of Snowmass Village Web Page, www.tosv.com
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District, www.swfpd.com
Spatial Hazard Event and Losses Database for the United States (SHELDUS), University of South
Carolina
The Aspen Times, August 27, 2012.
The Geological Society of America, geology/gsapubs.org
U.S. Census Bureau
2015 American Community Survey
2015 County Business Patterns
2012 Survey of Business Owners
P137
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
127
Appendix D: Documentation of the Planning Process
Appendix D Contents
Kickoff Meeting Summary
Participating Jurisdiction Data Collection Surveys
Note: Survey questionnaires were prepared to help gather
information needed from each Participating Jurisdiction. The Pitkin
County survey is provided in this appendix as an example.
Mitigation Actions Workshop Summary
Breakout Group Discussion – Mitigation Actions Workshop
Note: Group activity questions and discussion topics were prepared
and provided to each Participating Jurisdiction to help guide
breakout group discussions at the Mitigation Actions Workshop. The
City of Aspen/Aspen Fire Protection District discussion guide is
provided in this appendix as an example.
Public Outreach and Involvement Summary
P138
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
128
Kickoff Meeting Summary
2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan -- Five-Year Update
Kickoff Meeting/Planning Workshop #1
June 7, 2017, 9:30 – 2:30
Aspen Fire Department, 420 E. Hopkins Ave.
Facilitators
Valerie MacDonald, Pitkin County Emergency Manager
Patricia Gavelda, State & Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Program Manager
(CDHSEM)
Bob Wold, Emergency Management Planning Consultant
Participating Jurisdictions
City of Aspen
Aspen Fire Protection District
Town of Basalt
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
Pitkin County
Town of Snowmass Village
Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
(Note: Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District is participating in the
2017 update of the Garfield County Hazard Mitigation Plan)
Purpose of Kickoff Meeting
1. Kick Off Five-Month Process to Update Plan
2. Review and Update 2011 Risk Assessment
3. Set 2017 Goals and Objectives
4. Review Status of 2011 Mitigation Actions
Agenda Topics
Hazard Mitigation Overview
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)
Local Government Planning Requirements
Benefits of Hazard Mitigation/Purpose of Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
o Reduce Hazard Losses/Protect People and Property
o Maintain Federal Grant Program Eligibility
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program – Available Grants
o Example Hazard Mitigation Projects
o Recent History of Mitigation Grants in Colorado
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Process
o Project Timeline (Key Steps and Milestones)
o Role of Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team
o Strategy for Public Involvement
o Plan Format and Content
o Resources and References
o Results of 2011 FEMA Crosswalk
Risk Assessment Review and Discussion
o Review 2011 Risk Assessment Matrix
o New Hazards for 2017 Update
o Climate Change and Natural Hazards
P139
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
129
o Community Assets at Risk (People, Structures, Critical Facilities)
o Assessment of Local Hazard Mitigation Capabilities
o Evaluation of Identified Hazards and Risks
Working Lunch
Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives
Status of 2011 Mitigation Actions
2017 Mitigation Actions (Preliminary Discussion)
Risk Assessment: Participants reviewed the 2011 Risk Assessment matrix and made
the following changes and recommendations for the 2017 version:
• Add debris flow and mudflow to the geologic hazards profiled in 2011
(landslide, rockslide and rock fall), identify areas subject to debris/mudflow
events, and identify historic events/damages;
• Change probability rating for avalanche from “Likely” to “Highly Likely;”
• Add dam failure flooding to flood hazards profiled in 2011 and identify “high”
and “significant” hazard dams in Pitkin County;
• Add ice jam flooding to flood hazards profiled in 2011 and identify areas
subject to ice jams;
• Develop a climate change statement for each profiled natural hazard that
outlines the implications of global warming and potential future impacts; and
• Develop a statement for each profiled natural hazard that outlines the public
health implications of potential hazard events (e.g., air quality issues caused
by large, regional wildfires).
Using a dot-poster board exercise, each participant identified the three natural
hazards they considered the highest mitigation priorities. The results, across
participating jurisdictions, are as follows:
1. Wildfires
2. Geologic Hazards (Landslides/Rockslides/Rock Fall/Debris Flows/Mudflows)
3. Flooding
The table below provides a composite summary of hazard ratings – by probability and
magnitude – across the participating jurisdictions.
Magnitude
----------------
Probability
Catastrophic
Critical
Limited
Negligible
Highly Likely
Geologic
Hazards
Winter Storm
Likely
Wildfire Avalanche
Flood
Earthquake
Lightning
Windstorm/
Tornado
Occasional
Drought
Unlikely
P140
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
130
Participants also rated the highest priority human-caused hazards, in this order:
1. Special Events
2. Infrastructure/Public Service Disruptions
3. Aviation Accidents
Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager for the City of Aspen, presented an overview of
climate change issues relevant to local government operations and outlined the
implications of global warming for extreme natural hazard events.
Capability Assessment: Participants reviewed the 2011 Capability Assessment matrix
and made several changes (indicated in red).
Capability Assessment – Pitkin County
Capabilities and Resources
Pitkin
County
City of
Aspen
Town of
Snowmass
Village
Town of
Basalt
Regulatory Mitigation Capability
Comprehensive or Master Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Emergency Operations Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes
Economic Development Plan Yes No Yes
Capital Improvements Plan Yes Yes Yes
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes No Yes No
Building Code Yes Yes Yes Yes
Building Code Year
Floodplain Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zoning Ordinance Yes Yes Yes Yes
Subdivision Ordinance Yes Yes No Yes
Stormwater Ordinance Yes (check) Yes No Yes
Growth Management Ordinance Yes Yes No No
Site Plan Review Requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes
Erosion/Sediment Control Program Yes Yes Yes No
Stormwater Management Program Yes Yes Yes No
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
National Flood Insurance Program
Participant
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Community Rating System (CRS)
Participant
Yes (8) No No No
Administrative and Technical Resources
Planner/Engineer (with knowledge of
land development practices)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Engineer/Professional (trained in
construction practices related to
buildings/infrastructure)
Yes Yes Yes Yes (check)
Planner/Engineer/Scientist (with
understanding of natural hazards)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
GIS Capabilities Yes Yes Yes Yes
HAZUS Analysis Yes Yes Yes Yes
Full-Time Building Official Yes Yes Yes Yes
Floodplain Administrator Yes Yes Yes Yes
Emergency Manager Yes No No No
Grant Writer Yes Yes Yes Yes
Warning Systems/Services Yes Yes Yes Yes
P141
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
131
Financial Resources
Community Development Block
Grants
No No
Capital Improvements Project
Funding
Yes Yes Yes
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific
Purposes
Yes (Voter
Approval)
Yes Yes No
Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or
Electric Services
Yes Yes Yes
Impact Fees for New Development Yes Yes Yes Yes
Incur Debt through General
Obligation Bonds
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds N/A Yes Yes Yes
Withhold Spending in Hazard-Prone
Areas
2017 Goals and Objectives: Participants revalidated the two 2011 goal statements
and recommended adding “critical facilities” to each goal, as follows:
Goals
1. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by natural hazards.
2. Reduce the potential for impacts on human life and safety, property loss and
damage to critical facilities and the natural environment by human-caused
hazards.
Participants also recommended drafting an additional goal related to climate change
and global warming.
Status of 2011 Mitigation Actions: Participants reviewed the status of 2011 projects
and determined which incomplete actions to retain in the updated plan. In the
updated draft, the 2017 Mitigation Action matrix will be organized by jurisdiction and
include Responsible and Supporting agencies.
#
Description
Status
(Completed, Partially Complete, In
Process, Ongoing, Retain, Withdraw)
1.1 Continue Public Safety Council. Ongoing/Retain
1.2 Provide training and equipment to improve
interoperability.
Ongoing/Retain
1.3 Establish Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Complete
1.4 Provide training and drills for EOC staff; conduct
annual tabletop and tri-annual airport exercises.
Ongoing/Partially Complete*
1.5 Maintain mutual aid agreements and establish
new Law and Public Works agreements.
Ongoing/Partially Complete*
2.1 Designate enforcement bo dy within policy and
regulation.
Ongoing/In Process (reword to include
inspection)
2.2 Ensure communication between agencies on
development applications that could be impacted
by hazards.
Ongoing/In Process (reword: change
“Establish” to “Continue the practice….”)
P142
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
132
2.3 Create/refine enforceable flood and mudslide
policies through permit restrictions.
Table and revisit/investigate further
2.4 Update Land Use Code to incorporate new State
regulations into local floodplain regulations.
Complete
2.5 Adopt new floodplain maps. Retain (new DFIRM’s in appeal process;
maps to be adopted after FEMA approval)
2.6 Strengthen regulations requiring mandatory
clearing of flammable vegetation in key areas.
Ongoing/In Process (reword: delete
“require mandatory clearing” to “promote
management of” and include references to
“defensible spacing” and “existing”
development)
2.7 Prioritize Community Wildfire Protection Plans
for subdivisions identified in 2011 Pitkin County
CWPP.
Ongoing/Partially Complete* (reword and
add Snowmass Village CWPP/show Pitkin
County CWPP completed in 2014)
2.8 Continue to conduct wildfire hazard inspections
and distribute information to fire protection
districts.
Ongoing/Retain
2.9 Develop, implement and maintain wildfire codes
(brush management, weed abatement, building
code/materials).
Ongoing/Retain (reword based on input
from SMEs)
3.1 Update/maintain annual hazard occurrences
maps and critical facilities.
Ongoing/Retain (reword)
3.2 Develop/maintain access to ownership and
property-value information in hazard areas.
Ongoing/Retain
3.3 Create a web map application with property
information, including hazards.
Ongoing/Retain
3.4 Acquire new floodplain mapping for entire
County.
Merge action with 2.5
3.5 Create usable flood and debris flow mapping. Ongoing/Retain
3.6 Create avalanche-prone area mapping and
historical occurrences.
Delete action for 2017
4.1 Continue to use/market early warnings and alerts
using multimedia.
Ongoing/Partially Complete* (add
Communications as Responsible Agency)
4.2 Identify hazard areas for each of the four priority
hazards and pre-build notification lists; develop
subscription groups for Pitkin Alert.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to incorporate
IPAWS/PSAP and Communications)
4.3 Continue to improve Mud and Flood management
team and involve Snowmass/Aspen/Carbondale.
Complete
4.4 Improve coordination with Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver Water, other water entities.
Ongoing/Partially Complete* (reword to
delete BUREC/add dam owners based on
identified water owners; add Emergency
Management as Responsible Agency)
5.1 Create multi-jurisdiction team to implement
mitigation actions and update annually.
Ongoing/Retain
5.2 Complete Basalt levee project. Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town of
Basalt on project details)
5.3 Improve levee conditions at Roaring Fork Mobile
Home Park and adjacent areas.
Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town of
Basalt on project details)
5.4 Continue to pursue stormwater mitigation
projects through Capital Improvements Plan.
Combine 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 (consult Town of
Basalt on project details)
5.5 Improve drainage at Aspen Airport Business
Center and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
WWTP.
Complete
P143
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
133
5.6 Identify cross-boundary fuel reduction projects
within wildland urban interface areas.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to “continue to
identify”)
5.7 Remove/down pine-beetle-killed trees in
residential/public use areas.
Ongoing/Retain/Partially Complete*
(reword to incorporate “forest health”)
5.8 Install concrete barriers along roadways
susceptible to mud and rock slides.
Ongoing/Retain (consult CDOT and reword
to reference CDOT schedule)
5.9 Conduct study to identify risks/potential damages
from mudslides on Aspen Mountain.
Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult Aspen,
County Engineering and Aspen Skiing Co.
for project details)
5.10 Conduct study at base of Buttermilk ski area to
analyze drainage, mud and vegetation conditions.
Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult Aspen,
County Engineering and Aspen Skiing Co.
for project details)
5.11 Conduct study at base of Ajax ski area to analyze
drainage, mud and vegetation conditions.
Combine 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 (consult Aspen,
County Engineering and Aspen Skiing Co.
for project details)
5.12 Improve/restore river alignment at confluence of
Coal Creek and Crystal River.
Consult community officials and residents
for project details
6.1 Develop comprehensive public/business outreach
program to improve awareness and educate
public about hazards.
Ongoing/Partially Complete* (6 out of 7
sub-tasks accomplished; reword to change
“develop” to “continue”)
6.2 Improve warning signage at rock fall areas, flood
areas, and areas at risk from seasonal fires.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to change
“improve public signage” to “utilize
variable message boards as needed for
public safety”)
7.1 Identify secondary emergency shelter and
intermediate care facilities.
Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and actions
7.1-7.3
7.2 Increase security of critical infrastructure
(including city-county-public safety bases.
Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and actions
7.1-7.3
7.3 Conduct annual threat analysis to prioritize
critical infrastructure and strengthen
vulnerability points.
Delete/Withdraw Objective 7 and actions
7.1-7.3
8.1 Create all-hazard team to address planning a nd
recovery needs.
Ongoing/Retain (reword to change
“create” to “utilize” and add “ongoing”
after “address”)
8.2 Create funding source for planning, training,
exercises and recovery.
Complete
8.3 Initiate/develop use of ESF-8 role (disaster
recovery/surge capacity) at local medical center
level.
Delete/Withdraw
* Partially completed action – completed parts of project to be described in updated plan
Next Meeting (Second and Final Workshop):
September 14, 2017, 9:30-2:30
Pitkin County Library Community Room
120 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado
P144
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
134
Participating Jurisdiction Data Collection Surveys
Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan – Five-Year Update
Data Collection Survey
Participating Jurisdiction: Pitkin County
Background
Pitkin County Emergency Management is coordinating a five-year update of the Pitkin
County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The update of this plan is a collaborative effort
between Pitkin County and its local partners, including the City of Aspen, Town of
Basalt, Town of Snowmass Village, Aspen Fire Protection District, Snowmass-Wildcat
Fire Protection District, and Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. Once approved
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and adopted by your governing
board, your participation in this process establishes your eligibility for federal hazard
mitigation grants, including Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) grants.
The purpose of the Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan is to provide local officials
with a tool to guide policies and actions that can be implemented to reduce risk and
future losses from natural hazards. The updated plan will identify opportunities for
implementing specific mitigation actions to reduce risks and mitigate future losses
from natural hazard events. Examples of mitigation actions include building retrofits,
stormwater/flood control projects, defensible spacing, changes in local ordinances,
and other actions that reduce risk to existing buildings, infrastructure, and new
development.
Risk Assessment
Question 1
Have there been any significant incidents in your jurisdiction in the last five years
that were caused by natural hazards?
The risk assessment matrix below reflects the results of the rating-ranking exercise
conducted at the initial planning workshop on June 7, 2017. The overall risk ranking
considers the likelihood, potential consequences, overall planning importance and the
viability of potential mitigation opportunities.
Question 2
Are there any changes that should be made to the ratings or the overall risk ranking
in the matrix below?
Pitkin County
Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking
Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1
Flood Occasional Critical 2
P145
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
135
Landslide/Rockslide/Rock
Fall/Debris Flows/Mudflows
Likely Critical 3
Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 4
Avalanche Highly Likely Critical Not Ranked
Drought Occasional Limited Not Ranked
Lightning Likely Limited Not Ranked
Dam Failure Flooding Note: research on dam failure hazard currently in
process
Climate Change Note: research on climate change currently in
process
Probability Rankings
• Highly Likely
o Near 100% chance of occurrence each year
• Likely
o 10-100% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 10 yrs. or less)
• Occasional
o 1-10% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 11-100 yrs.)
• Unlikely
o <1% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: >100 yrs.).
Magnitude Rankings
• Catastrophic
o Mass casualties; extraordinary levels of destruction and service interruptions; sustained impacts to
infrastructure, government functions and the economy; local and state resources overwhelmed
• Critical
o Isolated deaths; multiple injuries; major property damage; impacts to critical infrastructure;
and/or disruption of essential services
• Limited
o Minor injuries, minor property damage; and/or interruption of essential services for less than 24
hrs.
• Negligible
o Little or no property damage; brief disruptions of essential services.
Vulnerability Assessment
Question 3
Can you please provide a brief description of your jurisdiction’s overall vulnerability
to the high-priority natural hazards identified in the risk assessment matrix?
Question 4
Are there any “key issues” related to wildfire, geologic, flood or other hazards within
your jurisdiction’s borders that were not addressed in the previous version of this
plan or that have emerged in the last five years?
Question 5
Since the last update of this plan in 2011, are there any new “critical facilities” that
have been built or opened (e.g., public safety facilities, hospitals/clinics, government
offices, schools, nursing homes) within your jurisdiction’s borders?
P146
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
136
Question 6
At the first planning workshop, participants recommended adding dam failure
flooding and debris/mud flows to the list of hazards to be addressed in the updated
plan (mudflows and debris flows have been added to the geologic hazards considered
in the plan that includes landslides, rockslides and rock fall). Please rate the dam
failure flood risk in your community:
Probability: ____ Highly Likely
____ Likely
____ Occasional
____ Unlikely
Magnitude: ____ Catastrophic
____ Critical
____ Limited
____ Negligible
Priority (for planning and mitigation attention):
____ High ____ Medium ____ Low
Question 7
Are there any other community assets within your jurisdiction that are vulnerable to
natural hazards (e.g., roads/bridges, public facilities/utilities, residential areas) or
that may be located in known hazard areas or susceptible to hazards because of their
construction type?
Question 8
A primary focus of this plan update is climate change and the implications of global
warming for natural hazards and natural hazard events. Based on available data, are
there aspects of a potentially long-term warming trend that could adversely affect
critical infrastructure, public services, government functions or economic activities in
your jurisdiction? Please describe.
Question 9
Are there any new (last 5 years) plans, studies, reports, or maps that have been
prepared related to natural hazards in your jurisdiction?
Capability Assessment
Question 10
Can you please confirm that the information in the Capability Assessment table below
is complete and correct?
Capability Assessment – Pitkin County Government
Regulatory Mitigation Capability Yes No Comments
Comprehensive or Master Plan √
Emergency Operations Plan √
P147
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
137
Economic Development Plan
Capital Improvements Plan √
Community Wildfire Protection Plan √ 2014
Building Code Year 2015
Floodplain Ordinance √
Zoning Ordinance √
Subdivision Ordinance √
Stormwater Ordinance √
Growth Management Ordinance √
Site Plan Review Requirements √
Erosion/Sediment Control Program √
Stormwater Management Program √
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) Approval/adoption of new
digital FIRMs in process.
National Flood Insurance Program Participant √
Community Rating System (CRS) Participant √ Rating: 8
Administrative and Technical Resources Yes No Comments
Planner/Engineer (with knowledge of land
development practices and natural hazards)
√
Engineer/Professional (trained in construction
practices related to buildings/infrastructure)
√
GIS Capabilities √
HAZUS Analysis √
Full-Time Building Official √
Floodplain Administrator √
Emergency Manager √
Grant Writer √
Warning Systems/Services √
Financial Resources Yes No Comments
Community Development Block Grants √
Capital Improvements Project Funding √
Authority to Levy Taxes for Specific Purposes √ Voter approval required.
Fees for Water, Sewer, Gas or Electric
Services
Impact Fees for New Development √
Incur Debt through General Obligation Bonds √
Incur Debt through Special Tax Bonds N/A
Withhold Spending in Hazard-Prone Areas
New Mitigation Actions for 2017
The updated plan will identify opportunities for implementing specific mitigation
actions to reduce risks and mitigate future losses from natural hazard events. At the
initial planning workshop, participants reviewed mitigation actions from the previous
plan and provided an update on the status of each action. The table below identifies
ongoing actions and incomplete actions that should be retained in the new plan.
P148
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
138
(Note: Mitigation actions identified in this plan are not mandatory and are non-
binding, but simply represent possible solutions for identified problems that can be
refined and implemented in the event resources to support specific projects become
available.)
Question 11
Based on the key issues and vulnerable community assets identified above, do any of
the “Mitigation Actions” identified for your jurisdiction in the updated draft need to
be modified (see table below)?
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Pitkin County
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
PC 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council, which
provides multi-agency and multi-
jurisdictional coordination for hazard
planning and incident management.
High Public Safety
Council,
Emergency
Management
PC 1.2 Provide training and equipment to
improve communications between
different agencies and remote locations
and interoperability with statewide 800
MHz radio system.
High Communications
PC 1.3 Provide training and drills for EOC staff
and conduct, at a minimum, one annual
EOC tabletop exercise and tri-annual
airport exercises.
High Emergency
Management
Emergency
Support
Function (ESF)
Teams
PC 1.4 Ensure that mutual aid agreements are
current and establish new
intergovernmental agreements for Law
and Public Works.
Medium Agencies and
Departments
Involved
Public Safety
Council
PC 1.5 Designate office/staff to conduct
inspections and enforce regulations and
policies related to natural hazard
mitigation.
High Administration Community
Development
PC 1.6 Continue the policy and process of inter-
agency communication regarding
proposed development that could be
impacted by natural hazards, and inform
policy- and decision-makers of potential
risks.
High Community
Development
City of Aspen,
Town of
Snowmass
Village, Town
of Basalt,
Pitkin County
PC 1.7 Adopt new digital flood insurance rate
maps (DFIRMs) following approval by
FEMA.
High Community
Development
Engineering
PC 1.8 Update/maintain records on annual
hazard occurrences and display impacts
on maps.
High GIS
PC 1.9 Develop/maintain access to ownership
and property-value information for
properties in identified hazard areas.
High GIS Assessor
PC 1.10 Create a web map application with
property information, including hazards.
High GIS
P149
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
139
PC 1.11 Create useable flood- and debris-flow
mapping (including dry gulch and alluvial
fan).
High GIS Engineering,
Public Works,
Community
Development
PC 1.12 Continue to use and market various means
of communicating early warnings and
alerts using multimedia. Review and
improve process quarterly.
High Communications Public Safety
Council,
Community
Relations
PC 1.13 Identify hazard areas for each of the four
priority hazards and pre-build notification
lists; develop subscription groups for
emergency notification on Pitkin Alert,
IPAWS and local PSAPs specific to
identified hazards.
High Public Safety
Council,
Emergency
Management
Community
Relations
PC 1.14 Improve coordination with owners and
operators of High- and Significant Hazard
dams within Pitkin County.
Medium Emergency
Management
Administration
PC 1.15 Create multi-jurisdictional team to
implement physical mitigation actions and
review/update annually.
High Administration
PC 1.16 Reduce hazards and improve forest health
in locations where residential areas
interface with public-use areas by
downing and removing trees killed by
Mountain Pine Beetle.
Medium-
High
Open Space BLM, USFS
PC 1.17 Design and install mitigation measures
(concrete barriers) in areas along
roadways that are susceptible to mud and
rock slides, in cooperation with CDOT
maintenance schedules.
Medium Public Works CDOT,
Independence
Pass
Foundation
PC 1.18 Improve or restore river alignment at the
confluence of Coal Creek and Crystal
River; consult community officials and
local residents for project details.
Low Engineering CDOT, USFS
PC 1.19 Continue to develop comprehensive,
proactive, ongoing public and business
outreach program to improve awareness
and educate citizens about seasonal and
other natural hazards.
High Emergency
Management
Public Safety
Council,
Community
Relations
PC 1.20 Utilize variable message boards as needed
for public safety, including warning
information about wildfires, flooding,
mudflows, rock slides and other natural
hazards.
High Public Safety
Council
Public Works,
City of Aspen,
Town of Basalt,
Town of
Snowmass
Village
PC 1.21 Utilize all-hazard team from Public Safety
Council membership to address ongoing
planning and recovery needs.
High Emergency
Management,
Pitkin County
Incident
Management
Team (IMT)
Public Safety
Council
P150
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
140
Question 12
Are there any new projects or other opportunities for reducing your community’s
vulnerability to natural hazards that should be included in the list of Mitigation
Actions for your jurisdiction in the current update?
Question 13
Does your jurisdiction have any projects currently in the pipeline, planned in the
future, or being considered (e.g., Capital Improvement Program-funded projects) that
include provisions for mitigating natural hazards?
Question 14
Has your community identified or considered any local actions to take to address the
potential effects of long-term climate change (e.g., education campaign, scientific
studies, regulatory measures, structural mitigation projects)?
In case there are follow-up questions, please provide the name of a local contact and
email address.
Name: ______________________________________________________
Jurisdiction/Organization: _____________________________________
Position: ____________________________________________________
Email: ______________________________________________________
Time Spent Completing Survey (Hours): ____
Thank you for your assistance!
Next Meeting (Second and Final Workshop):
September 14, 2017, 9:30-2:30
Pitkin County Library Community Room
120 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado
Contacts:
Valerie MacDonald
valerie.macdonald@pitkinsheriff.com
Bob Wold
bob.wold@gmail.com
P151
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
141
Mitigation Actions Workshop Summary
2017 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Mitigation Actions Workshop -- September 14, 2017
The Mitigation Actions Workshop, the second and final planning workshop in support of
the project to update the hazard mitigation plan, was held in Aspen on September 14,
2017, 9:30-2:30 at the Pitkin County Library. The workshop was well-attended by
representatives of each of the participating jurisdictions, who received a report on the
progress of plan updates, reviewed final risk assessment information, and evaluated
proposed mitigation actions. Small group activity sessions were conducted in the
afternoon to allow each participating jurisdiction to refine and finalize mitigation
actions. The results of the small group discussions are summarized in the remainder of
this report.
City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD)
The magnitude rating for the wildfire hazard was changed from Catastrophic to Critical,
at the recommendation of AFPD. AFPD Deputy Chief Parker Lathrop demonstrated an
alternative method for ranking natural hazards, using a basic numeric formula that
estimates the probability of each hazard according to each level of magnitude
(catastrophic, critical, limited, negligible). City of Aspen staff voiced a preference for
migrating to this more quantitative approach for assessing risks in the future. A sample
of this methodology is provided later in this report.
Aspen/AFPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly Likely
Avalanche,
Geohazards
Winter Storm
Likely
Wildfire
Lightning
Occasional
Flood Drought
Unlikely
Dam Failure
Flooding
The description of several mitigation actions in the table below was changed and
responsible agencies were corrected and updated. At least one mitigation action will be
included based on the City’s new Mud and Debris Flow Study for Aspen Mountain,
following formal approval of the new study by City Council. Additional mitigation actions
addressing the effects of climate change will also be considered for inclusion. One
recommended action, a warning system and signage for areas below Grizzly Reservoir,
will be included utilizing the Pitkin Alert system with Pitkin County as lead agency
supported by the City of Aspen and the U.S. Forest Service. Mitigation actions proposed
for inclusion in the updated plan are outlined in the table below.
P152
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
142
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – City of Aspen
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
A 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct
inspections and enforce regulations and
policies related to natural hazard
mitigation, including roof covering
inspections in identified high fire hazard
areas.
High Building, AFPD,
Engineering
Administration,
Community
Development
A 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter-
agency communication regarding proposed
development that could be impacted by
natural hazards, and inform policy - and
decision-makers of potential risks.
High Community
Development
Pitkin County,
Town of Basalt,
Town of
Snowmass
Village
A 1.3 Implement Stormwater Capital
Improvement Plan (estimated cost $17
million).
High Engineering City of Aspen
A 1.4 Conduct study at Buttermilk ski area to
analyze drainage, mud and vegetation
conditions and risks and potential
damages from mudslides.
Medium Engineering Aspen Skiing
Company,
Pitkin County
Engineering
A 1.5 Evaluate and identify appropriate
measures for hardening the City of Aspen
Water System, including steps related to
water storage, groundwater well
development, backup power generators,
and access to hydroelectric power.
TBD Water TBD
A 1.6 Placeholder: Mitigation Action from
pending Mud and Debris Flow Study
High Stormwater TBD
A 1.7 Placeholder: Climate Change-related
Mitigation Action
High Canary Initiative
Team
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Aspen Fire Protection District
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies
AFPD
1.1
Implement recommended actions
identified in the Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including
ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads,
coordinate open burns, and create
defensible and survivable spaces.
High CSFS, USFS
AFPD
1.2
Prioritize and develop needed Community
Wildfire Protection Plans for subdivisions,
as identified in the Pitkin County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(estimated cost: $11 million).
High City of Aspen, CSFS, Pitkin County
Emergency Management
AFPD
1.3
Continue to conduct voluntary wildfire
hazard inspections and disseminate
wildfire mitigation and preparedness
information to property owners.
High Pitkin County Community
Development, City of Aspen
AFPD
1.4
Develop, implement and maintain wildfire
codes (including brush management, weed
abatement, building codes, construction
types).
High Shared with Pitkin County
Community Development, City of
Aspen
P153
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
143
AFPD
1.5
Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel
reduction projects within wildland urban
interface areas, in accordance with the
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan.
High Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, Basalt and
Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, USFS
Town of Basalt/Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District
The magnitude rating for geohazards (including landslides, debris flows, mudflows,
rockslides and rock fall) was changed from Critical to Limited.
Basalt/BRFPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly Likely
Avalanche Geohazards,
Winter Storm
Likely
Wildfire Lightning
Occasional
Flood Drought
Unlikely
Dam Failure
Flooding
Three new mitigation actions were added: implement flood conveyance improvements
(B 1.4), monitor mudflow impacts on Two Rivers Rd. (B 1.5), and prepare alert plan for
Ruedi Reservoir (B 1.6).
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Basalt
Action
#
Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
B 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct
inspections and enforce regulations and
policies related to natural hazard
mitigation.
High Administration Building,
Planning
Manager
B 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter-
agency communication regarding proposed
development that could be impacted by
natural hazards, and inform policy- and
decision-makers of potential risks.
High Planning Pitkin County,
City of Aspen,
Town of
Snowmass
Village
B 1.3 Monitor implementation of new Southside
Floodplain mapping and determine next
steps (timeframe: 2018-2019).
High Manager,
Planning
Eagle County,
Pitkin County
CDOT, HOAs
B 1.4 Implement flood conveyance improvements
identified in the River Master Plan.
High Public Works,
Engineering
B 1.5 Develop and implement a system for
monitoring mudflows and mudflow-impacts
to infrastructure in the Two Rivers Road
area.
High Public Works BRFPD
B 1.6 In cooperation with Pitkin and Eagle
Counties, assess downstream impacts of a
failure of Ruedi Reservoir dam and prepare
plan for warning the public.
High Pitkin County,
Eagle County
Town of Basalt
P154
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
144
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies
BRFPD
1.1
Implement recommended actions identified in
the Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (2014), including ongoing
efforts to reduce fuel loads, coordinate open
burns, and create defensible and survivable
spaces.
High
BRFPD
1.2
Prioritize needed Community Wildfire
Protection Plans for subdivisions, as identified
in the Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan.
High Town of Basalt, Pitkin County
Emergency Management, CSFS
BRFPD
1.3
Continue to conduct required and voluntary
wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate
wildfire mitigation and preparedness
information to property owners.
High Pitkin County Community
Development
BRFPD
1.4
Develop, implement and maintain wildfire
codes (including brush management, weed
abatement, building codes, construction
types).
High Pitkin County Administration,
Town of Basalt
BRFPD
1.5
Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel
reduction projects within wildland urban
interface areas, in accordance with the Pitkin
County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
High Carbondale and Rural FPD,
Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, CSFS,
BLM, USFS
Pitkin County
The magnitude rating for the winter storm hazard was changed from Limited to Critical
and the rating for the avalanche hazard was changed from Critical to Limited. Pitkin
County staff also voiced a preference for migrating to the more quantitative approach for
assessing risks in the future (see sample later in this report).
Pitkin County Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly Likely
Geohazards,
Winter Storm
Likely
Wildfire
Avalanche,
Lightning
Occasional
Flood Drought
Unlikely
Dam Failure
Flooding
The description of several mitigation actions in the table below was changed and
responsible agencies were corrected and updated. One new mitigation action will be
included based on the new Addressing Program established by ordinance in Pitkin
County. A new action has also been included regarding the need to update the Pitkin
County Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). Another recommended action, a warning
system and signage for areas below Grizzly Reservoir, will be included utilizing the Pitkin
Alert system with Pitkin County as lead agency supported by the City of Aspen and the
P155
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
145
U.S. Forest Service. Mitigation actions proposed for inclusion in the updated plan are
outlined in the table below.
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Pitkin County
Action
#
Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
PC 1.1 Continue Public Safety Council, which
provides multi-agency and multi-
jurisdictional coordination for hazard
planning and incident management.
High Public Safety
Council,
Emergency
Management
PC 1.2 Provide training to improve
communications between different
agencies and remote locations and
interoperability with statewide 800 MHz
radio system.
Medium Pitkin County
Radio
PC 1.3 Provide training and drills for EOC staff
and conduct, at a minimum, one annual
EOC tabletop exercise and tri-annual
airport exercises.
High Emergency
Management
Emergency
Support
Function (ESF)
Teams
PC 1.4 Ensure that mutual aid agreements are
current and establish new
intergovernmental agreements for Law and
Public Works.
Medium Agencies and
Departments
Involved
Public Safety
Council
PC 1.5 Enforce Land Use Code regulations and
policies related to natural hazard
mitigation.
Medium Community
Development
Code
Enforcement,
Fire Marshals
PC 1.6 Continue the policy and process of inter-
agency communication regarding proposed
development that could be impacted by
natural hazards, and inform policy- and
decision-makers of potential risks.
Medium Community
Development
City of Aspen,
Town of
Snowmass
Village, Town
of Basalt,
Pitkin County
PC 1.7 Adopt new digital flood insurance rate
maps (DFIRMs) following approval by FEMA.
High Community
Development
Engineering
PC 1.8 Update/maintain records on annual hazard
occurrences and display impacts on maps.
Medium GIS
PC 1.9 Continue to maintain access to ownership
and property-value information for
properties in identified hazard areas.
High GIS Assessor
PC
1.10
Continue to enhance web map application
with property information, including
hazards.
Medium GIS
PC
1.11
Create useable flood- and debris-flow
mapping (including dry gulch and alluvial
fan).
High GIS Engineering,
Public Works,
Community
Development,
CGS
PC
1.12
Continue to use and market various means
of communicating early warnings and
alerts using multimedia. Review and
improve process quarterly.
High Communications Public Safety
Council,
Community
Relations
PC
1.13
Using IPAWS, pre-build notification lists for
priority hazards and develop subscription
groups for emergency notification on Pitkin
Alert.
High Emergency
Management,
Communications
GIS
P156
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
146
PC
1.14
Improve coordination with owners and
operators of High- and Significant-Hazard
dams within Pitkin County.
Medium Emergency
Management
Administration
PC
1.15
Continue Pitkin County Wildfire Council to
implement physical mitigation actions and
review/update annually.
High Pitkin County
Wildfire Council
PC
1.16
Reduce hazards and improve forest health
in locations where residential areas
interface with public-use areas by downing
and removing trees killed by insect
infestations.
Medium-
High
Open Space BLM, USFS
PC
1.17
Continue to design and install mitigation
measures (concrete barriers) in areas along
roadways that are susceptible to mud and
rock slides, in cooperation with CDOT
maintenance schedules.
Medium Public Works CDOT
PC
1.18
Continue to develop comprehensive,
proactive, ongoing public and business
outreach program to improve awareness
and educate citizens about seasonal and
other natural hazards.
High Emergency
Management
Public Safety
Council,
Community
Relations
PC
1.19
Utilize various messaging systems (e.g.,
Pitkin Alert) as needed for public safety,
including warning information about
wildfires, flooding, mudflows, rock slides
and other natural hazards.
High Public Safety
Council
Public Works,
City of Aspen,
Town of
Basalt, Town
of Snowmass
Village
PC
1.20
Utilize all-hazard team from Public Safety
Council membership to address ongoing
planning and recovery needs.
High Emergency
Management,
Pitkin County
IMT
Public Safety
Council
PC
1.21
Update the Pitkin County Continuity of
Operations Plan.
Medium Emergency
Management
Administration
PC
1.22
Develop plan/alarm system for alerting
campers in campgrounds and dispersed-
camping areas downstream of Grizzly
Reservoir to move to higher ground in case
of dam failure or other problems at the
dam (incorporate signage and Pitkin Alert).
Medium Emergency
Management
City of Aspen,
USFS
PC
1.23
Implement new Addressing Program to
name roadways and assign addresses to
properties along such roadways to ensure
that emergency services are able to locate
structures and respond quickly.
Medium GIS (Address
Services)
Town of Snowmass Village and Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
No changes were made to the hazard ratings in the table below.
Snowmass Village/Snowmass-Wildcat FPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability
and Magnitude
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
P157
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
147
Highly Likely
Avalanche,
Geohazards
Winter Storm
Likely
Wildfire
Lightning
Occasional
Flood Drought
Unlikely
Dam Failure
Flooding
The description of several mitigation actions in the table below was changed and
responsible agencies were corrected and updated. Three new mitigation actions were
added: cooperative wildfire mitigation projects (SV 1.3), implementation of new
stormwater management plan (SV 1.4), and improvements to communications networks
in municipal buildings (SV 1.5).
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Town of Snowmass Village
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
SV 1.1 Evaluate natural hazards and determine
priorities for mitigation.
High Community
Development
Public Works
SV 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter-
agency communication regarding
proposed development that could be
impacted by natural hazards, and inform
policy- and decision-makers of potential
risks.
High Community
Development
Pitkin County,
City of Aspen,
Town of Basalt
SV 1.3 In cooperation with Snowmass-Wildcat
FPD and local homeowners’ associations,
complete wildfire mitigation projects in
2017 to include right-of-way tree
removal, public chipping programs, and
hazard fuel removal.
High Town of
Snowmass
Village
SWFPD, HOAs
SV 1.4 Develop new stormwater management
master plan to evaluate current capacity
and infrastructure needs (estimated
timeframe: 5 years).
High Public Works
SV 1.5 Improve network cabling at various
locations to connect municipal buildings
and enhance communication and
redundancy in case of power outages
(estimated timeframe: 5 years).
Medium Town of
Snowmass
Village
Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Snowmass-Wildcat Fire Protection District
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies
SWFPD
1.1
Implement recommended actions identified in the
Snowmass Community Wildfire Protection Plan and
Pitkin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(2014), including ongoing efforts to reduce fuel
loads, coordinate open burns, and create
defensible and survivable spaces (estimated cost:
$100,000/year).
High Town of Snowmass
Village, SWIFT
SWFPD
1.2
Prioritize needed Community Wildfire Protection
Plans for subdivisions, as identified in the
High Town of Snowmass
Village, CSFS, Pitkin
P158
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
148
Snowmass and Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plans.
County Emergency
Management
SWFPD
1.3
Continue to conduct required and voluntary
wildfire hazard inspections and disseminate
wildfire mitigation and preparedness information
to property owners.
High Pitkin County Community
Development
SWFPD
1.4
Develop, implement and maintain wildfire codes
(including brush management, weed abatement,
building codes, construction types).
High Pitkin County
Administration, Town of
Snowmass Village
SWFPD
1.5
Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel reduction
projects within wildland urban interface areas, in
accordance with the Snowmass and Pitkin County
Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
High Aspen FPD, Basalt and
Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM,
USFS
Alternative Method for Assessing Local Risks
At the workshop, an alternative approach to assessing risks was discussed and
demonstrated. In the approach, a numeric value is assigned to each square in the
probability-magnitude matrix with values increasing as probability and magnitude
become greater. Each hazard is assessed based on the estimated probability for each of
the four levels of magnitude. The weighting provides for a compounded score for the
growing complexity of an incident. In the Wildland Fire example below, a catastrophic
fire occurs occasionally (8 points), a critical fire is likely (9 points), a fire with limited
magnitude is highly likely (8 points), and a fire with negligible impacts is also highly
likely (5 points). The total (30) is divided by four for a score of 7.5.
Rating/Scoring Key
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely 16 12 8 5
Likely 12 9 6 4
Occasional 8 6 4 3
Unlikely 5 4 3 2
Hazard: Wildland Fire Score: 7.5
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely X X
Likely X
P159
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
149
Occasional X
Unlikely
Hazard: Avalanche Score: 6.75
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely X X
Likely X
Occasional
Unlikely X
Hazard: Winter Storm Score: 6.0
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely X X
Likely
Occasional X
Unlikely X
Hazard: Flood Score: 5.5
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely
X
Likely X
P160
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
150
Occasional X
Unlikely X
Hazard: Lightning Score: 5.5
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely X
Likely X
Occasional X
Unlikely X
Hazard: Geologic Hazards Score: 5
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely X
Likely X
Occasional
Unlikely X X
Hazard: Drought Score: 4.25
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely
Likely X
Occasional X
P161
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
151
Unlikely X X
Hazard: Dam Failure Flood Score: 4.0
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly
Likely
Likely X
Occasional
Unlikely X X X
The alternative method demonstrated as a trial at the workshop produced slightly
different results in terms of the order of the top five priority hazards. Wildfire is the
number-one priority using either method, but the order was shuffled for the other
hazards, as indicated in the table below. Most of the participants at the workshop
indicated a preference for migrating to the more quantitative alternative approach for
assessing risks in the future.
Top Five Priority Hazards in Pitkin County Using Two Different Assessment Methods
2017 Pitkin County Risk Assessment
Traditional Method
(FEMA approach, based on historical record)
Alternative Method
(More quantitative approach demonstrated at
Mitigation Actions Workshop)
1. Wildfire 1. Wildfire
2. Geologic Hazards 2. Avalanche
3. Flood 3. Winter Storm
4. Avalanche 4. Flood
5. Winter Storm 5. Lightning
P162
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
152
Breakout Group Discussion – Mitigation Actions Workshop
Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan – Five-Year Update
Mitigation Actions Workshop
September 14, 2017
Aspen, Colorado
Group Activity Questions & Discussion Topics
Jurisdiction: City of Aspen and Aspen Fire Protection District
The two tables below summarize the hazard ratings – by probability and magnitude –
for the City of Aspen and the Aspen Fire Protection District, as evaluated by
participants at the initial planning workshop on June 7, 2017. The overall risk ranking
in Table 2 considers the likelihood, potential consequences, overall planning
importance and the viability of potential mitigation opportunities.
Table 1. Aspen/AFPD Natural Hazards – Estimated Probability and Magnitude
Magnitude Catastrophic Critical Limited Negligible
Probability
Highly Likely
Avalanche,
Geohazards
Winter Storm
Likely
Wildfire Avalanche
Lightning
Occasional
Flood Drought
Unlikely
Dam Failure
Flooding
Table 2. Aspen/AFPD Hazard Ratings and Overall Risk Ranking
Hazard Probability Magnitude Risk Ranking
Wildfire Likely Catastrophic 1
Landslide/Rockslide/Rock
Fall/Debris Flows/Mudflows
Highly Likely Critical 2
Winter Storm Highly Likely Limited 2
Drought Occasional Limited 3
Flood Occasional Catastrophic 4
Avalanche Highly Likely Critical Not Ranked
Lightning Likely Limited Not Ranked
Dam Failure Flooding Unlikely Catastrophic Not Ranked
Probability Rankings
• Highly Likely: near 100% chance of occurrence each year
• Likely: 10-100% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 10 yrs. or less)
P163
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
153
• Occasional: 1-10% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: 11-100 yrs.)
• Unlikely: <1% chance of occurrence each year (recurrence interval: >100 yrs.).
Magnitude Rankings
• Catastrophic: mass casualties; extraordinary levels of destruction and service interruptions;
sustained impacts to infrastructure, government functions and the economy; local and state
resources overwhelmed
• Critical: isolated deaths; multiple injuries; major property damage; impacts to critical
infrastructure; and/or disruption of essential services
• Limited: minor injuries, minor property damage; and/or interruption of essential services for less
than 24 hrs.
• Negligible: little or no property damage; brief disruptions of essential services.
Question #1
Are there any changes that should be made to the probability, magnitude or overall
risk ratings for the natural hazards in Tables 1 and 2 above?
Question #2
The AFPD has recommended changing the rating for wildfire Magnitude from
Catastrophic to Critical? Is there consensus in the group to make the recommended
change?
Question #3
One comment from the survey questioned the ratings for the drought and flood
hazards: “I see drought and flood as similar. Flood seems less likely and less damaging
because most of our flooding is localized. A drought, especially a multi-year drought,
would have cascading impacts across most sectors.” Should any changes be made to
the ratings for drought and flood in the tables?
2017 Mitigation Actions
The updated plan identifies opportunities for implementing specific mitigation actions
to reduce risks and mitigate future losses from natural hazard events. The information
in Tables 3 and 4 was developed from input by representatives of the City of Aspen
and Aspen Fire Protection District who participated in the initial planning workshop,
input from the data collection survey, or both. The workshop and subsequent survey
determined which actions should be retained in the updated plan, with modifications
as needed. Mitigation actions identified in this plan are not mandatory and are non-
binding, but simply represent possible solutions for identified problems that can be
refined and implemented in the event resources to support specific projects become
available.
Question #4
One survey respondent proposed an opportunity for reducing the dam failure flood
hazard below Grizzly Reservoir: an alert/alarm system “loud enough to notify campers
on Lincoln Creek Road to move upland. (And signage along the camping areas for
education as to such danger and alert system).” Should this potential project be
included as a new mitigation action for the City of Aspen in the updated plan?
P164
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
154
Question #5
One survey respondent highlighted the Climate Change Preparedness Index, which
attempts to measure and understand the effects of climate warming on local risks and
identify various emergency preparedness and adaptability measures that can be taken.
Should this effort be included as a new mitigation action for the City of Aspen in the
updated plan?
Question #6
Another survey comment addressed action A 1.1: “Building and fire inspection may
evaluate roof covering for compliance. This might also be engineering, as their
regulations address mudflow.” Do the responsible agencies listed for this action in
Table 3 need to be changed, or should the action be modified or possibly deleted if
already accomplished?
Question #7
Another survey response cited the recently completed mud and debris flow study and
indicated that there are projects/actions identified in it that could be included in the
updated plan. Are there any recommended actions in the study that should also be
included in the updated plan as mitigation actions for the City of Aspen?
Question #8
Are there changes that need to be made to any of the mitigation actions in Tables 3 or
4 regarding the project description, priority rating, or lead or support agencies?
Question #9
For mitigation actions listed in Tables 3 and 4, is it possible to estimate a cost and/or
timeframe for completion? For those actions where the information is known, please
indicate estimates in the row provided in the tables.
Question #10
Several other ideas for mitigation actions were raised by survey respondents. Are
there any other hazard mitigation projects or opportunities that should be included in
the list of mitigation actions for Aspen and the Aspen Fire Protection District in the
updated plan (e.g., specific stormwater management projects, update of the Canary
Action Plan, or hardening of the City of Aspen Water System)?
Table 3. Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – City of Aspen
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Lead Support
A 1.1 Designate office/staff to conduct
inspections and enforce regulations and
policies related to natural hazard
mitigation.
High Administration Community
Development
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
P165
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
155
A 1.2 Continue the policy and process of inter-
agency communication regarding
proposed development that could be
impacted by natural hazards, and inform
policy- and decision-makers of potential
risks.
High Community
Development
Pitkin County,
Town of Basalt,
Town of
Snowmass
Village
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
A 1.3 Continue to pursue ongoing stormwater
mitigation projects through Capital
Improvements Plan.
High Engineering Aspen
Consolidated
Sanitation
District
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
A 1.4 Conduct studies at Aspen Mountain and
Buttermilk ski area to analyze drainage,
mud and vegetation conditions and risks
and potential damages from mudslides.
Medium Engineering Aspen Skiing
Company,
Pitkin County
Engineering
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
Table 4. Proposed 2017 Mitigation Actions – Aspen Fire Protection District
Action # Mitigation Action Description Priority Supporting Agencies
AFPD
1.1
Implement recommended actions
identified in the Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan (2014), including
ongoing efforts to reduce fuel loads,
coordinate open burns, and create
defensible and survivable spaces.
High CSFS, USFS
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
AFPD
1.2
Prioritize needed Community Wildfire
Protection Plans for subdivisions, as
identified in the Pitkin County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan.
High City of Aspen, CSFS, Pitkin County
Emergency Management
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
AFPD
1.3
Continue to conduct voluntary wildfire
hazard inspections and disseminate
wildfire mitigation and preparedness
information to property owners.
High Pitkin County Community
Development, City of Aspen
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
AFPD
1.4
Develop, implement and maintain wildfire
codes (including brush management, weed
abatement, building codes, construction
types).
High Shared with Pitkin County
Community Development, City of
Aspen
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
AFPD
1.5
Continue to identify cross-boundary fuel
reduction projects within wildland urban
interface areas, in accordance with the
Pitkin County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan.
High Snowmass-Wildcat FPD, Basalt and
Rural FPD, CSFS, BLM, USFS
Estimated Completion/Timeframe: Estimated Cost:
P166
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
156
Public Outreach and Involvement Summary
Pitkin County Emergency Management utilized multiple media to announce the Kickoff
Meeting and Mitigation Actions Workshop and invite the public, including newspapers,
online news, television, public radio and social media (Facebook). The public was
encouraged to attend in all spots. Information about the project and planning meetings
was also distributed to Homeowners Associations (HOAs) and Pitkin County Caucuses.
An announcement of the date, time and location of the meetings was scrolled on local
government television (CGTV) and the HMP update project was discussed at televised
meetings of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners.
An announcement welcoming the public to attend the Kickoff Meeting appeared in the
This Week in Pitkin County section of The Aspen Times on consecutive Mondays before
the meeting (May 29, 2017 and June 5, 2017). Two citizens were in attendance.
Sample News Release
The Aspen Times, June 1, 2017
Work Begins on Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
Pitkin County Emergency Management has started a five-year update of the Pitkin
County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The update is a multi-jurisdictional effort with Aspen,
Basalt and Snowmass Village, along with all public-safety agencies in the Roaring Fork
Valley.
The plan is designed to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from
natural hazards. Among the potential hazards the plan addresses are climate change,
wildfire, winter storms, land and rock slides, as well as seasonal flash-flooding, according
to a statement from Pitkin County.
"We have to be prepared in the event of emergencies like these," said Valerie MacDonald,
Pitkin County's emergency manager. "We try to think through every possible emergency
scenario, how we'll respond to them and how we can avoid them altogether through
proper risk assessment and pre-planning."
A kick-off meeting to discuss the process is set 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Wednesday, June 7, at
the Aspen Fire Station. Residents are encouraged to attend and offer input and feedback
throughout the updating process. A second workshop is planned for 9:30 a.m. to 2:30
p.m. Sept. 14 at Pitkin County Library.
This county update is a multi-jurisdictional effort with Aspen, Basalt, and Snowmass
participating. The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires Pitkin County to
have a current Hazard Mitigation Plan to remain eligible for pre- and post-disaster
mitigation grants.
The information in the Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News was also broadcast on Aspen
Public Radio and posted to the Pitkin County Facebook page. The draft plan was posted
on the Pitkin County web page and a 30-day public review and comment period ended in
January with no citizen input or recommended changes to the draft plan.
P167
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
157
Appendix E: FEMA HAZUS Flood Maps
HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Aspen
P168
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
158
HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Aspen
P169
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
159
HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village
P170
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
160
HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Snowmass Village
P171
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
161
HAZUS 100-Year Floodplain, Basalt
P172
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
162
HAZUS 500-Year Floodplain, Basalt
P173
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
163
Appendix F: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000)
Summary
Title I: Predisaster Hazard Mitigation - Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (the Act) to authorize the President to establish a program of technical
and financial assistance to States and local governments to assist in the implementation of pre -
disaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries,
loss of life, and property damage and destruction, including damage to critical services and
facilities under the jurisdiction of the States or local governments. Authorizes the President to
provide technical and financial assistance from the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund
(established under this Act) to each State and local government that has identified all natural
disaster hazards in its jurisdiction and has demonstrated its ability to form effective public -
private disaster hazard mitigation partnerships.
Directs that such assistance be used by States and local governments principally to implement
pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and that are described in
proposals approved by the President under this title. Authorizes such assistance to be used to: (1)
support effective public-private partnerships; (2) improve the assessment of a community's
natural hazards vulnerabilities; or (3) establish a community's mitigation priorities.
Requires the President, in determining whether to provide technical and financial assistance to a
State or local government, to take into account: (1) the extent and nature of the hazards to be
mitigated; (2) the degree of commitment of the State or local government to reduce damages from
future natural disasters; (3) the degree of commitment by the State or local government to
support ongoing non-Federal support for the hazard mitigation measures to be carried out using
the assistance; (4) the extent to which the hazard mitigation measures carried out contribute to
the mitigation goals and priorities established by the State; (5) the extent to which such assistance
is consistent with other assistance provided under this Act; (6) the extent to which prioritized,
cost-effective mitigation activities that produce meaningful and definable outcomes are clearly
identified; (7) the extent to which the activities identified are consistent with any State or local
mitigation plan submitted; (8) the opportunity to fund activities that maximize net benefits to
society; (9) the extent to which assistance will fund mitigation activities in small impoverished
communities; and (10) such other criteria as the President establishes in consultation with State
and local governments.
Authorizes the President to establish the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund.
Requires the President to report to Congress recommending a process for transferring to capable
States greater authority and responsibility over such assistance program.
(Sec. 103) Directs the President to establish an interagency task force to coordinate the
implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation programs administered by the Federal
Government.
(Sec. 104) Requires State, local, or tribal governments, as a condition of receipt of an increased
Federal share for hazard mitigation measures, to develop and submit for approval to the
President a mitigation plan that outlines processes for identifying the natural hazards, risks, and
vulnerabilities of the area under government jurisdiction.
Authorizes the President to increase the Federal share of hazard mitigation measures to 20
percent if at the time of the declaration of a major disaster a State has in effect an approved
mitigation plan. Directs the President, in determining whether to increase the maximum
percentage, to consider whether the State has established: (1) eligibility criteria for property
acquisition and other types of mitigation measures; (2) requirements for cost effectiveness that
are related to the eligibility criteria; (3) a system of pr iorities related to the criteria; and (4) a
P174
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
164
process by which an assessment of the effectiveness of a mitigation action may be carried out after
the mitigation action is complete.
Revises provisions of the Act concerning standards for repair and construction financed with
disaster loans or grants. Permits the President to require safe land use and construction practices.
Directs the President to increase the maximum percentage under the Act for hazard mitigation
from 15 to 20 percent for any major disaster in Minnesota for which assistance is being provided
as of the date of this Act's enactment, with a cap of $6 million for additional assistance. Requires
that the mitigation measures assisted be related to losses in that State from straight line winds.
Title II: Streamlining and Cost Reduction - Amends the Act to define "management cost" to
include any indirect cost, administrative expense, and other expense not directly chargeable to a
specific project under a major disaster, emergency, or disaster preparedness or mitigation activity
or measure. Directs the President to: (1) establish management cost rates for grantees and sub-
grantees that shall be used to determine contributions under the Act for management costs; and
(2) review the management cost rates established within three years after the date of their
establishment and periodically thereafter.
Makes the Act applicable to major disasters declared under the Act on or after the date of this
Act's enactment. Grants interim authority with respect to the establishment of management cost
rates.
Requires the President to provide for public notice and opportunity for comment before adopting
any new or modified policy that: (1) governs implementation of the public assistance program
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Act; and (2)
could result in a significant reduction of assistance under the program.
(Sec. 204) Authorizes a State to apply to the President for delegation of the authority to
administer the hazard mitigation grant program under the Act.
(Sec. 205) Rewrites Act provisions regarding assistance to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace
damaged facilities to place limitations on the "associated expenses" incurred by a person that
owns or operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster for which
such person may be reimbursed. Defines such term to include: (1) the costs of mobilizing and
employing the National Guard for performance of eligible work; (2) the costs of using prison labor
to perform eligible work; and (3) base and overtime wages for the employees and extra hires of a
State, local government, or person that performs eligible work, plus certain fringe benefits.
Authorizes the President to make contributions to a private nonprofit facility only if: (1) the
facility provides "critical services" in the event of a major disaster; or (2) the owner or operator of
the facility has applied for a disaster loan under the Small Business Act (SBA) , and has been
determined to be ineligible for such a loan or has obtained such a loan in the maximum amount
for which the SBA determines the facility is eligible. Defines "critical services" to include power,
water, sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, and emergency medical care.
Revises provisions regarding the minimum Federal share and regarding large in lieu
contributions to limit the Federal share under specified circumstances. Directs the President,
acting through the Director of FEMA, to establish an expert panel to develop recommendations
concerning: (1) procedures for estimating the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or
replacing a facility consistent with industry practices; and (2) ceiling and floor percentages of
estimated costs. Requires the President to review the procedures and percentages. Requires the
expert panel to report periodically to Congress.
(Sec. 206) Rewrites provisions regarding temporary housing assistance to authorize the
President, in accordance with this section and in consultation with the Governor of a State, to
provide financial assistance and, if necessary, direct services to individuals and households in the
P175
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
165
State who, as a direct result of a major disaster, have necessary expenses and serious needs and
are unable to meet such expenses or needs through other means.
(Sec. 207) Prohibits major disaster community loans from exceeding $5 million. Prohibits further
assistance to a community that is in arrears on payments under a previous loan.
(Sec. 208) Requires: (1) the President to submit to Congress a report describing the results of the
State Management of Small Disasters Initiative; and (2) the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office to complete a study estimating the reduction in Federal disaster assistance that has
resulted and is likely to result from the enactment of this Act.
Title III: Miscellaneous - Amends the Act to expand the definition of: (1) "local government"
to include a municipality, township, local public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of whether incorporated as a nonprofit
corporation under State law), regional or interstate government entity, or agency or
instrumentality of a local government; and (2) "private nonprofit facility" to include private
nonprofit irrigation facilities.
(Sec. 303) Authorizes the President to provide assistance to State and local governments
(currently, only States) for the mitigation, management, and control of any fire (currently, fire
suppression) on public or private forest land or grassland which threatens destruction that would
constitute a major disaster.
(Sec. 304) Prohibits any administrative action to recover payment made to a State or local
government for disaster or emergency assistance under the Act from being initiated beyond three
years after the date of transmission of the final expenditure report for the disaster or emergency,
except where there is evidence of fraud. Specifies that: (1) in any dispute arising beyond the three
year period, there shall be a presumption that accounting records were maintained that
adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities;
and (2) a State or local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any other penalty for
any payment made under this Act if the payment was authorized by an approved agreement
specifying the costs, the costs were reasonable, and the purpose of the grant was accomplished.
(Sec. 305) Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make F EMA
employees and employees of State, local, or tribal emergency management or civil defense
agencies who perform official duties relating to a major disaster that are determined to be
hazardous duties eligible for public safety officers' death benefits.
(Sec. 306) Prohibits funds authorized under this Act from being expended by an entity not in
compliance with the Buy American Act. Provides for debarment of persons convicted of
fraudulent use of "made in America" labels.
(Sec. 307) Directs that specified real property located in the Maple Terrace subdivisions of the city
of Sycamore, DeKalb County, Illinois, shall not be considered to be, or to have been, located in
any area having special flood hazards.
(Sec. 308) Requires the Director of FEMA to conduct a study of participation by Indian tribes in
emergency management, and to report to Congress.
Source: Library of Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-
congress/house-bill/707
P176
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
166
Appendix G: Formal Adoption Resolutions/Ordinances
(Information for this appendix to be added following formal adoption
of plan by the governing boards of each participating jurisdiction.)
P177
VI.a
2018 Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan
167
Appendix H: FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
(Information for this appendix to be added following final FEMA
approval.)
P178
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bridgette Kelly, GIS Program Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: May 4, 2018
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018
RE: Resolution #076, Series of 2018 - Change Order to Contract for
As Needed GIS Maintenance Services
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends approval of a change order for additional work
required to continue supplying as needed GIS maintenance services through the contract
completion date of November 1, 2018.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: No council action was required for the original contract as
it was $13,000.
DISCUSSION: A Geographic Information System is comprised of four parts, hardware,
software, databases and users. Maintenance, tuning and technical support are required to keep the
four parts of that system up to date and at peak performance and are required consistently on a
weekly basis.
As needed GIS Maintenance Services include but are not limited to: Update of the SDE
enterprise GIS database, web services within ArcGIS Server (hosted locally), within ArcGIS
Online (hosted in Esri cloud), and all content within Map Aspen, the City’s ArcGIS Open Data
Site.
Currently, the GIS Program consists of one FTE, the GIS Program Manager. This position is
responsible for setting policy, procedures and standards, managing all contracts and projects
related to the GIS Program as well as outreach to promote the program internally to all
departments in the organization and externally to the City of Aspen community. To allow for full
commitment to these responsibilities, support is needed to accommodate maintenance and
database administration as well as to support GIS special projects.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The original contract supplied 162.5 hours ($13,000) of
work which is now depleted. The change order will supply an additional 375 hours at a cost of an
additional $30,000.
A spring supplemental of $30,00 was requested to fund the additional work.
P179
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the approval of the change order to this
contract with Epiphany Geospatial Services in the amount of $30,000.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #076, Series of 2018”.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A_ChangeOrderAsNeededGISMaintenanceServices.
P180
VI.b
RESOLUTION #076
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO A CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND EPIPHANY GEOSPATIAL SERVICES
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a change order to
a contract As Needed GIS Maintenance Services, between the City of Aspen and
Epiphany Geospatial Services, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that a Change
Order for a Contract for As Needed GIS Maintenance Services, between the City
of Aspen and Epiphany Geospatial Services, a copy of which is annexed hereto
and incorporated herein and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute
said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 14th day of May 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 14, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P181
VI.b
P182
VI.b
P183
VI.b
P184
VI.b
P185
VI.b
P186
VI.b
P187
VI.b
P188
VI.b
P189
VI.b
P190
VI.b
P191
VI.b
P192
VI.b
P193
VI.b
P194
VI.b
P195
VI.b
P196
VI.b
P197
VI.b
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: May 7, 2018
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018
RE: Resolution #75, Series of 2018 - Stage One Water Shortage
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is requested to consider adoption of Resolution #75
(Series of 2018) declaring that Stage One water shortage conditions exist in Aspen, Colorado.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City adopted its water shortage policy through an
Ordinance of the Municipal Code. The Water Shortage Ordinance (Chapter 25.28) was originally
developed in the 1980’s. This Ordinance has been amended periodically to update definitions,
water reduction targets and violations.
Council has enacted the Water Shortage Ordinance twice since adoption. Council declared a
Stage I drought in both 2002 and 2012. As part of this declaration, temporary water rates were
enacted.
BACKGROUND: Aspen’s municipal water supply comes primarily from Castle and Maroon
Creeks. Unlike many community supplies, the Aspen water system has very little water storage,
relying primarily on direct streamflow. This system does not allow the controlled release of water
to match water demand. Instead, it depends on the consistent release of water from snowmelt.
During drier than normal years, runoff conditions may not match the timing of the City’s typical
demands and reductions in typical water usage may be necessary. During these conditions, the
City’s water policy enables Council to enact its Water Shortage Ordinance by selecting an
appropriate water shortage stage.
DISCUSSION: The Water Shortage Ordinance in Section 25.28.010 sets forth the process for
finding of a water shortage. A finding of water shortage is made by a City Council Resolution,
which will declare the appropriate Stage. Further, Section 25.28.010(c) states, “The duration of
each stage and the restrictions to be imposed shall be decided by the City Council and included in
the resolution finding the water shortage, according to the exigencies of the particular situation in
question.”
P198
VI.c
Page 2 of 3
Determination of Drought Conditions
The 2018 water year started off with below average snow and continued to track below
conditions observed in both 2002 and 2012, which were both below average runoff years. April
storms improved conditions considerably, although precipitation to-date is still below normal and
runoff forecasts are predicting below normal runoff.
As of May 7, 2018, the year-to-date precipitation at the Independence Pass SNOTEL site is18.2
inches, or 83 percent of the average value of 21.8 inches. These drier than normal conditions are
expected to impact the runoff season, both in terms of the time it will take to return to baseflows
and the volume of runoff available. Current forecasts indicate the volume of runoff this water
year is expected to be 50-70% of normal for the Roaring Fork Basin.
Current conditions indicate dry conditions are likely to persist through the summer. Staff
recommends that Council consider the adoption of a Stage One Water Shortage to alert the
community to drier than normal conditions and to prepare for the possibility of increased
restrictions if conditions worsen through the summer and early fall.
Declaration of Stage One Water Shortage
The Water Shortage Ordinance provides for escalating restrictions based on the Stage of drought
observed. A Stage One Water Shortage is designed to incur a 10% reduction in water use.
Restrictions are voluntary for customers. Public facilities are directed to implement water use
restriction for public parks, golf courses and other public uses, such as street washing.
Stage One Water Shortage Temporary Rates
In order to encourage a 10% reduction in water use, the City Manager may implement temporary
rates. Staff recommends that surcharges be added to Tier 3 and Tier 4 water rates to encourage
efficient use of water for large water users. These proposed temporary surcharges are shown in
Table 1, below.
Table 1: Proposed Stage One Water Shortage Surcharges
2018 RATE PROPOSED STAGE ONE WATER SHORTAGE DROUGHT
WATER VARIABLE RATE % SURCHARGE RATES
BILLING AREA #1 - 4 TIER RATE STRUCTURE
Tier 1 $2.58 0.00% $2.58
Tier 2 $3.31 0.00% $3.31
Tier 3 $4.74 20.00% $5.69
Tier 4 $7.11 30.00% $9.24
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: If watering restrictions are implemented revenue
projections are expected to decline; however, these could be offset to some extent by higher rate
structures for Tier 3 and Tier 4 for metered water customers and a higher demand rate for
unmetered water users for whom meters are not feasible. (Unmetered users will pay a higher rate
upon determination of a shortage).
P199
VI.c
Page 3 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Without a city-wide reduction in typical water usage,
agricultural activities, recreational activities and fish and wildlife habitat along the Roaring Fork
and Colorado Rivers will be more negatively impacted than if there was a reduction in typical
water usage. Public safety concerns resulting in increased fire and flood hazards, as well as
negative economic impacts due to decreased tourism, are also expected to occur if drought
conditions persist.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Resolution #75 (Series of 2018)
Exhibit B: Municipal Code, Title 25: Water Shortages
P200
VI.c
RESOLUTION # 75
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT A STAGE ONE WATER SHORTAGE
CONDITION EXISTS IN ASPEN, COLORADO, AND SETTING FORTH
WATER USE CONTROLS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT DURING THIS
CONDITION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT
ADMINSTRATIVE ORDERS TO LIMIT WATER USE IN CITY FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, Pitkin County is currently experiencing “moderate” and
“severe” drought conditions as determined by the U.S. Drought Monitor; and
WHEREAS, peak snowpack in the Colorado River Basin is 71% of median;
and
WHEREAS, the National Weather Service forecasts that water supply in the
Roaring Fork Watershed this runoff season will be 50-70% of average; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has established procedures to guard against
potential shortages in its water supplies pursuant to Municipal Code Section
25.28.020; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to encourage its residents and water
customers to conserve available water supplies through temporary adjustment in
water rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby declares that a Stage One
water shortage condition exists in the City of Aspen, Colorado. It is further
resolved by the City Council that the temporary water rates contained in Section
25.28.40 of the Municipal Code will be in effect for the duration of the water
shortage declaration.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 14th day of May 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
P201
VI.c
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 14, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P202
VI.c
Municipal Code
Title 25
Utilities
Chapter 25.28
WATER SHORTAGES
Sec. 25.28.010. Applicability.
a. This Chapter shall become effective upon a finding by the City Council that the City is facing a shortage in its
supply of water. Such a finding shall be made by resolution. To the extent reasonable, findings of applicability of
the stages set forth in this Chapter shall be coordinated with similar findings by other water users in the same
drainage basin. Findings by the State engineer and the Water Conservation Board may also be considered.
b. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the use of the treated water supply, pressurized and non-
pressurized raw water, and reuse water of the City to the extent any city/customer agreements provide for
curtailment of water use or suspension of water delivery during water shortages or emergencies.
c. When the resolution finding a water shortage is approved, the three-stage plan set forth in this Chapter shall be
implemented. The duration of each stage and the restrictions to be imposed shall be decided by the City Council
and included in the resolution finding the water shortage, according to the exigencies of the particular situation in
question. It shall be an additional responsibility of the Water Superintendent, under direction of the City Manager,
to ensure that the measures described for each implementa tion Stage are carried out and to provide sufficient
coordination between City departments. (Code 1971, § 23-200; Ord. No. 27-1985, § 1; Ord. No. 18-2002 § 1 [part]
Sec. 25.28.015 Policy and priority.
When water shortages occur, restrictions on the use of water are imposed in order to assure an adequate water
supply for municipal water customers for all municipal purposes. However, the restrictions during shortages
recognize that certain uses must have priority, especially in cases of extreme shortage. T herefore, during any
declared shortage, the hierarchy of uses, and/or purposes, in descending order, to assist in interpretation and
implementation of these restrictions, is: (1) water for necessary public health and safety; (2) protection of natural
environment; (3) potable water supply; (4) reclaimed water supply; (5) raw water pressurized; (5) raw water non-
pressurized; (6) hydroelectric power generation. Note that reuse/reclaimed water is not subject to curtailment in
any of the three Water Shortage stages. Ord No. 30-2015; Ord. No. 27-2017)
Sec. 25.28.020. Stages.
(a) Stage One. The objective of water use restrictions during this stage is a ten percent (10%) reduction in
treated water use; ten percent (10%) reduction in pressurized raw water use; and, ten percent (10%) reduction in
non-pressurized raw water use. Voluntary conservation is encouraged during this condition. During the period
designated Stage One, the City Council, by resolution, shall adopt one or more of the following additional
measures which may be altered by resolution of the City Council during a Stage One condition:
(1) There shall be potable water, pressurized raw water, and non-pressurized raw water lawn watering only to
the extent determined permissible by the City Council according to the demands of the particular period in
question. If no other specific schedule is adopted by City Council, an odd -even schedule shall be in effect on a
voluntary basis. An “odd-even” schedule means that addresses ending in odd numbers and addresses ending in
even numbers will water on alternate days, with odd numbers only irrigating on odd -numbered days and even
numbers only irrigating on even-numbered days.
(2) Public education materials shall be provided to encourage efficient use of the availab le water supply.
(3) Public facilities will be directed to implement water use restrictions by administrative order, including:
limiting irrigation of public parks and golf courses to an extent greater than the target reduction in overall water
use; reducing street washing to minimum level necessary to comply with air quality standards and suspending
fire hydrant flushing and testing except when required for completion and acceptance of a newly constructed
water system.
(4) Upon declaration of Stage One water shortage, increases in water rates for tiers three (3) and four (4),
(Sections 25.16.010 and 25.16.020 and 25.16.021), shall be imposed as mandated by the City of Aspen City
Manager up to the maximum rates defined in Section 25.28.040.
P203
VI.c
(b) Stage Two. Prior to the expiration of Stage One, a period known as Stage Two shall be designated by the City
Council, if the Council deems the entry of such stage necessary. The Council may continue Stage One or terminate
the water shortage period at its discretion, by resolution. The objective of water conservation measures during
Stage Two is a fifteen percent (15%) reduction in treated water use; seventeen and one -half percent (17.5%)
reduction in pressurized raw water use; and, twenty percent (20%) reduction in non-pressurized raw water use;
and, zero percent (0%) reduction in reuse water use. Upon commencement of Stage Two, the City Council, by
resolution, shall adopt one or more of the following additional measures, as well as any Stage One measure s,
which may be altered by resolution of the City Council during a Stage Two condition:
(1) There shall be no washing of sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or other paved areas.
(2) There shall be no refilling of swimming pools with water furnished by the City.
(3) There shall be no noncommercial washing of privately owned cars, other motor vehicles, trailers or boats,
except from a bucket and except that a hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle may be used for a quick rinse.
(4) No new public or private landscaping installations shall be allowed with the exception of that required as a
minimum for erosion control of disturbed surfaces as determined by the City.
(5) No new water connections shall be authorized; however, existing authorizations shall be honored; provided,
however, that this subsection (5) shall not apply to users on a well whose well has run dry.
(6) Watering of golf courses and parks shall be managed to achieve the reduction in water use based on type of
specified water and delivery mechanism as set forth above.
(7) Water shall not be used for dust control, except pursuant to authorization from the City or Pitkin County
Environmental Health Department and only to the extent necessary to comply with air qua lity standards.
(8) Except for fighting fire, there shall be no use of water from a fire or specially designated loading hydrant for
human consumption or for use in connection with animals, street washing or construction water supply. Hydrant
draft permits for any of the above uses shall be suspended for the duration of the Stage Two or Three designation.
(9) Watering of any lawn, garden, landscaped area, tree, shrub or other plant shall be prohibited from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., except from a hand-held hose or container or drip irrigation system. These limitations are in addition to
any applicable limits from Stage One (e.g., odd-even watering schedule). The allowable time limits for irrigation
(both day of week and time of day) may be modified by City Manager in accordance with the need for water
conservation.
(10) Flat rate water customer accounts shall be reviewed by City Manager and if metering is possible but not
established within 10 days of mailing of notice to the customer, a fifty percent (50%) s urcharge will be added. This
surcharge shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other penalty available for violation of this ordinance.
(11) Upon declaration of Stage Two water shortage, increases in water rates for tier three (3) and tier four (4),
(Sections 25.16.010 and 25.16.020 and 25.16.021), shall be imposed as mandated by the City of Aspen City
Manager up to the maximum rates defined in Section 25-28.040.
(c) Stage Three. Prior to the completion of Stage Two, the City Council shall determ ine by resolution whether to:
(1) terminate the water shortage period; (2) revert to Stage One; (3) extend the time for Stage Two; (4) alter the use
restrictions; or (5) enter Stage Three. If entered, Stage Three shall last until the City Council determine s by
resolution that the water shortage no longer exists. The City Council shall have the power to revert back to Stage
One or Stage Two in its discretion or alter the use conditions should circumstances during Stage Three change and
suggest such a course of action. The objective of restrictions in effect during Stage Three is to obtain a twenty
percent (20%) reduction in treated water use; twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in pressurized raw water use;
and, thirty percent (30%) reduction in non-pressurized raw water use. Upon commencement of Stage Three, the
City Council, by resolution, shall adopt one or more of the following additional measures, as well as any Stage
One or Two measures, which may be altered by resolution of the City Council during a Sta ge Three condition:
(1) Exterior watering shall be prohibited except from a hand-held hose or container.
(2) City Manager may authorize other specific measures to be implemented during Stage Three to increase water
use as necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
(3) Upon declaration of Stage Three water shortage, increases in water rates for tier three (3) and tier four (4),
(Sections 25.16.010 and 25.16.020 and 25.16.021), shall be imposed as mandated by the City of Aspen City
Manager up to the maximum rates defined in Section 25.28.040.
(Code 1971, § 23-201; Ord. No. 27-1985, § 1; Ord. No. 18-2002 § 3; Ord No. 15-2012; Ord No. 30-2015)
P204
VI.c
Sec. 25.28.030. Violations and sanctions.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any mandatory restriction imposed under a Stage Two or Three
water shortage as described in this Chapter.
(b) Prior to any disconnection for a violation, a written notice shall be placed on the property where the violation
occurred and mailed to the person who is regularly billed for water service where the violation occurs and to any
other person known to the City who is responsible for the violation or its correction. The notice shall describe the
violation and order that it be corrected, cured or abated immediately or within such specified time as the City
Manager determines is reasonable under the circumstances. If said order is not complied with, the Water
Department may disconnect the service where the violation occurs. Disconnection following the proce dures of this
paragraph is also a possible sanction for other waste of water pursuant to the definitions provided in Section
25.20.020 regardless of whether a Stage One, Two or Three water shortage has been declared by City Council.
(c) The fine for a first offense of violation of the restrictions established pursuant to this Ordinance shall be five
hundred dollars ($500.00).
(d) The penalty for the second and any subsequent offense shall be in accordance with Section 1.04.080 of the
Municipal Code.
(e) As set forth in Section 1.04.120 of the Municipal Code, the application of any penalty for violations of this
Chapter does not constitute the condoning or legalizing of any prohibited condition or prevent the abatement or
enforced removal of such condition by any lawful means available to the City, nor does it preclude the City from
pursuing disconnection of potable or non-potable water supplies for violation of Stage Two water shortage or
Three water shortage. The penalties shall also be in addition to any water surcharges established pursuant to this
Chapter.
(Code 1971, § 23-202; Ord. No. 27-1985, § 1; Ord. No. 18-2002 § 3 [part] Ord. No.30-2015)
Sec. 25.28.040. Monthly rates for water shortages.
Unless an alternative system of charges is adopted by City Council, the following temporary rates will be in effect
during the time that City Council declares a water shortage.
(1) Four-Tier Rate Structure:
(a) A variable charge for the first and second tier of water consumption shall remain the same unless otherwise
directed by the City of Aspen City Manager with a minimum of a 48 -hour notification of the rate change via
Public Notice on local radio and within daily local newspaper publications.
(b) A variable charge not to exceed a maximum of 175% of the existing per thousand gallons rate for tier three
shall go into effect after a minimum of a 48-hour notification of this rate change by City of Aspen City Manager
via Public Notice on local radio and within daily local newspaper publications.
(c) A variable charge not to exceed a maximum of 200% of existing per thousand gallons rate for tier four shall go
into effect after a minimum of a 48-hour notification of this rate change by City of Aspen City Manager via Public
Notice on local radio and within daily local newspaper publications. (Ord. No. 18-2002 § 3 [part]) (2) Two-Tier
Rate Structure:
(a) (d) In a two-tier rate structure, as applicable to wholesale water sales, second tier shall be subject to a 185%
surcharge for a Stage One, Two and/or Three water shortage declaration.
(b) (Ord. No. 18-2002 § 3 [part]; Ord. No. 15-2012; Ord. No. 30-2015)
P205
VI.c
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Aitken CGCS, Director of Golf
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager
DATE: May 3, 2018
RE: Resolution #77, Series of 2018 - Golf Rough Mower Replacement Contract
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Golf Department is replacing a rough mower from its fleet. This
replacement has been approved by the City Manager and Council thru the 2018 Budget process. Staff is
requesting Council to approve the contract with L.L. Johnson for replacement of the rough mower.
DISCUSSION: This fleet replacement has been budgeted for during the 2018 budget process. The
replacement is necessary to keep the current fleet of mowers in a good operating state. The mower
being replaced was purchased new in 2006 and has served the golf operation well. The replaced mower
is part of the contract for approval and will be used as trade in. In addition to the mower being replaced
the Golf Department is trading in on this purchase, another old mower that has become obsolete.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff has reviewed and demonstrated various types of rough mowers
and has determined that the Toro 4500 best meets the needs for the golf operation. This selection was
based on superior performance and reliability. The Golf Fund has budgeted $69,500.00 for the
replacement of the rough mower. The contract price for the purchase, with the trade in of the old
rough mowers is $55,096.00.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Purchasing this mower will reduce noise and air pollution compared to the
one we are replacing. In addition, the new mower provides for improved fuel economy.
RECOMMENED ACTION: Staff recommends the approval of the contract with LL Johnson for the
purchase of the new rough mower.
CITY MANAGER
COMMENTS:__________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
P206
VI.d
RESOLUTION #077
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND LL JOHNSON DISTRIBUTING COMPANY AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for a
Toro Groundsmaster mower, between the City of Aspen and LL Johnson
Distributing Company, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for a Toro Groundsmaster mower, between the City of Aspen and LL Johnson
Distributing Company, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf
of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 14th day of May 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 14, 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P207
VI.d
P208VI.d
P209VI.d
P210VI.d
P211VI.d
P212VI.d
P213VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
CITY MANAGER REPORTS ..................................................................................................................... 2
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 2
Resolution #66, Series of 2018 – Contract with Mendez Cleaning Services ........................................ 3
Resolution #67, Series of 2018 – Contract with Iris Carpet Care and Window ................................... 3
Resolution #68, Series of 2018 – Contract for Antero for Phase 1 of the Housing Information
Management System (HIMS) ....................................................................................................................... 3
Resolution #57, Series of 2018 – Contract for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultant ................ 3
Resolution #42, Series of 2018 – As needed contract with CMW Roof Consultant, Inc. .................... 3
Resolution #43 & #44, Series of 2018 – As-needed Roofing Contracts ............................................... 3
Resolution #69, Series of 2018 – National Meter & Automation ......................................................... 3
Resolution #70, Series of 2018 – ADA Improvements Project ............................................................ 3
Resolution #72, Series of 2018 – Contract Amendment with CherryRoad .......................................... 3
Resolution #73, Series of 2018 – Community Enhancement Funds ..................................................... 3
Minutes – April 9, 2018 ........................................................................................................................ 3
NOTICE OF CALL UP ................................................................................................................................ 3
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2018 – Government Lot 20 – Water Service Agreement ......................... 3
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2018 – Fee Ordinance Revisions to Implement Performance Parking
Prices ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2018 – Sales Tax Code Amendment .......................................................... 4
ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2018 – Pitkin County Ambulance District – Ambulance Facility .............. 5
RESOLUTION #71, SERIES OF 2018 – Extension of Vested Rights Request – 710 & 720 S. Aspen St –
Lift One Lodge .............................................................................................................................................. 8
P214
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch and
Hauenstein present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Bob Morris said at the previous meeting when discussing the sales tax on food it was generally
felt the tax was not a good thing but it funds good things. I agree. I’ve been thinking of ways to
make up the funding shortfall so we can get rid of the bad tax. Vehicle registration tax is 2.9% to
the state, .5 to the county, .4 to RFTA and 2.4 to the City of Aspen. On a $400,000 Ferrari the
registration fee is more than most people pay for a new car. People are not registering their
vehicles here but in other states. The city could be collecting a lot of money in out of state
plates.
2. Mike Maple said Aspen started hosting high quality ski racing events in the 1940s. That heritage
is in grave danger with the City’s inability to move forward with the resolution of Lift 1. Lift 1
got its basic HPC approvals in 2006. It then went through a co-op process. It got approvals in
2011 and we have been waiting another seven years. The current vesting does not expire until
November 2019. Is the vesting question right or should it wait. In two weeks there is a work
session on the lift. The vesting discussion should wait until that discussion. If vesting is not
extended he asked council to restore parking on South Aspen Street.
3. Toni Kronberg said she supports the extension of the vested rights for Lift 1. She wants to make
the council aware that the judge ruled on two of the three issues with the lawsuit on the city
offices. She asked for the city offices to be put on the November ballot.
4. Jeff Peak spoke about community.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Trish Aragon, engineering, said the bridge schedule is tracking really well. It is dependent on the weather
and what we find once we uncover the bridge deck. A lot of the underground work has been completed.
The utilities have been repaired and replaced. Concrete has been poured. The Power Plant Road detour
has started today.
BOARD REPORTS
RFTA – Mayor Skadron said they have been discussing the possible mill levy around destination 2014
and future funding needs. More to come.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman Hauenstein said he is concerned that items C and I are IT and database related. Over the last
few years with APCHA there are contracts for over a million dollars and for finance with Cherry Road
over one million. Finance is looking at 2019 for an in house staff member to do this work. Generally, I
do not support that but in this case I could. I would like to keep that staffing conversation open.
Pete Strecker, finance, said there will be support needed when these systems come on board. What we
are putting forward tonight are support hours to work through implementation of our system. We are still
trying to make it hum. We lost two key staff members and are replacing lost knowledge. We are in a
cloud based system and the IT component is there. There are challenges with it though. An additional
staff member is something we may want to visit in the 2019 budget. This request is still below the total
1.5 million budget. Councilman Hauenstein said he is not opposed to either of these items but wants to
make sure we consider having staff proficient in these areas.
Reso 69 – water meters
P215
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
3
Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of this. In the discussion for future smart meters, will all this
product be capable of integrating to that kind of system. Lee Ledesma, utilities, said since Burlingame we
offer owners that AMI technology. 30 percent of water accounts have AMI on them. We offer free AMI
upgrades to our customers. We are in the middle of demo’s in May for vendors who bid on the RFP.
· Resolution #66, Series of 2018 – Contract with Mendez Cleaning Services
· Resolution #67, Series of 2018 – Contract with Iris Carpet Care and Window
· Resolution #68, Series of 2018 – Contract for Antero for Phase 1 of the Housing Information
Management System (HIMS)
· Resolution #57, Series of 2018 – Contract for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultant
· Resolution #42, Series of 2018 – As needed contract with CMW Roof Consultant, Inc.
· Resolution #43 & #44, Series of 2018 – As-needed Roofing Contracts
· Resolution #69, Series of 2018 – National Meter & Automation
· Resolution #70, Series of 2018 – ADA Improvements Project
· Resolution #72, Series of 2018 – Contract Amendment with CherryRoad
· Resolution #73, Series of 2018 – Community Enhancement Funds
· Minutes – April 9, 2018
Councilman Hauenstein moved to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in
favor, motion carried.
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation, Floor Area Bonus and Setback Variations for 533 W Hallam, HPC Resolution #4, Series of
2018
Sarah Yoon, community development, told the Council on April 11th HPC approved conceptual. This is a
Landmark Victorian on a 6,000square foot lot. They have proposed a series of additions and alterations
including demolition of the non-historic structure and full restoration including reopening the porches.
HPC recommended design revisions specifically to above grade massing. The final revisions were
approved unanimously and they did receive a bonus. Council may call up today or on the 14th or the
resolution shall stand.
Mayor Skadron said historic applications see a level of scrutiny others don’t see and this was seen many
times by HPC. Council is not desirous of a call up.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2018 – Government Lot 20 – Water Service Agreement
Tyler Christoff, utilities, stated this is an exterritorial water agreement for Little Cloud lot 20. It includes
commitments for appropriate infrastructure, mitigation fees, stormwater mitigation and potential future
annexation. The property is surrounded by properties with city water service. The agreement allows the
community to apply uniform conservation techniques. It provides for the benefits for clean, reliable
municipal water of its neighbors.
Matt Brown, helping develop the site, said he considers it a win win. Currently the site is equipped with a
well. This is a good thing for the city. The lot is located in the county and they have their own fees as
well. They don’t object to the city fees. They request for the affordable housing mitigation fees that the
top line number they pay to the county be applied to that number.
Councilman Frisch asked if this was in the city what would the fee be to start. Mr. Christoff replied he
would have that for second reading.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 11
P216
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
4
(SERIES OF 2018)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 20
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 333 S. SECOND STREET, FOR PROVISION OF TREATED WATER
SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 2018 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 2018 – Fee Ordinance Revisions to Implement Performance Parking
Prices
Councilman Hauenstein asked what is the basis for the 30 percent of traffic circulating looking for a
parking spot. Mayor Skadron said it is from the study by Smarking. Councilman Hauenstein said one of
the goals is parking availability in the core. We are increase rates to encourage people to vacate spaces.
Should the first 15 minutes be free of purchased 30 minutes parking. Councilman Frisch said most cities
have a grace period. The 15 minutes allow the quick turn over we want. We already allow the free
parking up to 10 am. He is not supportive of just giving 15 away for free other than the test we talked
about. We want turn over. Mayor Skadron said he is supportive as how it is written.
Councilman Hauenstein said the mobile apps allow purchase by 15 minute increments but that will be
changed to 1 hour. He does not support that. Jim True, city attorney, said the intent was not to prohibit
people from using the app to buy 30 minute increments. Blake Fitch, parking, said the app is not capable
of 15 minute parking purchases but you can do it at the meter. The vendor is working on updating the
technology and the hope is it will be done before the end of the year.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #10, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 10
(SERIES OF 2018)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY AMENDING SECTION 2.12.060 TO
INCREASE ON STREET PARKING FEES.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 2018 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2018 – Sales Tax Code Amendment
Linda Manning, city clerk, told the Council in November the voters approved the sales tax on tobacco
products. This ordinance removes the exemption of cigarettes from sales tax that is currently in the sales
tax code. It is purely a clean up to the code.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
P217
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
5
ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2018 – Pitkin County Ambulance District – Ambulance Facility
Councilman Hauenstein stated he had a conversation with a friend who lives at Twin Ridge and discussed
the first reading and height. He stated he can render judgement without bias.
Ben Anderson, community development, stated this falls under the major public project review. There
are several reviews including PD. Existing conditions include the HHS building, 59 parking spaces,
circulation for RFTA, the facility is owned by the Hospital and the lot was subdivided by the county and
later annexed into the city. It is a two phase project including the redesign of the existing parking then the
establishment of the new facility.
The major public project review is mandated by State law. The decision by council must be made within
60 days of receiving the application. This action is a one step combined review. The site is zoned public.
The dimensions are set by the PD. The required front yard setback is 30 feet. The applicant is proposing
10. Staff is recommending 10. The height is required at 28 feet, proposed at 32, 2 and ½ and staff is
recommending 28.
The parking lot has been redesigned. There is an existing unapproved trail and the applicant is proposing
some improvements to the trail.
Mr. Anderson showed images of the east and north elevations.
Issues needing clarification from 1st reading include:
Parking lot circulation
Employee generation mitigation
Level 2 TIA assessment
Height
P&Z recommendation
Parking and access circulation. There are 59 existing spaces. The redesign has 60 spaces. The proposal
includes a raised crosswalk into the parking lot.
Growth management waiver request. There is no limit on annual allotments for essential public facilities.
Employee generation can be evaluated based on an actual employee count rather than floor area
calculations that are more typical. The current employee count is 13.96 FTE. The APCHA board
recommends waiving growth management mitigation subject to an audit at CO and 5 and 10 year
intervals. If there is an increase in employees found during an audit mitigation would be required at that
point. P&Z concurred with that recommendation. This is a similar recommendation to other recently
approved essential public facilities.
TIA and its relationship to transportation demand management. Outside the round a bout requires a level
2 analysis. The applicant submitted a TIA for the larger hospital project. When we considered this
project we did not have a TIA that considered this project as a stand alone facility. We came up with a
good outcome including on site mobility and access improvements including bicycle parking and
upgraded trash and recycling facilities at the RFTA stop. They completed concept design work with
continued Pitkin County participation in efforts to reconfigure the circulation from Castle Creek Road to
the existing bus stop.
The one issue that remains a concern for staff is the height. They are committed to 32 feet. Staff is
recommending 28 based on the 8040 greenline and the existing approval. I have received a few emails on
height. One from Judith Prohaska. Most deal with impacts to the neighbors from noise coming from
mechanical on the roof. I also received a letter from Graham Means with a similar concern regarding
rooftop mechanical.
Staff recommends approval subject to conditions with a maximum height of 28 feet.
Applicant - John Peacock, Gabe Meuthing, Kevin Heath, Rachael Richards
John Peacock, county manager, told the Council the current facility is in poor condition. It is undersized
for modern ambulances. It does not have modern living or sleeping facilities or storage. In 2014 the
Aspen Ambulance District went to the voters and a mill levy was approved in part to approve
P218
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
6
improvements to this facility. We did not automatically assume the facility would be located in this
location.
Gabe Meuthing, operations direction, spoke about where to put the facility. The round a bout is the 50%
mark in terms of coverage. 100% of the calls end at the hospital. Being at the hospital allows for a huge
amount of efficiency.
Mr. Peacock said once we determined the hospital location was best we determined the existing location
had some challenges. To use the site would have required significant excavation and retaining walls.
Public outreach – we conducted lots of outreach, press release, newspaper articles and ads, website and
radio ads. Public meetings began in August. The biggest concern was noise and mechanical on the roof.
Next was height followed by maintaining the trail easement. There was a lot of concern about future
growth and phasing, get it done now. Four concepts were presented with one moving forward.
We agree with all the proposed conditions with exception of the height. We propose to place the
mechanical in the building to address the noise concerns of the neighbors.
The proposed condition is to limit the height to 28 feet. The current design is for 32 2.5. the code as it
relates to mechanical on top of the building may extend up to 6 feet to include screening. We are not
asking to go higher than that amount. We want to use the roof not only for a visual impact but for noise
impact. The public zone district provides discretion for dimensions.
Kevin Heath, architect, said the surrounding roof heights including the hospital is near 50 feet. The HHS
building height is 35 feet. The proposed building height goes from 26.5 to 34. The mechanical units are
on the upper level. All the ducts exit on the north side facing the hospital.
Mr. Peacock said with screening the mechanical height could reach to 34 feet but it would not address the
neighbors concern. At a height of 28 feet we cannot put the mechanical inside. He requests council
consider the additional roofline as screening to address the mechanical. This design best addresses the
neighbors concerns and the community needs.
Jessica Garrow, community development, said we continue to recommend 28 feet. The code language
related to mechanical tries to get to the minimal requirement. A similar discussion occurred with the art
museum. Part of that approval is for internal mechanical. We would continue to recommend 28 with
screening and mechanical on the roof. It is about grouping mechanical rather than a straight 34.
Councilman Hauenstein had some questions about the process. It is a two step 60 day process for
essential public facilities. The county previously used this for their offices. If we say no does the county
get to build it anyways. Ms. Garrow replied if council approves something tonight with the 28 feet in the
draft ordinance they can go back to the BOCC and ask them to amend those conditions then move
forward. That is allowed through the public process piece. If council does not make a decision tonight
then it is approved by default. If it is denied than it is the same process where they go back to the BOCC.
Councilman Hauenstein asked is the essential public facility process subject to a referendum. Not all
public facilities go through this process, only governments. Mr. True said in this situation I don’t believe
it would be referable. Councilman Hauenstein asked how do other municipalities approve public
facilities. Mr. True replied in a number of different ways. Some take advantage of their own powers to
construct. Councilman Hauenstein said unlike the county, the city chose to use the private development
process.
Councilman Frisch gave a thanks to Gabe and the team for all you do. The code tries to solve for the
visualization for mechanical not noise. Ms. Garrow replied right. Councilman Frisch said staff is
recommending when there is an allowance for mechanical it takes up 5 to 10 percent not the entire roof
line. Do you see a workable solution, or does visualization trumps noise. Ms. Garrow said it is based off
P219
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
7
of code. Councilman Frisch said we are looking at that some point down the road. Ms. Garrow replied
yes.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Annie McClain, home owner at Twin Ridge. Are we talking four or five feet over quality and
health. Why can’t we have the mechanical inside and keep our quality of life and health.
2. Karen Reinman, Twin Ridge, said this is something we want right from the beginning. The noise
is not acceptable.
3. Garry Critzer, Twin Ridge, said he appreciates they are trying to mitigate the noise and the path.
He would rather see the building than hear it.
4. Toni Kronberg said people are not complaining about the additional height. She supports the
request for the additional height. There are no views impacted by this.
5. Lori Malloy, chief clinical officer for the hospital, urged council to approve the application. The
ambulance district is part of our team. The relationship serves them, the hospital and community
very well. She supports the recommendations.
6. Steve Wicks, Meadowwood HOA president. He is concerned with increased traffic. They
accepted this is the best place for the building. Do what you can to mitigate the noise. Do it right
from the beginning.
7. Chris Martinez, emergency doctor at the hospital. He is proud of the EMS services in the county
and what we are able to do here. A close location is very helpful with allowing the medics to
work in the hospital and train with us collectively.
8. Lisa Poole, at 11 years still one of the newer members of the team. Spoke about the commitment
of the EMS staff, volunteer hours, work commitment and the facility they do it all in. They need
a better facility.
9. Mike Lyons, Twin Ridge homeowner, said the size of the building is not needed. Why do we
need it and why does it need to be this size. Asked why the North 40 is not being utilized. Down
town makes more sense in terms of service area. Suggested the fire and ambulance district work
this out.
Mayor Skadron had the EMS staff present introduce themselves.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mr. Peacock said they did do scoping at the fire department and the North 40. The fire district did note
they can store an ambulance but there was not a long term commitment there. The district provides
advanced life support unique to a small community. We have a public public partnership with the
hospital that is benefitting the community. The response back to Aspen from the north 40 would have
been slow. There would have been administrative costs as well. In terms of sizing we worked with the
staff and listened to the neighborhood to get it right the first time. Most of the space is to accommodate
the ambulances and the equipment. Mr. Meuthing said he does not think it is overbuilt. It allows for
existing and future crews. We did work with the fire district. It wasn’t a space question as much as a
governance one. They are a volunteer service. There is not an equalivance right now absorbing the
professional ambulance service into the volunteer fire service. These needs are now.
Councilman Hauenstein asked about the 5 and 10 year audit. The old ambulance facility if it created
more FTEs it goes to the hospital. Mr. Peacock said right now the hospital and county are in negotiations.
The county has the balance of a 50 year lease on that facility. The intended use is on facilities and storage
of equipment. They are under the same 5 and 10 year audit process. Councilman Hauenstein said we
owe it to the community and the community has funded it. I argued for more height across the street for
workforce housing. I think there are times when additional height is warranted.
Rachael Richards, county commissioner, said we appreciate your time and staffs time. The critique has
really improved this project. She asked council for their approval on the project.
P220
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
8
Councilman Frisch said he shares some of Wards concerns about the process. He thinks more and more
people are going to want to see a building then hear one. We are weighing community values and there is
something to be said to that. He is supportive of what the applicant is asking for but wish there is a way
to see the building smaller.
Mayor Skadron said thanks for your comments. What gets difficult for me is the city is often in a lose
lose situation. What leaves me a little bit unsettled is that you put us in this situation. If we approve this
you are asking us to approve a variance in a city doesn’t approve them and go against community will. If
we deny the ordinance we are going against community will and it will be built as is anyways. Ms.
Richards said she looks at it as a choice between right and right. Mayor Skadron said my comments aside
I will support it as well because it is the right thing to do.
Ms. Garrow said she recommends changes to Section 4 to say 33 feet with addition of a statement that
says there is no height exception for rooftop mechanical. Any necessary top of building mechanical
equipment shall be internal to the roof structure.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 2018 with conditions and amendments;
seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #71, SERIES OF 2018 – Extension of Vested Rights Request – 710 & 720 S. Aspen St
– Lift One Lodge
Garrett Larimar, community development, stated Ordinance #28, of 2011 approved the Lift One Lodge
PD. It included 5 years worth of vesting with the approval. They received two extensions so the vesting
will expire in November of 2019. Staff is supportive of this request. The applicant is actively
participating in the lift relocation process. It is important to provide time to respond to any proposed lift
relocation. We are recommending an extension for two years. It will be 10 years from the original
approval date. We have received comments from Gorsuch and Ski Co in support of extensions of 8 and 7
months respectively.
Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, said we have been very active participants to determine the best
alignment of the lift and the outcome of S. Aspen Street. It is a complex project. We believe the schedule
involves substantial rush to come forward with a completed project based on a new lift alignment. Based
on that we asked for the three years.
Michael Brown, owner, said we’ve been fully engaged in the process with the consultant on the lift
alignment. We really believe it will deliver a favorable outcome for the community. We want to be fully
engaged in the process and if for some reason it doesn’t work we need time to reboot. We have been fully
dedicated in this process and have been working with the other stakeholders.
Mayor Skadron asked why did you hear from the others 8 and 7 months. Mr. Brown said we have been
fully engaged and committed. We believe we have a good ongoing dialogue with them. I’m not sure if
they are fully aware of how long we have or how long it takes for entitlements.
Ms. Garrow said we have been in close communication with the Lift One Lodge team and the other teams
and asking them what they need and what happens if we are not successful on agreeing on an alignment.
The timeframe is different from Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch. If this craters in they need more time to
take the existing project and turn it into a building permit.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is appreciative of their willingness to work with the process. The future
of Aspen is in that area. We had another development that was beyond the 10 years where we had to deal
P221
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 30, 2018
9
with if it was legal to go beyond that. I don’t want to see this go beyond the 10 years. I would be open to
revisit this between now and 2021 if things don’t pan out.
Councilman Frisch said he is really happy that everyone is fully engaged and we are making good
progress. Is the plan on May 15 to get an update and an agreeable place to put the lift. Ms. Garrow
replied yes. At this point we believe there are two viable options that all four parties can support to
varying levels. We will ask council for input. Based on that the Lift One team has an aggressive timeline
to submit. Gorsuch has a similar schedule but they can skip P&Z. We have all of June and July for
council review. Councilman Frisch said on the off chance things don’t play out the community is still
protected with the extended vested rights. Ms. Garrow said there aren’t a lot of changes that affect this
project because of the level of commitments that were already made.
Mayor Skadron said he has nothing additional to add. I think council is leaning to two years. The reason
I can embrace two years is it provides some consistency. He would support the staff recommendation.
Thank you, Mike, for getting the lift moving. Your effort has helped get it to this point. Councilman
Hauenstein said he is appreciative of the 100% employee housing on site. It is really admirable.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #71, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P222
VI.e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Officer
THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: May 7, 2018
DATE OF MEETING: May 14, 2018
RE: 2018 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 12 (Series 2018) for the APCHA
and Component Unit Budgets
____________________________________________________________________________________
Staff is requesting the City Council approval of an amendment to APCHA Fund budget. This
amendment of the 2018 budget increases total expenditure appropriations by $86.9K to $4.4 million.
This $86.9K increase relates to carry forward items and require this ordinance to formally approve the
funding.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental requests impact on the overall appropriation authority.
See the Exhibits for the details on the individual requests.
Description Amount Location
2018 Adopted Budget $4,327,770 See Exhibit A
Operational Carry Forward $21,132 See Exhibit B
Capital Carry Forward $65,847 See Exhibit C
Total Budget Requests $86,979 See Exhibit A
Total Ordinance $4,414,749 See Exhibit A
2018 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ORDINANCE
2018 Component Units Budget Ordinance - 1
P223
VIII.a
Exhibit AAPCHA & SEPARATE COMPONENT UNIT 2018 BUDGETSFund Name*Projected Opening Balance Total 2018 Revenue BudgetRevenue Supplemental #12018 Amended Revenue BudgetTotal 2018 Expenditure BudgetExpense Supplemental #12018 Amended Exp Budget2018 Ending Balance $ Change % ChangeHousing Administration (APCHA) Fund $2,136,735 $2,258,830$0 $2,258,830 $3,349,720 $21,132 $3,370,852 $1,024,713 ($1,112,022)(52%)Smuggler Housing Fund$328,710 $78,270$0 $78,270 $67,650$0 $67,650 $339,330 $10,6203%Truscott Phase II Housing Fund$1,109,466 $1,055,440$0 $1,055,440 $910,400 $65,847 $976,247 $1,188,659 $79,1937%Total$3,574,911 $3,392,540$0 $3,392,540 $4,327,770 $86,979 $4,414,749 $2,552,702 ($1,022,209)(29%)**Projected Opening Balance ‐ original projected, plus unspent carry forward funding2018 Component Units Budget Ordinance - 2
P224VIII.a
2018 Spring Supplemental
Operational Carry Forwards
Exhibit B
Department / Project Request
620 ‐ Housing Administration Fund
Work Stations ‐ A yearly allocation is made for the replacement of workstations. All unspent authority is
carried forward into the following fiscal year for the departments to address the replacement as needed.
$18,840
PCs ‐ A yearly allocation is made for the replacement of PCs. All unspent authority is carried forward into the
following fiscal year for the departments to address the replacement as needed.
$2,292
$21,132
OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $21,132
1 of 1
2018 Component Units Budget Ordinance - 3
P225
VIII.a
2018 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry‐Forward Requests
Exhibit C
Department / Project Lifetime Budget
2018 Carry Forward
Request
641 ‐ Truscott II Housing Fund
50729_PCNA Capital Needs Assessment $100,000 $65,847
$100,000 $65,847
TOTAL CAPITAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $100,000 $65,847
1 of 1
2018 Component Units Budget Ordinance - 4
P226
VIII.a
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 12
(Series of 2018)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
FUND OF $21,132 AND TRUSCOTT PHASE II HOUSING FUND OF $65,847.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following funds: HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND AND TRUSCOTT PHASE II
HOUSING FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager’s certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND
AND TRUSCOTT PHASE II HOUSING FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental
appropriations as itemized in the Exhibit A.
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON
FIRST READING on the 14th day of May, 2018.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 29th day of May, 2018, in the
City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P227
VIII.a
Page 2 of 2
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 29th day of May, 2018.
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P228
VIII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Officer
THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director
DATE OF MEMO: May 7, 2018
DATE OF MEETING: May 14, 2018
RE: 2018 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 7 (Series 2018)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Staff is requesting an amendment to the City’s 2018 budget that increases total expenditure
appropriations from $158.7 to $198.2 million (Exhibit A). Of this $39.5 million increase, $34.4 million is
related to 2017 capital, specific operational projects already approved but not yet completed and
technical actions, $4.1 million is related to budgetary savings achieved during 2017, and $1 million is
related to new requests.
Net of interfund transfers, the requested budget authority increases from $128.3 to $165.8 million.
Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds, but do not reflect the true cost of
operations.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental requests impact on the City’s overall appropriation
authority.
1st Reading
Description Amount Location
2017 Adopted Budget: $158,696,727 See Exhibit A
Total New Requests: $1,005,780 See Exhibit B
Total Central Savings: $584,850 See Exhibit C
Total Departmental Savings: $3,528,790 See Exhibit C
Total Operational Carry Forward: $966,732 See Exhibit D
Total Capital Carry Forward: $26,923,918 See Exhibit E
Previously Approved: $3,930,859 See Exhibit F
Technical and Transfers: $2,577,723 See Exhibit G
Total Budget Requests: $39,518,652 See Exhibit A
TOTAL ORDINANCE: $198,215,379 See Exhibit A
Less Interfund Transfers $32,419,393
NET APPROPRIATIONS: $165,795,986 See Exhibit A
2018 SUPPL EMENTAL BUDGET ORDINANCE
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 1
P229
VIII.b
EXHIBIT AFund Name**Projected Opening BalanceTotal 2018 Revenue BudgetRevenue Supplemental #12018 Amended Revenue BudgetTotal 2018 Expenditure BudgetExpense Supplemental #12018 Amended Exp Budget2018 Ending BalanceGeneral Governmental Fund 001 ‐ General Fund $18,546,537 $32,115,030 $602,600 $32,717,630 $32,990,620 $3,989,416 $36,980,036 $14,284,131Subtotal General Gov't Funds $18,546,537 $32,115,030 $602,600 $32,717,630 $32,990,620 $3,989,416 $36,980,036 $14,284,131Special Revenue Governmental Funds100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund $7,000,354 $12,389,047$12,500 $12,401,547 $12,268,190 $2,456,263 $14,724,453 $4,677,448120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund $31,738,783 $5,765,470$0$5,765,470$7,145,400 $311,717 $7,457,117 $30,047,136130 ‐ Tourism Promotion Fund $94,273 $2,839,190 $0 $2,839,190 $2,837,300 $0 $2,837,300 $96,163131 ‐ Public Education Fund $4,152 $2,700,080 $0 $2,700,080 $2,700,000$0 $2,700,000 $4,232132 ‐ REMP Fund$4,197,578 $883,950$0$883,950 $1,185,000$0 $1,185,000 $3,896,528141 ‐ Transportation Fund$4,930,229 $5,383,280 $128,850$5,512,130 $5,838,320 $1,577,434 $7,415,754 $3,026,605150 ‐ Housing Development Fund $37,522,697 $15,113,438$0 $15,113,438$17,658,150 $4,844,002 $22,502,152 $30,133,983152 ‐ Kids First Fund$5,462,379 $2,155,690$0$2,155,690$2,063,410 $494,787 $2,558,197 $5,059,872160 ‐ Stormwater Fund$2,111,735 $1,365,760$60,000$1,425,760 $1,426,520 $1,165,408 $2,591,928 $945,567Subtotal Special Revenue Funds $93,062,180 $48,595,905 $201,350 $48,797,255 $53,122,290 $10,849,611 $63,971,901 $77,887,534Debt Service Governmental Fund250 ‐ Debt Service Fund$201,890 $5,808,460$0 $5,808,460 $5,804,920$0 $5,804,920 $205,430Subtotal Debt Service Fund$201,890 $5,808,460$0$5,808,460 $5,804,920$0 $5,804,920 $205,430Capital Projects Governmental Funds000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund $28,835,234 $29,896,140 $1,721,513 $31,617,653 $23,867,830 $16,964,525 $40,832,355 $19,620,532Subtotal Capital Fund $28,835,234 $29,896,140 $1,721,513 $31,617,653 $23,867,830 $16,964,525 $40,832,355 $19,620,532Enterprise Proprietary Funds421 ‐ Water Utility Fund$5,594,616 $11,023,860$0 $11,023,860$11,779,450 $1,916,688 $13,696,138 $2,922,338431 ‐ Electric Utility Fund$4,871,317 $9,304,830$0$9,304,830$11,442,290 $1,090,488 $12,532,778 $1,643,369451 ‐ Parking Fund$4,961,966 $4,472,250$0$4,472,250$7,362,410 $220,812 $7,583,222 $1,850,994471 ‐ Golf Course Fund$770,706 $2,278,970$0$2,278,970$2,163,160 $105,500 $2,268,660 $781,016491 ‐ Truscott I Housing Fund$514,164 $1,257,740$0$1,257,740$1,489,180$42,150 $1,531,330 $240,574492 ‐ Marolt Housing Fund$333,465 $1,228,580$0$1,228,580 $797,030$9,000 $806,030 $756,015Subtotal Enterprise Funds $17,046,234 $29,566,230$0$29,566,230$35,033,520$3,384,638$38,418,158$8,194,306Internal Proprietary Funds501 ‐ Employee Benefits Fund $2,627,808 $5,071,060 $0 $5,071,060 $5,418,750 $0 $5,418,750 $2,280,118505 ‐ Employee Housing Fund $4,372,601 $2,444,090 $350,950 $2,795,040 $792,690 $3,980,453$4,773,143 $2,394,498510 ‐ Information Technology Fund $737,002 $1,674,100 $0 $1,674,100$1,666,107 $350,009 $2,016,116 $394,986Subtotal Internal Service Funds $7,737,411 $9,189,250$350,950$9,540,200$7,877,547$4,330,462 $12,208,009 $5,069,602ALL FUNDS$165,429,486 $155,171,015 $2,876,413 $158,047,428 $158,696,727 $39,518,652 $198,215,379 $125,261,535Less Interfund Transfers$30,369,930 $2,049,463 $32,419,393 $30,369,930 $2,049,463 $32,419,393NET APPROPRIATIONS$165,429,486 $124,801,085 $826,950 $125,628,035 $128,326,797 $37,469,189 $165,795,986 $125,261,535**Projected Opening Balance ‐ original projected, plus unspent carry forward funding and savingsTOTAL CITY OF ASPEN 2018 APPROPRIATIONS BY FUND2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 2
P230VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
New Requests
Exhibit B
Request Title Request Justification
001 ‐ General Fund; Council
Grassroots Station Management and
Production
$5,660 Grassroots is seeking an increase in fees for CGTV11 station management and
production. The City was not notified in a timely manner so as to include the
increase in the 2018 budget planning process. On‐going
$5,660
001 ‐ General Fund; Community Development ‐ Planning / Building
Uphill Economy BYY Goal ‐ Recreation
Plan Development
$100,000 Funding request to fully implement Council’s Uphill Economy Top Nine Goal.
The 2017 Uphill Economic Development Plan provided prioritized short‐,
medium‐, and long‐term action items for the implementation of the plan. Of
those, a top priority is the development of a four‐season Uphill Recreation Plan
(Rec Plan), promotion of Aspen as an Uphill R+D center with an uphill industry
forum, building the uphill events schedule, and supporting regional economic
diversification. These additional funds will support economic diversification
efforts, as well as development of an Uphill Recreation Plan (Rec Plan). The Rec
Plan is a traditional planning process to inventory existing Uphill infrastructure
and opportunities, work with stakeholders to assess opportunities and
constraints, and the development of policies that support the Uphill Economy.
The Rec Plan will include policies and outline objectives to support the City’s
efforts to create a new entrepreneurial ecosystem and promote the Uphill
Economy at the local, regional, and state level.
This planning process requires consultant support for GIS and other data
analysis, stakeholder outreach, meeting facilitation, and plan development. It is
expected to be a 9‐12 month process. The economic diversification efforts will
focus on implementing an uphill symposium and educational event, continuing
support of weekly uphill meet‐ups, the 18/19 Uphill Ascent (which is scheduled
in December 2018 rather than Spring of 2019), and targeted efforts with
companies to locate to the region. One‐time
Zoning Enforcement Officer (1.0 FTE)$89,460 For the past year, the Department has been working to improve the services it
provides for zoning reviews of building permits, zoning inspections, and code
enforcement. Various change management initiatives have been implemented,
including introducing time management techniques and training others within
the Department to perform basic zoning reviews. While some progress has
been made, including a reduction in the time for first round review comments,
the zoning staff are still unable to keep pace with the zoning workload. The
most significant impact has been felt in the area of review times for building
permits, as staff routinely have between 75 and 100 permits in their queue to
review. Other review agencies have similar permit loads, but have more permit
review staffing levels to handle the volume. With the addition of this position,
the number of staff reviewing permits for building, zoning, and engineering
would be at parity. On‐going
1 of 52018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 3
P231
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
New Requests
Exhibit B
Request Title Request Justification
Lift 1A Study ‐ Phase 2 $52,000 Net Cost to CoA for this request is $22,000. The remaining $30,000 is covered
by the contributions from the LiftOne Lodge, Gorsuch Haus, and Aspen Skiing
Company. Background: This is the second phase of the Lift 1A study, which
continues to look at the feasibility of bringing skier loading with a replacement
lift further downhill towards Dean Street. The study will analyze four scenarios
both for physical planning requirements (for example, ensuring a ski run meets
minimum dimensional requirements for safety) as well as qualitative
parameters stakeholders have provided (for example, the ideal width of a ski
run for skier experience). A possible implication of this work would be removal
of some or all of the remaining elements of historic Lift 1, Aspen’s first chair lift.
The historical significance of the original lift equipment needs to be evaluated in
conjunction with the study. In addition to the study, a white paper on the
history of Lift 1 will be developed. The total amount for the study, white paper,
and public outreach funds is $52,000. One‐time
Adjustment to Annual
Maintenance/Support Costs for New
Permits Management System
$25,000 The City is currently developing and testing a Land Use Planning, Permits and
Code Enforcement software system. The City is anticipating that the first year
annual support costs associated with the system will be higher than normal. As
staff become familiar with the system, needs associated with optimizing the
system are anticipated to arise. For example, requests for dashboards, reports,
and views are anticipated. Additional data migration tasks to fully close‐out
now‐open cases in EDEN , and to adjust system integrations, provide other
examples of anticipated post‐go‐live needs. This funding recognizes and
addresses the additional needs associated with support, post‐go‐live for this
system. On‐going
Revising Zoning Permit Submittal
Guidance and Creating Permitting
Guidance for Historic Preservation
Properties
$20,000 Funding request to acquire contractor support to assist with the simplification
and improvement of the permit submission requirements for zoning, which
needs to happen given changes to the land use code that have rendered the
current "Z‐Sheets" irrelevant, as well as to support ongoing work to develop
"HPC sheets," which will provide guidance to applicants for building permits
when historic properties are involved.
Eden Maintenance Fees $17,120 While the Community Development Department is working with a contractor to
develop a new, more effective, electronic permits management system, it is still
using Eden to process all building and land use permits and applications. The
City needs to continue to fund the annual maintenance and upgrade expenses
associated with Eden if we are to maintain our ability to process permits. Even
after the new system goes live, we will continue to use Eden to close out many
permits that are in process. The challenges associated with trying to migrate
data in Eden to the new system for permits that are far along in the process
make it impractical to do so. Therefore, we envision needing to maintain Eden
at least through 2018 and perhaps longer. One‐time
2 of 52018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 4
P232
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
New Requests
Exhibit B
Request Title Request Justification
2020 Census Organizing Project $15,000 Community Development is working on developing strategies to ensure that the
2020 U.S. Census is carried out accurately in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
To ensure accurate census counting, staff proposes to begin research and
general outreach in 2018, which will require consultant assistance. The project
scope includes GIS and assessor's database analysis of past census data,
population dispersion, demographics, and other factors. That data will inform
the development of public outreach and awareness campaigns to promote
participation in the census, as well as the development of a plan to support the
execution of the census in Aspen. These strategies will help to ensure an
accurate local count in the census. Given the significant financial consequences
of inaccurate census reporting, this project supports the interests of the City of
Aspen and neighboring jurisdictions. One‐time
Historic Preservation Benefits
Outreach
$10,000 City Council has recently directed Planning Staff to assess the effectiveness of
long‐standing historic preservation benefits. Outreach to stakeholders and the
general public is an important aspect of this evaluation. Staff plans the
preparation of surveys, website communication, input meetings, etc. Funds are
needed for potential consultant assistance, advertising, hosting of meetings,
and similar expected expenses. One‐time
$328,580
001 ‐ General Fund; Engineering
Additional Funds for As Needed GIS
Maintenance Services Contract
$30,000 As needed GIS Maintenance Services including but not limited to: Update SDE
enterprise GIS data, web services within ArcGIS Server (hosted locally) and
within ArcGIS Online (hosted in Esri cloud), and all content within ArcGIS Open
Data portal, Map Aspen. ‐‐ This is a contract amendment to Project #2017‐128
supplying additional funds to the original contract for As Needed GIS
Maintenance Services described above. Currently, the GIS Program consists of
one FTE, the GIS Program Manager. This position is responsible for setting
policy, procedures and standards, managing all contracts and projects related to
the GIS Program as well as outreach to promote the program internally to all
departments in the organization and externally to the City of Aspen community.
To allow for full commitment to these responsibilities, support is need to
accommodate maintenance and database administration as well as special
projects. One‐time
$30,000
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Conservation and Efficiency
Additional Authority for Aspen Police
Department
$67,560 This request is for a portion of the financing costs associated with the COPs for
the Aspen Police Department. The initial budget for the APD assumed
approximately $100,000 for borrowing costs associated with the project. The
actual costs to finance the project was $208,310. The project budget has been
adjusted to absorb an additional $40,750 over the initial budgeted amount for
borrowing, but the underwriter fees of $67,560 (which were paid from the
proceeds of the debt issuance) cannot be absorbed within the existing budget
authority. It was hoped that these fees might be absorbed within the current
appropriation, but given the tight budget remaining to close out the project,
staff is requesting this additional authority. One‐time
3 of 52018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 5
P233
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
New Requests
Exhibit B
Request Title Request Justification
Amendments to Contract for New
Permits Management System
$20,000 The City is currently developing and testing a Land Use Planning, Permits and
Code Enforcement software system. As we have proceeded with this project,
additional functionality and enhancements, as well as a desire to test certain
components (such as fees) more deeply than originally anticipated, have arisen
as needs. This request would provide additional funds, beyond those already
budgeted for the project, to incorporate these additional elements into the
existing contract. All of these elements are requested prior to go‐live of the
system. One‐time
$87,560
100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund
Bicycle Master Plan ‐ 2018 $74,500 This funding request is to finalize the details for the Hopkins Bikeway extension
and Buttermilk Bike Facilities. This includes wayfinding, planters (wood and self‐
watering), bike lockers, bike racks, traffic control and some paint charges.
$12,500 of this project is funded from the AMP fund cash reserves and the
balance from the Parks and Open Space Fund cash reserves. One‐time
$74,500
141 ‐ Transportation Fund
Additional Security at Rubey Park $15,000 Staff is requesting funds for additional security presence at Rubey Park. This is
considered necessary for a variety of reasons including: (1) an escalation in the
frequency and seriousness of safety‐related issues on the premises; (2) an
escalation in property damage on the property including graffiti and intentional
destruction; and (3) an increased need for security staff to ride City of Aspen
routes to ensure the safety of passengers and drivers. The City and RFTA share
the same vendor for security purposes and share in the cost of security services
for the Rubey Park facility ‐ RFTA has also increased its expenditures on security
in recent months. On‐going
$15,000
150 ‐ Housing Development Fund
Settlement of Burlingame Project with
HOAs
$41,500 Payments to close out final settlement with Burlingame Ranch Affordable
Housing Inc. of $16,500 and Burlingame Condominium 1 Association Inc. of
$25,500 totaling $41,500. One‐time
$41,500
160 ‐ Stormwater Fund
King Street Stormwater System $362,120 As noted in the recently reviewed Smuggler Hunter Master Plan, a low spot
exists on King Street that causes drainage issues for the neighboring properties.
In recent years, particularly in the early winter of 2017, these drainage issues
have increased, causing significant flooding concerns for downstream
properties. As a temporary measure, the Streets Department installed a French
drain system and regularly vacuums runoff and snowmelt from the ponding
area. To fully resolve this issue, design and installation of a stormwater system
is necessary. To provide economies of scale, the addition of sidewalk will be
vetted with the neighborhood and has been included in project costs, but can
be removed if necessary. Funding is needed in 2018 to complete the project
before the 2018‐2019 winter. $60K will be transferred from the AMP fund cash
reserves to fund sidewalk, curb and gutter, and ADA ramps. The remaining
$302K will be funded from the Stormwater cash reserves. One‐time
$362,120
4 of 52018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 6
P234
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
New Requests
Exhibit B
Request Title Request Justification
421 ‐ Water Utility Fund
Water Efficiency Plans Reviewer (1.0
FTE) ‐ 75%
$60,860 (May 22, 2017) Council approved funding for one year during this public hearing
on the new Water Efficient Landscape ordinance. A subsequent Council
meeting on Feb 13, 2018 outlined on‐going staffing needs for this program, to
perform plan reviews for City and County parcels on City Water that trigger
compliance to the 2017 adopted Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. This
expense is covered by current Utilities Development Review fees revenue. The
other 25% of the FTE will be funded from the Parks and Open Space existing ops
budget. On‐going
$60,860
TOTAL NEW REQUESTS $1,005,780
5 of 52018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 7
P235
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Central and Departmental Savings
Exhibit C
Fund/Department Central Savings "10%" Department Savings "50%"
City Manager $401,430 $61,920
Human Resources $0 $38,270
City Clerk $0 $15,210
City Attorney $580 $81,380
Finance $2,710 $249,330
Planning $13,310 $126,200
Engineering $1,380 $54,720
Building $5,940 $61,650
Environmental Health $2,070 $89,720
Police $15,910 $321,140
Streets $3,460 $378,790
Special Events $6,110 $147,810
Recreation / ARC / AIG (Based on Subsidy)$0 $98,790
Asset Management $5,350 $32,850
001 ‐ General Fund $458,250 $1,757,780
100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund $24,220 $283,570
120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund $7,910 $287,080
141 ‐ Transportation Fund $14,490 $130,040
152 ‐ Kids First Fund $7,930 $130,860
160 ‐ Stormwater Fund $7,340 $84,020
421 ‐ Water Utility Fund $19,150 $137,160
431 ‐ Electric Utility Fund $36,720 $347,780
451 ‐ Parking Fund $2,230 $142,970
471 ‐ Golf Fund $3,630 $72,370
510 ‐ Information Technology Fund $2,980 $155,160
Total Savings to be appropriated $584,850 $3,528,790
Accumulated ‐ Saving Balance from Previous Years $393,980 $2,610,380
Net Operational Savings ‐ New $190,870 $918,410
The purpose of allowing carryforward savings is to provide an additional incentive for frugality by
operating departments. Unlike traditional governments, which have a “use it or lose it” approach to
annual operating budgets, Aspen’s policy encourages departments to create savings in their annual
operating budgets. Savings in annual operating budgets are distributed as follows:
50% of the savings are carried forward into the appropriate department’s savings account.
10% is allocated to a Central Savings account.
40% is returned to the appropriate fund balance.
Carryforward Savings represent 50% of the previous year’s operating budget savings from individual
Departments or Funds. Departments and Funds are allocated these amounts as a reward to finding
efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating goals while spending less than
their appropriations. Prior year savings that are not expended are maintained in full and appropriated
every year unless directed otherwise by the City Manager. These appropriations can be spent on items
related to the Department’s or Fund’s mission but may not be used for ongoing expenditures. In
addition, if a particular expenditure was denied as part of the budget process, departmental savings
may not be used for this purpose without City Manager approval. If the expenditure is to exceed
$10,000, the City Manager must authorize the expenditure. Departments and Funds can accrue these
savings to a maximum of 15% of their operating budgets.
*The above information is from the CoA financial policies, adopted December 11, 2017.
1 of 1
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 8
P236
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Operational Carry Forwards
Exhibit D
Department / Project Request
001 ‐ General Fund; Planning / Building Department
Carry Forward of Files and Plan Sets Scanning Project Authority ‐ Council approved $275,000 in supplemental
funding for the Department's 2016 budget to award a contract to digitize all of the Building Department's address
files and building plan sets. A contract was awarded, that work is still ongoing, and the remaining funds are
needed to complete the project. One‐time
$78,680
Carry Forward of 2014 Building Permit Refunds Authority ‐ In the 2017 Fall Supplemental, Council approved
$190,930 to reimburse building permit applicants who were overcharged because of formula errors in the permit
fee calculations. We are still trying to connect with many applicants; our letters have been returned with no
forwarding address or we have not received a response. The Department wants to continue trying to reach these
individuals throughout 2018. One‐time
$50,000
Carry Forward of Electronic Permitting System Training Authority ‐ Council previously approved these funds in
conjunction with the City's new permits management system, which is scheduled to go live in the second quarter
of this year. The funds will be used to train both staff and stakeholders in the system's operation. One‐time
$44,390
Carry Forward of Historic Preservation Sheets Authority ‐ A property was red tagged for working contrary to its
historic preservation approvals and permit. The issue was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) and a penalty of $30,000 was levied against the property, which was the amount of the bond posted for
successful relocation of the historic house. HPC will use this money to fund an RFP to address the problem this
applicant caused to try to avoid others repeating it in the future. Council approved these uses of the funds as part
of the 2017 Fall Supplemental. One‐time
$30,000
Carry Forward of Uphill Economy Authority ‐ Staff requests a carry forward of unspent uphill funds from 2017 be
carried forward to support implementation of Council’s Uphill Economy Best Year Yet Goal. The 2017 Uphill
Economic Development Plan provided prioritized short‐, medium‐, and long‐term action items for the
implementation of the plan. Of those, a top priority is the development of a four‐season Uphill Recreation Plan
(Rec Plan), promotion of Aspen as an Uphill R+D center with an uphill industry forum, building the uphill events
schedule, and supporting regional economic diversification. These carry forward funds are proposed to be used
for the groundwork to create the industry forum and economic diversification opportunities. This basic level of
data is needed to determine if the other phases of this portion of implementation should move forward. The
funds will be added to the Department's new request for additional funds to support the overall initiative. One‐
time
$20,320
Carry Forward of Historic Property Inventorying Authority ‐ Council approved $25,000 the 2016 Budget for the
historic property inventory project. Because of staff shortages and other Department priorities, work did not
begin until 2017. These funds are required to finish the project in 2018. Any additional funds required will come
from department savings. One‐time
$2,830
$226,220
001 ‐ General Fund; Environmental Health & Sustainability Department
Carry Forward of Radon Testing Program Authority ‐ Staff provided test kits and education to residents in Aspen
during the late fall / early winter. Staff became certified in radon measurement as a means to improve the testing
of City buildings as well as improve assistance to homeowner testing. The remainder of the grant project to be
completed is around providing test kits and radon mitigation assistance to homeowners, continued education for
environmental health staff, purchase a continuous radon monitor, educate local real estate professionals about
radon as well as a radon mitigation campaign. Grant funding has been received from the State and offset this
expense. One‐time
$6,320
$6,320
1 of 2
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 9
P237
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Operational Carry Forwards
Exhibit D
Department / Project Request
141 ‐ Transportation Fund
Carry Forward of Aspen Mobility Lab ‐ Phases IA & IB Authority ‐ (Nov 27, 2017) Council approved $125,000 for
Phase 1A of the Aspen Mobility Lab project, to hire the consulting, research, design and project management
teams and personnel necessary to start planning and scoping the Lab. An additional $345,300 was approved for
Phase IB, to plan for the implementation of the Lab. City Council has requested that staff aggressively pursue the
full scope of the Lab. The Phase 1B funds are being used for continued fundraising efforts, app design, downtown
design, data collection, and mobility research. 30% was funded from the General Fund cash reserves and 70%
from Transportation Fund cash reserves. One‐time
$200,866
$200,866
SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $433,406
Aggregate Equipment/Maintenance/Repair Carry Forwards $194,088
Aggregate PC Replacement Carry Forwards $203,836
Aggregate Workstation Replacement Carry Forwards $135,402
OTHER OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $533,326
TOTAL OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $966,732
2 of 2
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 10
P238
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry‐Forward Requests
Exhibit E
Department / Project Lifetime Budget
2018 Carry
Forward Request
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Finance
50003_ERP System Implementation $1,500,000 $110,345
50503_Multi‐Function Machine ‐ Finance $7,000 $7,000
$1,507,000 $117,345
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Planning
50259_Electronic Permitting System $658,250 $544,885
$658,250 $544,885
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Engineering
50464_Hallam Street Improvements ‐ Construction $2,137,215 $2,125,808
50467_Bridge Maintenance ‐ 2017 $25,000 $25,000
50865 Spring Street Intersection Improvements $175,000 $12,100
50470_Pedestrian Improvements at Galena and Main $146,000 $11,646
50010_Cemetery_Snowbunny_Mountain View Intersection Imp. $28,132 $9,237
50008_Construction Management Plan Contractor Certification $25,000 $2,000
$2,536,347 $2,185,791
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Police
50440_Dispatch Radio System ‐ 800 Megahertz $900,485 $100,355
$900,485 $100,355
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Recreation
50053_Electrical ‐ Aspen Ice Garden $294,283 $178,001
50038_Interior ‐ Aspen Recreation Center $65,000 $42,097
50041_Lighting System Upgrade ARC $30,000 $30,000
50051_AIG Heating $56,070 $26,576
50386_LIA Scoreboard Replacement $30,000 $24,377
50044_Brine Pump ‐ LIA $30,000 $14,515
$505,353 $315,566
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Asset Management
50064_APD Project $22,571,978 $6,363,384
50258_City Offices ‐ Armory $15,890,110 $1,540,044
50257_City Offices ‐ Galena $22,142,000 $1,352,979
50060_Old Powerhouse Preservation Project $3,551,700 $856,457
50693_City Offices ‐ Rio Grande $500,000 $500,000
50074_Pedestrian Mall ‐ Planning and Design (ONLY)$1,135,530 $363,183
50063_Master Planning ‐ Facility Development $418,212 $60,410
50869 Animal Shelter ‐ Retaining Wall Work $15,000 $6,236
$66,224,530 $11,042,693
100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund
50105_Burlingame Phase II Parks $1,136,465 $256,910
50286_Trail Surface Improvements ‐ 2017 $75,000 $75,000
50285_Cozy Point Grading/Drainage Improvements $180,000 $47,222
50289_Grindlay Bridge Repairs $40,000 $40,000
50293_Upper Roaring Fork Trails Plan Implementation $75,000 $35,000
50294_Anderson Park Implementation $105,000 $30,000
50078_Hunter/Smuggler Co‐Op Implementation ‐ Recreation $75,000 $27,196
50309_Castle Creek Music School Trail $875,000 $25,000
1 of 3
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 11
P239
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry‐Forward Requests
Exhibit E
Department / Project Lifetime Budget
2018 Carry
Forward Request
50297_Parks Site Mechanical $21,800 $21,800
50077_Paepcke Park Improvements ‐ Planning $20,000 $20,000
50071_Recycling Cans for Commercial Core $129,294 $4,589
50263_Core City Network ‐ Parks ‐ 2016 $2,800 $2,200
$2,735,359 $584,917
120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund
50264_Core City Network ‐ Wheeler ‐ 2016 $2,210 $2,210
$2,210 $2,210
141 ‐ Transportation Fund
50534_Shuttle Replacement ‐ 2017 $416,000 $416,000
$416,000 $416,000
150 ‐ Housing Development Fund
50260_ACI ‐ Repair and Renovation Project $3,257,030 $3,051,030
50121_Burlingame Phase II Construction $47,681,818 $1,134,630
50542_PPP Development Rental Housing $17,000,000 $594,985
50122_Burlingame Delivery Sf Lot Subsidies $2,065,842 $21,857
$70,004,690 $4,802,502
152 ‐ Kids First Fund
50868 Yellow Brick School ‐ Electrical Upgrade and Replacement $350,000 $345,679
$350,000 $345,679
160 ‐ Stormwater Fund
50130_Aspen Mtn Drainage Basin Imp. ‐ Garmisch $500,000 $500,000
50126_SW Master Planning 2016 $225,000 $50,850
50127_Water Quality Improvements 2016 $60,000 $47,876
50129_Aspen Mtn Drainage Basin Improvements $160,506 $41,612
$945,506 $640,338
421 ‐ Water Utility Fund
50135_Reuse Waterline Completion at ACSD $1,742,910 $546,208
50136_Convert Highlands PRV Station to a Pump Station $470,006 $313,049
50161_Roaring Fork Road $1,150,000 $299,054
50153_Water Rate Study & Infrastructure Update $110,000 $100,000
50137_Fire Mitigation Upgrades $248,000 $86,339
50556_Water Site Maintenance $125,000 $77,795
50559_Climate Impact Assessment and Resiliency $200,001 $76,152
50558_Riverside Ditch $50,000 $50,000
50132_New Equipment Storage Building $400,000 $50,000
50145_Kayak Course Improvements ‐ 2016 $50,000 $49,182
50162_Ridge of Red Altitude Valve $130,000 $20,770
50265_Core City Network ‐ Water ‐ 2016 $8,240 $5,683
$4,684,157 $1,674,232
431 ‐ Electric Utility Fund
50184_Micro Hydro Maroon / Castle Creek $600,000 $318,896
50193_Utility Rate/Infrastructure Study $70,000 $70,000
50266_Core City Network ‐ Electric ‐ 2016 $2,580 $2,580
$672,580 $391,476
2 of 3
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 12
P240
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Capital Carry‐Forward Requests
Exhibit E
Department / Project Lifetime Budget
2018 Carry
Forward Request
451 ‐ Parking Fund
50267_Core City Network ‐ Parking ‐ 2016 $5,600 $5,600
$5,600 $5,600
471 ‐ Golf Course Fund
50203_Fleet ‐ Golf ‐ 2016 $135,250 $16,500
50198_Exterior ‐ Golf and Nordic Clubhouse $7,400 $7,400
50271_Core City Network ‐ Golf ‐ 2016 $5,600 $5,600
$148,250 $29,500
505 ‐ Employee Housing Fund
50231_540 Employee Housing ‐ Construction $5,426,830 $3,446,834
50681_Water Place Phase II ‐ Design $550,000 $89,159
$5,976,830 $3,535,993
510 ‐ Information Technology Fund
50237_Galena Plaza Fiber $125,000 $118,790
50686_Network Services ‐ 2017 $72,250 $55,046
50688_Website Development ‐ 2017 $119,950 $15,000
$317,200 $188,836
TOTAL CAPITAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $158,590,347 $26,923,918
3 of 3
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 13
P241
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Previously Approved Requests
Exhibit F
Department / Description Amount
001 ‐ General Fund; Recreation ‐ Red Brick Center for the Arts
Red Brick Center for the Arts ‐ Facility Maintenance Including 1.0 FTE ‐ (Jan 9, 2018) Based on City Council's
direction, staff has prepared a 2018 operating budget for the newly assumed responsibilities related to
management of the Arts portion of the Red Brick Center, including a new Maintenance Tech position. Based
on $344,000 in anticipated rental income, parking fees and utility reimbursements, it is projected that
revenues will more than offset this additional expense authority. One‐time
$270,280
Red Brick Center for the Arts ‐ Gallery and Educational Programming Including 1.5 FTE ‐ (Jan 9, 2018) Based
on City Council's direction, staff has prepared a full‐year 2018 operating budget for: full‐time Director and
part‐time Administrative Assistant, plus the educational programming and gallery exhibition needs of the
Red Brick Center for the Arts. It is anticipated that the $30,000 grant from the Wheeler Opera House Fund,
plus $65,000 in programming fees and commissions from gallery sales will partially offset this requested
authority. On‐going
$237,770
$508,050
000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund
Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Improvements ‐ (Jan 22, 2018) Council approved $4,651,306, for the Castle
Creek Bridge and Hallam Improvements. This amount includes approved authority through 2017 of
$3,662,215, plus $989,101 in new authority at the Jan 22, 2018 meeting. The $2,079,101 shown is a
combination of approved project funding being carried forward from 2017 to 2018 from the Parks Fund into
the AMP Fund, plus the new authority.
$2,079,100
Additional Bus Service ‐ Castle Creek Bridge / Hallam Street Construction Period ‐ (Feb 13, 2018)
Additional Bus service as mitigation during the Castle Creek Bridge/Hallam St project this spring during the
detour. The service will run from the Brush Creek Park N Ride to Rubey Park from May 1 to June 8. The
service will run on 30 minute or quicker headways during the morning and afternoon peak periods to assist
with the commute traffic congestion. This additional bus service should help commuters to get out of their
vehicles and on the bus to avoid the delays during construction. This funding will be added to the Castle
Creek Bridge and Hallam Improvements project budget. One‐time
$52,000
Security at Aspen Police Department Building ‐ (Jan 8, 2018) Council approved moving forward with the
design team recommendation to increase the level of protection at the new APD site by providing bollards,
large diameter trees and a concrete bench. While typical bollards could provide this level of protection, both
the design team and staff feel the architectural solutions provide a visually appealing presentation providing
an increased level of safety.
$222,130
Ford F550 Sand / Plow Truck ‐ (Mar 26, 2018) Zero net cost to CoA, 100% paid for by the South Aspen
Street developer. Council approved moving forward with purchase of the Ford F550 sand/plow truck need
to take care of the steep narrower South Aspen Street after the redevelopment was completed. One‐time
$67,400
EV charging stations in the Rio Grande Parking Garage ‐ (April 3, 2018) Council approved installation of two
dual cord Level 2 charging stations in the Parking Garage. Each charging station can charge two electric
vehicles at once and takes between 4 to 6 hours to deliver a full charge, matching a typical dwell time in the
Rio Grande Garage. Demand and use for EV charging stations in Aspen is increasing dramatically year on
year and these stations will provide needed additional capacity to charge in town. Staff received $12,520 in
grant funds from the State of Colorado Energy Office (CEO) to offset the costs of this project. These funds
will be delivered after completion of the project. One‐time
$36,100
$2,456,730
1 of 3
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 14
P242
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Previously Approved Requests
Exhibit F
Department / Description Amount
100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund
Rio Grande Park and John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive and Wayfinding Plan ‐ (Dec 18, 2017) The
professional service agreement with Conservation by Design, Inc. is for the development of an interpretive
and wayfinding plan for the Rio Grande Park and the John Denver Sanctuary at a cost of $60,450. The
funding for this project is being provided through a generous grant from the John Denver Aspen Glow
Foundation through the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) in the amount of $94,579. One‐time
$94,579
$94,579
141 ‐ Transportation Fund
Mobility Lab Planning Budget for 2018 ‐ (May 7, 2018) The Mobility Lab is a Council Top Ten Goal, originally
scheduled for the summer of 2018, but now scheduled for summer of 2019 in order to seek funding in the
form of monetary and in‐kind contributions. The Lab is meant to provide a living lab in three areas: (1)
increase the use of the intercept lot to reduce the number of vehicles daily coming across the Castle Creek
Bridge, (2) increase mobility options that can compete with the private vehicle for trips in and around the
city, thereby reducing vehicles needed to be parked in the core and adjacent areas and (3) increase the
human experience in the downtown core by reducing the impact of vehicle traffic and parked cars. The
approved budget in 2018 will allow continued effort for project management, fundraising and in‐kind
donations to reduce the city outlays, planning of the details of the Lab effort and public outreach in the
summer and fall of 2018. A technical request is included in this packet to reflect a 30% share of this effort
being bore by the General Fund. One‐time
$429,500
Additional Bus Service ‐ Summer Service Extension Through Fall 2018 ‐ (Feb 13, 2018) Extension of the
summer bus service schedule through the Fall was recommended in the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) by
consultant Fehr & Peers and by staff. Instead of reducing the hours of operation for the fall off season the
summer hours of operation will continue thru September 30. The Cross Town shuttle will also continue
operation thru September 30. The service expansion could add up to 7,000 additional trips and make it
easier for employees and visitors to get around Aspen. One‐time
$90,000
Car‐to‐Go Expansion ‐ (Feb 13, 2018) Council provided direction at a recent work session to move forward
with an expansion of the program to include the purchase of one electric vehicle, a charger, the installation
of the charger and other items needed to get the car into service. One‐time
$60,000
Transportation Options Program (TOP) ‐ Employer Outreach Expansion ‐ (Feb 13, 2018) Per Council's
review of Short Range Transit Plan recommendations, this funding is requested to expand the TOP program
to target smaller businesses, providing services such as trip planning, grants and emergency ride home. One‐
time
$25,000
Two Charging Stations for On Demand Vehicles ‐ (April 9, 2018) Council approved resolution #47 series
2018, approving the contract for the Downtowner service beginning May 1, 2018. Included in the approved
contract was a capital project for additional charging station infrastructure for two charging stations in the
garage for two additional vehicles for the Downtowner fleet. The estimated cost for the charging station
infrastructure and stations is $22,000.
$22,000
$626,500
2 of 3
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 15
P243
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Previously Approved Requests
Exhibit F
Department / Description Amount
431 ‐ Electric Fund
Replacement of Electric Department Crane truck ‐ The Electric Department's current crane truck was slated
for replacement in 2017, but was more than the budgeted $145,000. Staff allowed the 2017 authority to
expire and is requesting the full need for the replacement in 2018, less a $30,000 trade‐in allowance. Staff is
proposing the purchase of a new compact crane truck to access difficult locations, minimize public
disturbance, allow staff to complete routine operations in a safe and effective manner while allowing the
equipment to be stored indoors. Despite existing indoor garage space and due to the size of the current
crane truck outdoor storage is required. This contributes to additional wear and tear on the equipment and
a slower response time during poor weather. Staff believe it is in the best interest to utilize a knuckle boom
crane to meet the Department's needs for transformer and switch gear installation, maintenance, and
emergency response. One‐time
$245,000
$245,000
Total Previously Approved Requests $3,930,859
3 of 3
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 16
P244
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Technical Adjustments
Exhibit G
Department / Description Amount
Accounting Actions
Accounting Action ‐ Sale of City‐owned Employee Housing Units: The City has inventory of both
rental and ownership units a recruitment and retention tools to house staff that are in critical
service areas or difficult to hire positions. City‐owned housing units periodically turnover, and in
the case of ownership units, the City must record the purchase and resale of each unit as it occurs.
Requested authority is to reflect the sale of such units. Proceeds from the sale will partially offset
the expense ‐ the difference is attributable to the varying category between owners and how that
affects the purchase / resale amounts. One‐time
505 ‐ Employee Housing Fund $444,460
Net zero impact to the overall CoA's Budget ‐Permitting Software ‐ Vertiba Contract for
Implementation and On‐site Support: Transferring unspent budget authority to the Asset
Management Fund to fund contracted work with Vertiba for implementation and on‐site support
work. This work was to be performed by CoA staff that departed the City in 2017. One‐time
000 ‐ Asset Management Fund $41,100
Oversight Correction: Property Tax Collection Fee ‐ The 2% property tax collection fee paid to the
County from the General Fund was not included in the 2018 budget development cycle. This
corrects this oversight. On‐going
001 ‐ General Fund $35,700
Net zero impact to the overall CoA's Budget ‐ Police Public Outreach ‐ $7,000 of donations was
received to support police department efforts with local kids, such as Picnic in the Park and Bike
Rodeo events. This is the accounting action to appropriate this funding. One‐time
001 ‐ General Fund $7,000
Accounting Actions ‐ Subtotal $528,260
Transfers Out and Double Counted Funding "Transfers"
2018 Project Funding Transfers
Transfer to Fund ‐ Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Improvements ‐ Transfers of cash to fund the
Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Improvements in full. These transfers are to fund a combination of
project funding being carried forward from 2017 to 2018 from the Parks Fund into the AMP Fund,
plus the new authority of $989,101. The transfers are as follows: Parks and Open Space Fund of
$1,386,064, Transportation Fund of $108,541, Stormwater Fund of $69,750 and Electric Fund of
$64,058. One‐time
100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund ‐ based on increased scope work $1,386,064
141 ‐ Transportation Fund ‐ based on use of the TDM impact fees $108,541
160 ‐ Stormwater Fund to AMP Fund ‐ revised allocation method $69,750
431 ‐ Electric Fund ‐ based on increased scope of work $64,058
Transfer ‐ Subtotal $1,628,413
Transfer to Fund ‐ Mobility Lab Planning Budget for 2018 (30% Share) ‐ Transfer of General Funds
cash reserves to fund 30% of the Mobility Lab's new funding request of $429,500. One‐Time
001 ‐ General Fund $128,850
1 of 2
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 17
P245
VIII.b
2018 Spring Supplemental
Technical Adjustments
Exhibit G
Department / Description Amount
Transfer to Fund Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, and ADA ramps ‐ King Street Stormwater System
Project ‐ The sidewalk, curb and gutter, and ADA ramps in the King Street Stormwater System
Project will be funded by a transfer of $60,000 from the Asset Management Fund cash reserves.
One‐time
000 ‐ Asset Management Fund $60,000
Transfer to Fund Additional Bus Service for Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Improvements Project
‐ Transfers of cash reserves from the Transportation Fund to the Asset Management Fund to fund
additional bus service during the Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Improvements Project. One‐time
141 ‐ Transportation Fund $52,000
Transfer to Fund the Permitting Software ‐ Vertiba Contract for Implementation and On‐site
Support: This is accounting action needed to transfer the funds to the Asset Management Fund.
One‐time
001 ‐ General Fund $41,100
Transfer to Fund Hopkins Bike Extension Living Lab (AMP Share Transfer) ‐ This funding request is
to finalize the details for the Hopkins Bikeway extension and Buttermilk Bike Facilities. This includes
wayfinding, planters (wood and self‐watering), bike lockers, bike racks, traffic control and some
paint charges. $12,500 of this project is funded from the AMP fund cash reserves and the balance
from the Parks and Open Space Fund cash reserves. One‐time
000 ‐ Asset Management Fund $12,500
2018 Project Funding Transfers ‐ Subtotal $1,922,863
Transfer to Central Savings ‐ Based on City of Aspen Financial Policies
100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund $24,220
120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund $7,910
141 ‐ Transportation Fund $14,490
152 ‐ Kids First Fund $7,930
160 ‐ Stormwater Fund $7,340
421 ‐ Water Utility Fund $19,150
431 ‐ Electric Utility Fund $36,720
451 ‐ Parking Fund $2,230
471 ‐ Golf Fund $3,630
510 ‐ Information Technology Fund $2,980
Transfer to Central Savings ‐ Subtotal $126,600
Transfers Out and Double Counted Funding (Transfers) ‐ required appropriations not true costs $2,049,463
Total Technical Adjustment $2,577,723
2 of 2
2018 Budget Ordinance No. 7 - Page 18
P246
VIII.b
ORDINANCE No. 7
(Series of 2018)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FUND EXPENDITURES OF $16,964,525, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF
$3,989,416, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $2,456,263, AN
INCREASE IN THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $311,717, AN INCREASE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $1,577,434, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $4,844,002, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF
$494,787, AN INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $1,165,408, AN INCREASE IN
THE WATER UTILITY FUND OF $1,916,688, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY
FUND OF $1,090,488, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING FUND OF $220,812, AN INCREASE
IN THE GOLF COURSE FUND OF $105,500, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT HOUSING
FUND OF $42,150, AN INCREASE IN THE MAROLT HOUSING FUND OF $9,000, AN
INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $3,980,453, AN INCREASE IN THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND OF $350,009.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND,
ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING
FUND, MAROLT HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager’s certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND,
GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND,
TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND,
STORMWATER FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND, PARKING FUND,
GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND, MAROLT HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE
HOUSING FUND, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND: the City Council hereby makes
supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Exhibit A.
P247
VIII.b
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON
FIRST READING on the 14th day of May, 2018.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 29th day of May, 2018, in the
City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 29th day of May, 2018.
_________________________
ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
________________________
Jim True, City Attorney
P248
VIII.b
MEMORANDUM
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Community Response Officers request the approval of Ordinance
___, which would add a new section to Title 6 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code to prohibit
harassment of wildlife, consistent with Colorado Revised Statute Section 33-3-128. A citation for
violation of Harassment of Wildlife would have an escalating fine structure of a $100 fine for a
first offense and a $200 fine for a second offense. A third offense will require a $500 fine and
mandatory court appearance in Municipal Court.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A
DISCUSSION: The Community Response Officers at the Aspen Police Department are tasked
with addressing the growing safety concerns involving human and wildlife interactions. The
Community Response Department is responsible for protecting the public from wildlife while
simultaneously protecting wildlife from the public.
Aspen is the ideal environment for hosting a large population of black bears. According to
research conducted by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, as humans continue to permeate bear
habitats and changing weather affects natural food sources, human-bear interactions will
continue to increase as bears integrate into communities. Aspen’s influx of population in the
summer results in the increase of bear attractants in the core area. The tourist population lacks
the education and information in appropriate bear safety practices despite public education
efforts already in place. The Police Department stresses education as our primary means of
compliance through the Bear Aware campaign, however, enforcement is necessary when
education is not sufficient.
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Community Response Officers Ginna Gordon and Audrey Radlinski,
Aspen Police Department
THRU:
Richard Pryor, Chief of Police; Andrea Bryan, Assistant City
Attorney
DATE OF MEMO:
May 8, 2018
MEETING DATE:
May 14, 2018
RE:
Ordinance #14, Series of 2018 - First reading of new City ordinance
prohibiting harassment of wildlife.
P249
VIII.c
In recent years, the City of Aspen has struggled to enforce wildlife protection laws due to the
absence of an ordinance specifically applicable to human-wildlife interactions. As a result, the
health of our wildlife is compromised and public safety is also at risk. It is the goal of the Aspen
Police Department to protect our citizens and wildlife population by reducing these types of
incidents through education and enforcement. The following is a 2017 Colorado Parks and map
of bear calls from Pitkin Bear Report (includes bear calls in Pitkin County and City of Aspen) and
direct bear calls to CPW.
In 2017, there were 913 calls for service regarding bears within the City of Aspen. The average
time spent at each call was fifteen minutes. This means that 228 hours on average were spent by
officers managing bear issues within the City. It is our goal through enforcement to reduce these
hours by gaining compliance. In 2015, Colorado Parks and Wildlife researched ordinances
pertaining to securing garbage in Aspen. They concluded that public compliance increased by
30% when the ordinances were enforced. The same theory can be applied to Harassment of
Wildlife, in that human-bear interaction will decrease, and compliance will increase with the
enforcement of a Harassing of Wildlife Ordinance.
P250
VIII.c
Last summer, a mother bear and her two cubs inhabited a tree in a high-traffic area of the Hyman
Avenue Mall for a number of days. Officers spent countless hours securing the perimeter and
handling crowd control to no avail, as the bears displayed physical signs of distress. The bears
came down one day after spending nine hours in the tree and were chased by people eager to get
a photo causing the distressed mother to be separated from her cubs. This alarming situation is
one example of the public having a false sense of security when in close proximity to wildlife in
public spaces. Public curiosity often prevails over following the verbal instructions of Peace
Officers attempting to mitigate hazards to public safety in these instances. Because of continual
public harassment in this case, the mother bear and her two cubs were tranquilized during a
multi-agency effort and relocated to Uncompahgre National Forest. The Community Response
Officers believe it would have been effective to have a municipal ordinance in place prohibiting
some of the conduct exhibited by passersby toward the bears.
There is currently a state statute in place, C.R.S. 33-6-128(1), that prohibits harassing wildlife.
That section reads, in part, as follows:
Unless permitted by the division, it is unlawful for any person to willfully
damage or destroy any wildlife den or nest or their eggs or to harass any
wildlife. Any person who violates this subsection (1) is guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of
one hundred dollars and an assessment of ten license suspension points.
For the purposes of this subsection (1), nothing shall prohibit the removal
of wildlife dens or nests when necessary to prevent damage to property or
livestock or while trapping.
The new City ordinance would largely track the language of the state statute, but would include
an escalating fine structure, with a third offense requiring an appearance in municipal court.
It is important to note that this new ordinance is not limited to harassing bears only, as human
harassment of other wildlife, including foxes and moose, is a behavior that must also be
addressed.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The fine structure for violation of this ordinance would
be $100 for the first offense, $200 for a second offense, and a $500 and mandatory municipal
court appearance for a third offense. There will be some costs associated with advertising and
public awareness of new code.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The British Broadcasting Corporation recently filmed a
documentary praising Aspen for its efforts in environmental stewardship and coexistence with
wildlife. The Community Response team desires to protect these resources that make Aspen so
unique. Through implementing this ordinance, we can reduce the instances of wildlife relocation
and euthanasian that has resulted from human negligence. Below are statistics from Colorado
Parks and Wildlife of bear relocations and euthanasia in Pitkin County spanning the past three
years.
2015 - 1 Relocated, 5 Euthanized
2016 - 1 Relocated, 9 euthanized
2017 - 3 Relocated, 16 Euthanized
P251
VIII.c
While Colorado Parks and Wildlife tries to safely relocate animals, it is not a viable solution for
several reasons. First, relocation is usually ineffective. It does not address the larger problem at
hand, which is eliminating and securing attractants that provide positive reinforcement behaviors
for remaining wildlife. Secondly, the effectiveness of the relocation process is questionable
because the survival rate is low, especially for animals with young. Many animals do not survive
relocation as they are forced to fight for recourses among the inhabitants that already exist in that
area. It is also challenging to find areas willing to take our “problem animals.”
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance ____, 2018 on First Reading. A copy of the
proposed ordinance is attached.
ALTERNATIVES: Currently, Community Response Officers secure a perimeter around bears in
high density areas. It can be challenging to keep the public at a safe distance while managing the
evolving situation. Through the use of the Bear Aware campaign, collaring ‘problem’ trees, solid
waste ordinance enforcement, and spraying blossoms off of crab apple trees, City Departments
are collaborating to take proactive steps in reducing human-bear interactions. Patrol Officers are
able to issue the CRS citation, however the $100 fine and 10 points against a Colorado Hunting
and Fishing license are inappropriate repercussions for most Aspen citizens and tourists.
Community Response Officers are typically responsible for handling these situations and there
are no alternatives in place to for CROs to enforce Harassment of Wildlife within the City of
Aspen.
PROPOSED MOTION:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance _14___, 2018
P252
VIII.c
ORDINANCE NO. __14___
(Series 2018)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN – ANIMALS
AND FOWL - TO ADD A NEW SECTION 06.04.110 ENTITLED: HARASSING WILDLIFE
PROHIBITED.
WHEREAS, Aspen is home to a large population of black bears and other wildlife, and;
WHEREAS, research indicates that as humans continue to permeate bear habitats and
changing weather affects natural food sources, human-bear interactions will continue to increase
as bears become acclimated to urban communities;
WHEREAS, Aspen’s influx of human population in the summer results in the increase
of bear and other wildlife attractants in the Aspen core area, increasing the risk of human-
wildlife interaction, which can be dangerous for both humans and the wildlife, and;
WHEREAS, the Aspen Police Department receives numerous wildlife calls for service
every year, and particularly in the summer, regarding human interactions with bears and other
wildlife including foxes and moose; and,
WHEREAS, numerous bears and other wildlife are either relocated or euthanized every
year in Pitkin County as a result of human negligence that can be prevented,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Police Department and City of Aspen Community
Response Officers (“CROs”) are responsible for protecting the public from wildlife while
simultaneously protecting wildlife from the public, and;
WHEREAS, despite public education efforts, members of the public and visitors to the
Aspen area do not always interact appropriately with wildlife, and have been observed to harass
the wildlife and ignore law enforcement barriers and instructions, putting both the wildlife and
humans at risk of injury or even death, and;
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has struggled to enforce wildlife protection laws due to
the absence of a municipal ordinance specifically applicable to human-wildlife interactions. As a
result, the health of Aspen’s wildlife is compromised and public safety is also at risk, and;
WHEREAS, although there is a Colorado state statutory provision that addresses
harassing wildlife, its penalties are insufficient to prevent the harmful behavior, especially as it
concerns visitors from outside the Aspen area, and;
WHEREAS, the adoption of a section to the City of Aspen Municipal Code that prohibits
harassing wildlife that would allow for a graduated fine schedule and mandatory court
appearance for a third offense is necessary for law enforcement to ensure public safety and safety
of Aspen’s wildlife; and,
P253
VIII.c
2
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1.
That Title 6 – Animals and Fowl - of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 6.08.110 – Harassing Wildlife Prohibited,
which section shall read as follows:
6.08.110 Harassing Wildlife Prohibited.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully harass any wildlife or disregard any law
enforcement commands, signs, or barriers designed to protect wildlife. Harassing wildlife
includes, but is not limited to, encroaching upon, cornering, crowding, taunting, chasing, and any
other willful behavior directed at the wildlife that a reasonable person would believe would cause
stress to the wild animal or cause the wild animal to inflict injury in retaliation to the human
behavior.
(2) It shall also be unlawful for any person to knowingly or negligently allow or direct a dog
which he owns or which is under his control to harass wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is
actually injured by such dog.
(3) For purposes of this section, “wildlife” means any non-domestic mammal indigenous to the
Roaring Fork Valley including but not limited to bear, deer, elk, raccoon, coyote, beaver, skunk,
badger, bobcat, mountain lion, porcupine and fox.
Any person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine of $100 for a first offense, $200
for a second offense, and a $500 fine and mandatory summons to municipal court for a third
offense.
Section 2: Litigation
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this
ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
P254
VIII.c
3
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the ____ day of May, 2018.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2017.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P255
VIII.c
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mitch Osur, Director of Parking and Downtown Services
THRU: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: May 7, 2018
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018
RE: Ordinance #10, Series of 2018 - Fee Ordinance Revisions to
Implement Performance Pricing
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The City of Aspen Parking Services Department requests Aspen City Council to approve a 4
month test in 2018 (June, July, August, September) for the next step in Performance Pricing in
the Downtown Core in Aspen. This would require a change to the fee ordinance for parking rates
that includes:
· Free 15
· Parking pricing to vary by time of day
· Flat hourly rates
· Off Season and Peak Season Pricing
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
On April 11, 2016 the Aspen City Council approved a 3 month test of Demand-Responsive
Parking Pricing to keep the downtown core parking space occupancy at no more than 90% and to
encourage alternative forms of transportation.
The changes included:
· Keeping the current prices for April, May, September, October and November.
· 50% higher fees in January, February, March, June, July, August and December.
· Maintain availability of current low-cost parking options
On August 1, 2016 the Aspen City Council approved the continuation of the Demand-
Responsive Parking Prices.
At a Council Work Session on April 2, 2018 The Parking Services Department presented a plan
for new parking plans for the summer of 2018. All plans were accepted by council.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen Parking Services Department introduced Demand-Responsive Parking Pricing
to help reduce car traffic and congestion in the core of Aspen during the high volume times.
P256
IX.a
2
The overall goal of the pricing was four-fold:
1. To reduce car traffic coming into Aspen each day.
2. To cut down on congestion in town with cars searching for a parking space. The rule of
thumb is that on a busy day 30% of the traffic is circling looking for a parking space.
3. To have no more than 90% parking occupancy on the streets in the core of Aspen. This
would result in the availability of 1-2 spaces at any given time on each block face.
4. To increase transit, carpool, pedestrian and bicycle trips and to encourage parking by
those who must drive in the parking garage, at the Brush Creek Intercept lot or in the
residential zones, instead of the downtown core.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Free 15: The City of Aspen Parking Services Department will allow 15 minutes free parking
once a day per vehicle. The hope is this 15 minutes will be used to run a quick errand that the
citizens need to get accomplished.
People will be able to go to any meter on the street and get a receipt to display in their car for 15
minutes of parking with no payment necessary. If the vehicle needs more than 15 minutes
parking the person will need to buy additional time in their normal way.
· The parking receipt is required to be displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle
· Purchased parking of 30 minutes or more does not include an additional 15 minutes of
parking
· The 15 minutes free parking in only available for short-term needs
· There is no grace period with the 15 minute free parking
· Each vehicle can only get the Free 15 once a day
The mobile apps will only be allowed to purchase parking at a minimum of 1 hour at this time.
When our mobile app technology improves, which should be sometime in the last quarter of
2018 we should be able to offer the FREE 15 option through the mobile apps.
Performance Pricing: The Parking Services Department is recommending that the hourly
pricing be broken down as follows:
· 10am-10:59am and 3pm-5:59pm: Lower rate
· 11am-2:59pm: Higher rate
Hourly Pricing
Our recommendation is to go to a fixed hourly rate based on time of day and time of season.
P257
IX.a
3
Current Pricing
Off Season Peak Season
1st Hour $2.00 $3.00
2nd Hour $3.00 $4.50
3rd Hour $4.00 $6.00
4th Hour $5.00 $7.50
Proposed Off Season Pricing Proposed Peak Season Pricing
Time of day Per Hour Time of day Per Hour
10am-10:59am $2.00 Per Hour 10am-10:59am $4.00 Per Hour
11am-2:59pm $4.00 Per Hour 11am-2:59pm $6.00 Per Hour
3:00pm-5:59pm $2.00 Per Hour 3:00pm-5:59pm $4.00 Per Hour
Peak Season, Off Season: Move the month of September to Peak Season Pricing.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Our goal would be to move another 5%-7% of the vehicles out of the core and with the 15
minute free parking being offered and also offering off peak hours of parking at a lower price the
revenue for the test is unknown. We expect a small increase in revue during the 4 month test.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Parking management and pricing are integral elements of the City’s overall Transportation
Implementation plan, designed as a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage the use
of alternatives forms of transportation, thereby reducing congestion, improving air quality and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Aspen.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Aspen City Council approve a change to the fee ordinance for parking
rates in the commercial core starting June 1, 2018.
This includes:
· Free 15
· Parking pricing to vary by time of day
P258
IX.a
4
· Flat hourly rates
· Off Season and Peak Season pricing
ALTERNATIVES:
Aspen City council could agree to accept parts of the proposed plan or ask staff to analyze
different options for parking prices to help reduce congestion in town.
PROPOSED MOTION:
I move to approve Ordinance No.10 Series of 2018
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P259
IX.a
P260
IX.a
P261
IX.a
P262
IX.a
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tyler Christoff, Deputy Director of Utilities
THRU: Jim True, City Attorney; Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
DATE OF MEMO: May 8, 2018
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2018
RE: Ordinance #11, Series of 2018 - Government Lot 20: Water Service
Agreement, Second Reading
_____________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is requested to conduct a public hearing and approve on
second reading an ordinance approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a
Water Service Agreement (“WSA”) with the owner of Government Lot 20 (“Lot 20”), which has
received County approval for two single family homes.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On April 30, Council approved Ordinance No. 11, series of
2018, on first reading. In 2003, the prior owner of Lot 20 applied for, but was denied, a water
service agreement. The previous owner had approvals to build a 9,400 square foot single family
home with a 400 square foot caretaker’s unit. Council’s denial of the water service application
in that case was due in part to Council’s desire to immediately annex the property and the
landowner’s refusal to agree to immediate annexation.
BACKGROUND: Aspen’s home rule charter, adopted in 1970, requires an ordinance in order to
extend water service beyond City boundaries. Government lot 20 sits off the end of 2nd Street, on
West Cooper Avenue and is surrounded by Little Cloud subdivision properties. The property is
outside of Aspen City limits. The property owner has received approval from the County to build
two single-family homes on the lot. (BOCC Resolution 054-2016). The County approvals permit
9,300 of floor area on the lot, with no more than 3,000 square feet for the smaller residence and
no more than 6,300 square feet for the second residence. The applicant is proposing that the
larger of the two homes be 8,200 square feet, with 6,300 square feet above grade, 1,350 square
feet below grade, and a 550 square foot garage. The smaller home is proposed to be 3,500 square
feet with 2,200 square feet above grade, 800 square feet below grade, and a 500 square foot
garage. These improvements are consistent with the 2017 Pitkin County land use approval for
this project.
The Little Cloud Subdivision is directly adjacent to the subject property and is served by City
water via an extraterritorial water service agreement.
DISCUSSION: The applicant seeks water service from the City of Aspen and has
committed to abandon an existing well on the property according to City and State
P263
IX.b
2
standards within 60 days upon receipt of a Water Service Agreement approval. This
proposed agreement provides the applicant with no more than 7.0 equivalent customer units
(ECUs), and a volume of treated water to the subject property of less than 2.75 acre-feet per year.
The Owner, at his own cost, will construct the water main and associated facilities in accordance
with the plans and specifications and the construction schedule outlined in the attached Exhibit
D. These proposed improvements include approximately 200 feet of 8” ductile iron pipe, a fire
hydrant and associated appurtenances. No construction shall occur between November 1 and
April 1 without written approval of the City Water Department. Additionally, as a condition of
the WSA the owner has agreed to the following:
a. To follow current City construction mitigation regulations, including receiving a
CMP review and permit, including the payment of applicable permit fees.
b. To follow current City Urban Runoff management plan requirements1.
c. To follow the City's Water Policy Resolution (Resolution No. 5, (Series of 1993)),
as amended, and water conservation ordinances including the City’s Water Efficient
Landscaping Standards, codified in Chapter 25.30 of the City’s Municipal Code.
d. That any future demolition of either home will subject that lot(s) to the Code
requirements in place at that time.
The City applies guidance, conservation programing, and regulation to uniformly manage
Aspen’s water resources. This community based management practice is considered while
reviewing impacts of new water service applications adjacent to Aspen’s service boundary. City
staff have determined that current infrastructure, augmented by the applicant can provide water
service to the property.
Furthermore, the proposed Little Cloud Lot 20 development is surrounded by Aspen water
service territory on both the north and south sides of the parcel. The City of Aspen applies
uniform conservation standards for all water customers and, in turn, enjoys the benefits of
holistically managing the community’s water resource. This community-minded approach
allows our customers to collectively react to drought effectively magnifying our impact.
Discrepancy in conservation regulations between this property and other nearby City water users
can create functional and aesthetic differences during drought conditions. Accordingly, Staff
believes it is in the best interest of the City to supply water to this property and subject these
residents to the same conservation practices as the surrounding properties.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The applicant has reimbursed the City’s consultants and
staff for time already involved, and to be involved, in preparing and reviewing the WSA. In
1 There has been one change to the WSA since first reading regarding the language requiring the applicant
to follow the current city urban runoff management plan requirements, in response to the applicant’s
concern regarding site-specific constraints. This issue has been discussed with the Engineering
department and they have reached a workable solution.
P264
IX.b
3
addition, the lot owners will, at their cost, obtain and record the needed easements for water
system infrastructure. The tap fees, payment in lieu of water rights, and well system
development fees are provided for in the WSA. Additionally, the owner will design and construct
the additional, upsized and/or upgraded water transmission and distribution mains, lines,
associated facilities and internal distribution lines for the Project in accordance with and subject
to the City's design, materials and construction specifications and approval, at Owner's own
expense.
The City has proposed the following impact fee structure:
Little Cloud Proposed Impact Fees
Fee House 1 House 2
School Land Dedication Fee $16,031.68 $15,518.06
TDM/Air Quality $3,843.00 $1,830.00
Park $34,335.00 $16,350.00
City Affordable Housing* $237,756.78 $83,301.64
Total $291,966.46 $116,999.70
*The current affordable housing fees for development in the City (calculated at Category 3 rate)
would be $418,974.02 for house 1 and $147,143.83 for house 2.
The County is also requiring the Applicant pay a total of $75,000 for affordable housing
mitigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts of the vested development
rights that were granted by the County in 2016 were considered in that approval process. The
WSA also includes a provision that development of these lots will comply with the City’s Urban
Runoff Management Plan and Construction Mitigation regulations whether or not annexation
occurs, which serves to minimize the impacts to the local environment.
CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY RESOLUTIONS: Resolution No. 5 (Series of 1993)
(“Resolution No. 5”) and subsequently amended by Resolution No. 49 (Series of 1993) provides
guidance in providing water service outside of the City boundaries, and identifies
implementation steps. Staff has determined that the service to be provided under the Water
Service Agreement meets the requirements of Resolution No. 5. The City has sufficient water
and water treatment capacity to provide the new or expanded service without jeopardizing water
reserves and the treatment facilities. The water service to be provided will not result in an
operational financial deficit nor will the required capital costs, if any, be borne by the City.
A dedication of water rights is not provided for; instead, the lot owners will make a payment in
lieu of water rights for additional service.
P265
IX.b
4
Resolution No. 5 also requires consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and
an agreement to annex the served property if requested by the City. The applicant has addressed
the proposed development’s consistency with the AACP and staff agrees that the development is
consistent with the AACP. The annexation provision in the proposed WSA provides for
annexation of the property upon 90 days’ notice to the property owner. Staff is supportive of this
annexation provision.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council is requested to adopt on second reading Ordinance No.
, Series of 2018, approving the Lot 20 WSA and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute a WSA with the owner of Lot 20, in substantially the form provided with this memo and
attached as Exhibit A to the Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council may decline to authorize a Water Service Agreement. If
Council does so, the applicant may use an existing well right to provide water to the property.
Use of these individual water rights does not obligate the property to participate in community
water conservation programming. This alternative may create a discontinuity between water use
and conservation between this application and adjacent properties served by City water.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2018, approving a
Water Service Agreement with owner of Government Lot 20, in substantially the form attached
as Exhibit A, subject to final approval by the City Attorney.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: _______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
- Exhibit A Proposed Water Service Agreement (without Exhibits)
- Exhibit B Ordinance
- Exhibit C Proposed Construction
P266
IX.b
ORDINANCE NO. 11
Series of 2018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 20 COMMONLY KNOWN AS 333 S. SECOND STREET, FOR
PROVISION OF TREATED WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
WHEREAS, Lot 20 Little Cloud, LLC submitted an Application for Water Service to the
City Water Department, requesting that extraterritorial water service from the City to serve two
single-family residences on the property described as Tract A of Parcel A of Government Lot 20
Subdivision Exemption according to the plat thereof filed January 8, 1993 in Plat Book 30 at
Page 23, Pitkin County, Colorado, and otherwise known as 333 South Second Street, the final
plat of which project was approved by Pitkin County by Resolution No. 054-2016 and recorded
at Reception No. 631045.
WHEREAS, the property to be served is located in Pitkin County, and not within the City
limits of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, Section 25.12.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that any extension
of City water service outside the Corporate limits of the City of Aspen shall be made pursuant to
an agreement with the City and in accordance with the City of Aspen water main extension
policy and, further, that the City may grant water service only upon a determination that no
conflict exists between the best interests of the City and the prospective water use, and that the
City may impose such contract, water rights dedication and bond requirements as it deems
necessary to safeguard the best interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the proposed Water Service Agreement will
comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado (the
"Code"), and the expanded service will comply with the requirements of the City’s Water
P267
IX.b
2
Service Extension Policy, which permits extension of City water service extraterritorially only
upon demonstration that such extension will meet the policy goals and requirements of
Resolution No. 5, Series of 1993, as amended (codified at Section 25.12.020(b) of the Aspen
Municipal Code, as the same may be further amended from time to time, and referred to here as
“Resolution No. 5”); and
WHEREAS, City Council must make a determination that the proposed water service
extension complies with the above policies and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review with City staff the
proposed extension of water service to Applicant’s property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Aspen hereby determines that the
proposed provision of City water service to serve two single family homes on Government Lot
20 outside the City limits of the City of Aspen as set forth in the Water Service Agreement, is in
the best interest of the City, and complies with requirements of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado (the "Code"), and with the requirements of the City’s Water Service Extension
Policy and Resolution No. 5, series of 1993, and the City Council approves the Water Service
Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference. All City officials and employees are hereby directed to take such actions as are
necessary and appropriate to fulfill the obligations of the City pursuant to the Water Service
Agreement. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and the Water Director are hereby authorized
and directed to execute the Water Service Agreement and any related documents necessary or
desirable to effectuate the transactions provided for in the Water Service Agreement, provided
P268
IX.b
3
that neither the Water Service Agreement nor any other documents are authorized for execution
until the City Attorney has approved the form thereof.
Section 2. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not
operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of
ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 14th day of May,
2018, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
P269
IX.b
4
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the _____ day of April, 2018.
___________________________
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
City Clerk
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED THIS _______ DAY OF
_______________, 2018.
___________________________
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
City Clerk
P270
IX.b
CITY OF ASPEN
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
This Water Service Agreement is entered into this ______day of ______________,
_____, in Aspen, Colorado, between THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation
and home rule city whose address is 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (hereafter
the "City"), and Lot 20 Little Cloud, LLC a limited liability company, organized under the laws
of Colorado, whose address is 515 W Gillespie St, Aspen, CO 81611, CO, United States
(hereafter "Owner").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates the City of Aspen water system in accordance
with the laws of the State of Colorado, and in accordance with the charter, ordinances, rules,
regulations, policies and resolutions of the City of Aspen, and this Agreement is entered into in
conformity with, and subject to, such charter, and all such ordinances, rules, regulations, policies
and resolutions.
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain real property comprising approximately 0.9
acres situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, and
referred to in this Agreement as the "Subject Property"; and
WHEREAS, water service is provided to the Subject Property by the well described on
Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, Owner seeks to construct two single family residences (the “Project”) on the
Subject Property and wishes to provide for City water for the Project described in Exhibit C
hereto; and
WHEREAS, Owner seeks to obtain municipal water service from the City for the Project
on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located outside the corporate limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, approval for the Project was originally granted by the Board of County
Commissioners for Pitkin County by Resolution No. 054-2016, on July 13, 2016; and
P271
IX.b
- 2 -
WHEREAS, water service for the Project will require construction and installation of
new mains, lines and facilities described in Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "Code"), requires
that the extension of water service outside the boundaries of the City shall be made only pursuant
to a written agreement with the City, that the City shall not be obligated to extend such service,
and may provide such service only upon a determination that it is in the best interests of the City,
and that the City may impose such requirements by agreement as it deems necessary to protect
its best interests; and
WHEREAS, the City's Water Service Extension Policy permits water service extension
only upon demonstration that such extension will meet the policy goals and requirements of
Resolution No. 5 (Series of 1993) as amended [codified at Section 25.12.020(b) of the Aspen
Municipal Code, as the same may be further amended from time to time], including the
requirement that the City must recover its costs associated with such extraterritorial service, and
make a profit; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that this Agreement and all covenants herein are
necessary to comply with the Code and the City's water policies, and will allow the City to
recover its costs of providing such extraterritorial service and make a profit; and
WHEREAS, the City is not hereby representing that it is a regulated public utility, or
holding itself out to the public in general as capable of or intending to provide water service
extraterritorially; and
WHEREAS, the Code provides for the rating of new or expanded water service based on
potential water demand as expressed in equivalent capacity units (hereafter "ECU"); and
WHEREAS, the City desires to encourage the use of raw water supplies for certain
outdoor irrigation where practical and feasible so as to reduce the dependence on treated water
for this purpose and to minimize the costs of providing treated water service to the Project and
the Subject Property, and may provide raw water service to the Subject Property in the future by
mutual agreement of the parties; and
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted its Application for Water Service Extension (the
"Application") and has paid all fees required in connection with the Application. The
Application, and all attachments, addenda and exhibits thereto have been relied upon by the City
in authorizing this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved the Application, and is willing to provide water
service to Owner on the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, the City and Owner agree as follows:
P272
IX.b
- 3 -
PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
1. Water Service to Project and Subject Property. The City hereby agrees to
provide treated water service to the Project and the Subject Property under the terms of this
Agreement in such quantities and to the extent herein provided so as to serve the structures and
uses authorized by Pitkin County as recorded at Reception No. 631045 and attached as Exhibit
E. Owner understands that the City will be the sole provider of raw and treated water to the
Project and the Subject Property, provided, however, that the City shall not be required to supply
water to serve more than 7.0 ECUs, and further provided, that the maximum volume of treated
water the City shall be required to provide to the Project and the Subject Property pursuant to
this Agreement shall not exceed 2.75 acre-feet per year. Only those structures and uses approved
for the Project and the Subject Property may be served under this Agreement. Owner agrees to
abandon the existing well, well permit No. 247825, on the subject property in accordance with
City and State standards within sixty (60) days of execution of this Agreement.
2. Limitation of Time to Provide Water Service. The City's obligation to provide
water service to the Project and the Subject Property, pursuant to this Agreement, shall terminate
if Owner has not completed construction of the additional, upgraded or upsized water
transmission and distribution mains, lines, and related facilities described on Exhibit
D to serve the Project by January 1________, 2023, unless completion of construction is delayed
by force majeure as defined in paragraph 30 below, in which case the deadline shall be extended
by the same number of days as the force majeure delay that prevented completion of
construction.
CONSTRUCTION BY OWNER
3. Mains, Lines and Facilities. Owner will design and construct the water main
extension and associated facilities for the Project in accordance with and subject to the City's
design, materials and construction specifications and approval, at Owner's own expense.
4. Preconstruction Exhibits. The following exhibits concerning the Project have
been prepared by Owner and have been reviewed and relied upon by the City in entering into this
Agreement, and shall not be substantially modified without the City's agreement:
Exhibit A: Property Description
Exhibit B: Description of Existing Facilities
Exhibit C: General description of the Project
Exhibit D: General description of Proposed New Facilities
Exhibit E: Pitkin County Resolution No. 054-2016
P273
IX.b
- 4 -
Exhibit F: Engineering Memo including ECU estimates, amount of outdoor
irrigation,
and fireflow provisions.
5. Final Plans; Preconstruction Meeting. All final plans and specifications for the
new water main and facilities to serve the subject property shall be subject to review and
approval by the City in accordance with the applicable City regulations and permitting process.
No substantial changes shall be made to the approved final plans and specifications without the
City's prior written approval. Owner shall contact the City Water Department at least ten (10)
working days prior to commencement of construction to arrange a preconstruction meeting
between representatives of the Water Department, the Water Department's inspector, and
Owner's engineer and contractor to review the final plans and any minor modifications thereto, to
discuss construction scheduling, the deposit in advance of the City's construction inspection fee,
and any other matters that the parties deem necessary. Owner's registered professional project
engineer shall inspect and certify the design and installation of all water system mains, lines and
facilities to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement.
6. Bond Requirements. Prior to commencement of construction, Owner shall obtain
one or more performance and completion bonds naming the City as a third-party beneficiary
thereof, in the amount of 100% of the water system construction costs (including those
incremental costs, if any, for enlarged or additional facilities requested by the City as provided in
paragraph 3, the portion of the bonding attributable to such incremental costs to be reimbursed
by the City) Such bonds shall be in form acceptable to the City Attorney and shall ensure
completion of and payment for the construction, and hold the City harmless for payment to the
contractor or any subcontractors, materialmen, or others involved in the construction of the water
main and associated facilities, or for the provision of materials therefor. Owner shall assign to
the City all warranties from materialmen and suppliers which warrant the water system improve-
ments constructed by Owner free and clear of defects for a period of two (2) years from the date
of completion construction. In addition, Owner shall obtain and assign to the City (in form
approved by the City Attorney) a maintenance or warranty bond equal to one hundred percent
(100%) of the water service system construction costs (including those incremental costs for
enlarged or additional facilities to be borne by the City, the portion of bonding attributable to
such incremental costs to be reimbursed by the City), ensuring the proper condition and
operation of such water service system for a period of two (2) years from the date of acceptance
of the system by the City.
7. Payment in Lieu. The parties acknowledge that it is the policy of the City, if
water rights are not transferred to it by a party seeking extraterritorial water service, to require
payment in lieu of water rights sufficient in quantity and quality to provide the water required for
the requested water service. The payment in lieu amount will be determined in accordance with
and in the amount as set forth in the Code at the time of building permit application, such amount
at the time of this Agreement being $600.00 per ECU.
P274
IX.b
- 5 -
8. Construction. Upon completion of the prerequisites described in paragraphs 3
through 7 above, Owner shall proceed with due diligence to construct the water main and
associated facilities in accordance with the plans and specifications and the construction
schedule. No construction shall occur between November 1 and April 1 without written
approval of the City Water Department. An automated meter reading system shall be installed.
a. Owner agrees to follow current City construction mitigation regulations,
including receiving a CMP review and permit, including the payment of
applicable permit fees.
b. Owner agrees to follow current City Urban Runoff management plan
requirements for the site as agreed to by the applicant’s engineer and City’s
Engineering department.
c. Any future demolition of either home will subject that lot(s) to the Code
requirements in place at that time.
"Pretapping" is defined as connection of an individual service line to a main or
distribution line when the main or distribution line is installed. Should Owner wish to pretap the
distribution lines, a Pretapping Agreement will be required by the City.
9. Fees. Owner shall timely pay all fees imposed by the City in connection with
reviewing and approving this Agreement, the design drawings and construction plans, as well as
construction inspection fees. Owner shall also be responsible for timely acquiring and paying for
all permits and permit fees from entities other than the City (such as Pitkin County and/or other
regulatory agencies) necessary for construction of the mains, lines and associated facilities.
a. Additional mitigation and impact fees shall be as follows:
Fee Little Cloud House 1 Little Cloud House 2
School Land Dedication Fee $16,031.68 $15,518.06
TDM/Air Quality $3,843.00 $1,830.00
Park $34,335.00 $16,350.00
City Affordable Housing $237,756.78 $83,301.64
Total $291,966.46 $116,999.70
10. Inspection of Construction. Construction must be inspected by the City's
engineers or other designated personnel prior to burial or final installation. Owner shall give the
City reasonable advance notice when the mains, lines and/or associated facilities are ready for
burial or installation, and the City's engineer or agent shall inspect said mains, lines and/or
associated facilities within twenty-four (24) hours of such notice. Owner shall timely pay all
construction inspection fees.
P275
IX.b
- 6 -
11. Easements. Owner shall obtain at its own cost and convey in perpetuity to the
City any required as-built non-exclusive easements, in form acceptable to the City Attorney, for
water mains, lines, tanks and other water facilities, along with all necessary access easements for
maintenance and repair purposes ("easements"). All mains, lines, and, other utilities shall be
installed pursuant to City of Aspen Water Distribution and Engineering Standards. Each party
shall be solely responsible for any injury or damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, to
persons or property arising from its own negligent acts or omissions occurring on or resulting
from its use or occupation of any easement premises. Nothing contained herein, however, shall
constitute or result in any waiver or diminishment of any defense or limitation available to the
City under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act or other applicable law.
12. Testing - Conveyance - As-Built Drawings. Upon completion of construction and
before any water is delivered pursuant to this Agreement, the water main extension shall be
tested and, upon approval by the City, conveyed (excluding individual service lines) with all
necessary non-exclusive easements to the City, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by
deed in form acceptable to the City Attorney. Performance and payment bonds provided by
Owner pursuant to paragraph 6 above shall be adjusted to reflect the final actual construction
costs. The maintenance or warranty bond required by paragraph 6 above must be in place and
must reflect the actual construction costs prior to the City's acceptance of any main, line or
facility. Two hard copies of all as-built drawings, including the water system and all other
utilities, and a saved version of the drawings in ArcView format shall be given to the Water
Department in the following format: 2 hard copies (on standard 24” x 36” sheets) with the
engineer’s stamp and signature; labeled “As-Constructed”; 1 disk with the ArcView drawing in
both .mxd and PDF formats; and, as-built survey shots in .mxd form.
WATER SERVICE
13. Treated Water Service. Upon completion of construction and acceptance of the
water distribution and transmission mains, lines, associated facilities and easements by the City,
the City will provide treated water service to the Subject Property to no more than the total
number of ECUs provided for by the final approved design drawings, provided that the
maximum volume of water the City shall be required to supply each year shall not exceed the
amount (in acre-feet) set forth in paragraph 1 above. Any change in the treated water service
requirements for the Subject Property will require approval by the City, and amendment of this
Agreement.
The treated water to be delivered by the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement may
be used for all lawful in-building municipal purposes and for fire protection, swimming pools
and outdoor irrigation in accordance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Standards,
codified in Chapter 25.30 of the City’s Municipal Code, as may be amended. The maximum
amount of outdoor irrigation using treated water shall not exceed 7,500 square feet on the
Subject Property. No raw water irrigation shall be allowed in the absence of a raw water
agreement between the City and Owner, or as otherwise authorized in writing by the City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, all water use will be consistent with the City's Water Policy
P276
IX.b
- 7 -
Resolution (Resolution No. 5, (Series of 1993), as amended, and water conservation ordinances
including the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Standards.
14. Tap Fees and System Development Charges - Computation and Payment;
Scheduling of Taps. All tap fees for treated water service herein provided shall be assessed
utilizing the City's prevailing applicable tap fee at the time of application for a building permit
for the structure for which service is sought. No water service shall be provided to any structure
absent payment of the appropriate tap fee and any applicable hookup charges. Tap fees and
hookup charges shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Unless a Pretapping
Agreement has been executed by the Owner, the City Water Department shall determine sched-
uling of all physical taps or connections to the main lines.
Owner shall also pay to the City a well system development charge in the amount of $400
per ECU. The total well system development charge for the entire Project on the Subject
Property must be paid in full before any delivery of water will be made to the Project by the City.
15. Service Lines. Each service line shall be metered in accordance with the Code at
the sole expense of Owner.
16. Limitations on Provision of Water Service. This Agreement is only for the supply
of treated water service as herein described and no expansion of uses, connections, or water
service beyond those set forth herein and in the Exhibits hereto is in any way authorized by this
Agreement. The City is not by this Agreement prejudging, certifying or guaranteeing its ability
to provide treated water service to any use or structure except as provided herein, nor may this
Agreement be used as evidence of approval of any land use requests, or as evidence of approval
of water service for any land use request, except as provided herein.
17. Raw Water Service. The City may, at its election provide water for irrigation
purposes on the Subject Property to the extent it is willing and able to do so utilizing its existing
ditch system. The City shall be the sole provider of raw or treated water for irrigation pursuant to
this Agreement, and unless this Agreement is amended, neither the Owner nor any subsequent
owner or user of the Subject Property will develop or utilize independent raw water systems
and/or water rights or wells within the Subject Property.
18. Service Subject to the City's Charter, Codes, Rules, Regulations and Policies.
Owner and its successors in interest shall be bound by, and all water service provided hereunder
shall be subject to, all applicable provisions of the Charter of the City of Aspen and the Aspen
Municipal Code, as well as all applicable rules, policies or regulations of the City now in effect
or as may be hereafter adopted.
19. Rules Regarding Water Use. Owner agrees to adopt all provisions set forth herein
as rules and regulations governing the use of water on the Subject Property and for the Project,
and agrees that this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto shall be recorded as covenants running
with the land and shall be as fully enforceable on the Subject Property as if the same were
situated inside the City. Owner agrees to assist the City in every manner reasonably possible to
P277
IX.b
- 8 -
enforce the City's ordinances, rules and regulations made to protect purity, safety and supply of
the water delivered pursuant to this Agreement, including curtailment during times of shortage,
elimination of any potential cross-connections, and the utilization of water conservation devices
as set forth in the Code. Owner also agrees to prohibit all unnecessary or unreasonable waste of
water on the Subject Property, and to make reasonable efforts to enforce such prohibition. The
unreasonable or unnecessary waste of water shall be defined as set forth in the Code.
20. Source of Water Supply. The parties to this Agreement recognize that the City's
water supply is dependent upon sources from which the supply is variable in quantity and quality
and beyond the City's reasonable control; therefore, no liability shall attach to the City under this
Agreement on account of any failure to accurately anticipate availability of water supply or
because of an actual failure of water supply due to inadequate runoff, poor quality, failure of
infrastructure, or other occurrence beyond the City's reasonable control.
21. No Guarantee of Water Quality, Quantity or Pressure. The City makes no
promise or guarantee of pressure, quantity or quality of water supply for any purpose, including
fire suppression, except as specifically provided herein or as is required by applicable federal,
state and local laws and regulations. The City agrees to treat its water to meet all mandatory
local, state and federal potable water standards and to exercise reasonable care and foresight in
furnishing water hereunder equal in quality to that furnished inside the City.
22. Property Rights in Water. All water furnished under this Agreement is provided
on a contractual basis for use on the Subject Property as described in this Agreement, and all
property rights to the water to be furnished hereunder are reserved to the City. Water service
provided under this Agreement does not include any right to make a succession of uses of such
water, and upon completion of the primary use of the water on the Subject Property, all dominion
over the water provided reverts completely to the City. Subject to the prohibition against waste
and any other limitations on water use imposed in this Agreement, Owner shall have no
obligation to create any particular volume of return flow from the water furnished under this
Agreement. Owner agrees to cooperate with the City in measuring and reporting return flows to
the extent such measuring and reporting are required by the Colorado State Engineer or his
agents.
P278
IX.b
- 9 -
VIOLATIONS
23. Enforcement by the City. The parties to this Agreement recognize and agree that
the City has the right to enforce its rules, policies, regulations, and ordinances and the terms of
this Agreement by the disconnection of the supply of water provided hereunder. Additionally, in
the event that Owner or any user who has purchased or leased a portion of the Project or the
Subject Property violates the rules, policies, regulations or ordinances of the City, the City shall
have all remedies available to it at law or in equity, or as provided in the Code. Without limiting
the foregoing rights and remedies, Owner agrees that the City may also enforce such rules,
policies, regulations or ordinances by injunction, the parties agreeing that the damages to the
City from such violations are irreparable, and there is no adequate remedy at law for such
violations. The City shall be free from any liability arising out of the exercise of its rights under
this paragraph.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph 23, if an individual owner or
lessee within the Subject Property (other than Owner) commits a violation with regard to water
delivered to his owned or leased property, only that individual owner's or lessee's water service
shall be disconnected, and enforcement actions will be directed toward that violator, and not
toward those who are not violating this Agreement.
TERMINATION
24. Termination by Agreement. Except as provided to the contrary herein, this
Agreement shall only be terminated in writing by mutual agreement and the term of this
Agreement shall continue until such termination.
25. Termination if Illegal. The parties agree, intend and understand that the
obligations imposed by this Agreement are conditioned upon being consistent with state and
federal laws and the Code. The parties further agree that if any provision of this Agreement
becomes in its performance inconsistent with the Code or state or federal laws, or is declared
invalid, the parties shall in good faith negotiate to modify this Agreement so as to make it
consistent with the Code or state or federal laws as appropriate, and if, after a reasonable amount
of time, their negotiations are unsuccessful, this Agreement shall terminate. The City agrees that
its contractual obligations hereunder will not be impaired by any amendment to the Code unless
such amendment (or impairment) is mandated by state or federal law.
P279
IX.b
- 10 -
ANNEXATION
26. Annexation. Upon the written request of the City, at its sole discretion, Owner or
its successors in interest, shall petition for and/or consent to the annexation of the Project and the
Subject Property, or those portions thereof as deemed appropriate by the City, to the City of
Aspen at such time(s) as determined by the City, upon at least a 90 day notice to Owner. Such
annexation(s) shall not divest or diminish any land use approvals or development rights awarded
by Pitkin County for the Project or the Subject Property, to the extent such approvals and rights
are legally vested on behalf of Owner prior to annexation to the City. Land use approvals or
development rights not vested in accordance with law prior to the annexation shall be subject to
the terms, conditions, and regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code upon annexation. Failure of
Owner or its successors in interest to commence and complete annexation proceedings as herein
required shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement authorizing the City to terminate the
same. Alternatively, failure of Owner or its successors in interest to commence and complete
annexation as herein required shall authorize the City to commence and/or complete such annex-
ation on their behalf, in which event the City shall charge, and Owner and its successors in
interest shall pay, all costs and fees associated with such annexation.
Notwithstanding annexation of all or any part of the Subject Property, this Agreement
will remain in full force and effect.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
27. No Regulated Public Utility Status. The parties agree that by this Agreement the
City does not become a regulated public utility compelled to serve other parties similarly
situated. Owner agrees that neither it nor its successors in interest shall at any time petition the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission to acquire jurisdiction over any water rate set by the City.
The parties agree that in the event the City is held to be a public utility by virtue of this
Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect.
28. No Waiver. Failure of a party hereto to exercise any right hereunder shall not be
deemed a waiver of any such right and shall not affect the right of such party to exercise at some
future time said right or any other right it may have hereunder.
29, Notices. All notices required to be given shall be deemed given upon deposit in
the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, properly addressed to the person or entity to
whom directed at his or its address shown herein, or at such other address as shall be given by
notice pursuant to this paragraph. Copies of such notices shall also be sent in the same manner
to the City Attorney, City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Any party
may change the address to which notice is provided by giving notice in accordance with this
paragraph.
30. Force Majeure. No party shall be held liable for a failure to perform hereunder
due to wars, strikes, acts of God, natural disasters, drought or other similar occurrences outside
of the control of that party.
P280
IX.b
- 11 -
31. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be or become invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby, and each and every
provision shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
32. Amendment; Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor the obligations of either
party hereto, nor the right to receive water service hereunder, may be amended or assigned
without the written consent of the parties hereto, provided, however, that subsequent owners of
any portion of the Subject Property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and shall be entitled to receive water service pursuant to this Agreement without
amendment of this Agreement.
33. Entire Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement,
including its Exhibits, supersedes and controls all prior written and oral agreements and
representations of the parties and is the total integrated agreement among the parties governing
the matters provided for herein.
34. Interpretation. Titles and paragraph headings shall not be used to alter the
meaning of this Agreement.
35. Binding Agreement - Recording. This Agreement is binding upon the parties
hereto, their successors and assigns, and any sale of the Project, the Subject Property, or any
portion of either shall be subject to this Agreement as provided herein. This Agreement,
including the Exhibits hereto, shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and
shall impose covenants running with the land upon all of the Subject Property. Deeds to
subsequent owners shall provide notice of this Agreement and the obligations contained herein.
36.Governing Law; Venue; Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement and the rights and
obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for all actions arising under this Agreement shall be Pitkin
County, Colorado. In the event legal remedies must be pursued to resolve any dispute or conflict
regarding the terms of this Agreement or the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs incurred in pursuing such remedies, including
expert witness fees and reasonable attorneys' fees.
37. Authorization of Signatures. The parties acknowledge and represent to each other
that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been
performed and that the persons signing for each party have been duly authorized to do so.
38. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed using counterpart signature pages,
with the same force and effect as if all parties signed on the same signature page.
P281
IX.b
- 12 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date and year
first above written.
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
ATTEST: A Municipal Corporation and
Home Rule City
By____________________________ By_____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Aspen City Attorney
LOT 20 LITTLE CLOUD, LLC
a Colorado limited liability corporation
ATTEST:
By____________________________ By_____________________________
Title:________________________ Title________________________
P282
IX.b
EXHIBIT C – Proposed Construction
- Two single-family homes
- Home 1
o Approximately 8,250 sqft gross
o 6,300 sqft FAR
- Home 2
o Approximately 3,644 sqft gross
o 3,000 sqft FAR
- Irrigation
o Approximately 1,200 sqft of lawn and 5,000 sqft of trees and shrubs on a drip
system, per home. Total of 2,400 sqft of lawn and 10,000 sqft of trees and shrubs
P283
IX.b