HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202109201
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 20, 2021
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
WEBEX
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2557 816 2650
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2557 816 2650
Enter Password: 81611
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Park Avenue Pedestrian Improvement
I.B.Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
I.C.Next Generation Commission Discussion
I.D.Wheeler Advisory Board Recommendation Discussion
I.E.Council Board Reports and Council Updates
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM : Pete Rice, PE, Engineering Division Manager
Carly McGowan, Project Manager I
THRU: Tricia Aragon, PE, City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: September 13, 2021
MEETING DATE: September 20, 2021
RE: Park Ave Improvements
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council’s direction to proceed with detailed plans for
improvements on Park Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
Over the years, the City has considered ways to improve pedestrian safety in the Park and
Midland area. Residents and other stakeholders have participated in a public process, starting in
2008, related to safety and connectivity in the neighborhood. Council decided in 2008 to not
pursue modifications to traffic patterns.
The Park Avenue corridor sees heavy pedestrian, bike, bus, and vehicular traffic throughout the
year and these numbers are anticipated to be on the rise. Engineering has begun to incorporate
these substandard areas into planning efforts in order to provide safe corridors to the traveling
public with measures implemented in the Right-of-Way. This system currently relies on
redevelopment of existing properties for implementation.
With continued concerns from the neighborhood on pedestrian safety and vehicle interactions,
Council directed staff at the end of 2019 to revisit safety and pedestrian improvements to the
area. In July of 2020, Council directed staff to review options for improvements in this
neighborhood and to conduct outreach among neighbors.
At the most recent worksession in January of 2021, Council was presented safety improvement
measures which included the benefits and complications for each. These safety improvement
measures and associated information can be found in Appendix A. Staff also presented a
summary of extensive community outreach and a traffic study of the neighborhood performed.
2
2
Council directed staff to proceed with a schematic of a two-way street on Park Ave with an
attached sidewalk along the east side of the street as well as intersection improvements at Park
Ave and E Hopkins Ave.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is presenting three components of work to be addressed in the neighborhood, which are
as follows:
1. Sidewalk connection along Park Ave
2. Intersection improvements at Park and Hopkins
3. Stormwater improvements along Park Ave
Sidewalk Connection Along Park Ave
Following Council direction, Staff has proceeded with a preliminary plan for a sidewalk
installation along the east side of Park Ave based on the schematic drawing in Figure 1 that was
presented in January of 2021. This preliminary layout and grading plan is located in Appendix B.
The most constraining element of the site is the restricted right-of-way width. To accomplish a
connected sidewalk along the east side of Park Ave, the roadway is proposed to be re-aligned
slightly to the west. At most, this realignment will be no more than five feet. By shifting the
alignment of the road, the full right-of-way width can be utilized in the most constricted areas.
Figure 1 Two-way street with sidewalk along the east side of Park Ave.
The narrowest section of right-of-way is highlighted in the Figure 2 below. The entire right-of-
way width is 26 ft, which can be compared to a typical City of Aspen right-of-way which can be
compared to the standard residential right-of-way width of 72 ft. The full survey showing
property lines can be found in Appendix C.
3
3
Figure 2 Narrow right-of-way along Park Ave.
Due to the narrow nature of the right-of-way along Park Ave, the proposed roadway and
sidewalk will be narrowed.
• The sidewalk is proposed to be installed with a width of three feet at its narrowest.
When possible, the sidewalk will meet the City standard of five feet.
• The roadway will narrow from 12’ travel lanes to 10’ travel lanes. The existing roadway
follows a similar pattern. Currently, the travel lanes vary between 10.5’ and 12’. The
proposed plan creates a smoother transition between the wide roadway section and the
narrower section.
Both design elements are shown in the Preliminary Grading and Layout Plan in Appendix B.
The road realignment and sidewalk installation are depicted in figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3 Existing roadway configuration Figure 4 Proposed roadway configuration
Park Ave
325 Park Ave
322 Park Ave
N
4
4
The re-alignment of the roadway will require the removal of approximately five feet of
landscaping in the right-of-way along the west side of the road. Along some parts of the road,
the impact to landscaping will be much less. Figure 5 shows the current roadway alignment
compared to the proposed roadway alignment.
Figure 5 Park Ave current vs new road alignment
Intersection Improvements at Park and Hopkins
The intersection at Park and Hopkins, which is shown in Figure 6, is a popular intersection that
incoroporates the East Hopkins trail and therefore connects pedestrians and bikers between
the east end and the downtown core. Community outreach in 2020 showed that the
intersection felt unsafe to pedestrians and bikers. Staff hired a consultant to perform a traffic
study on the neighborhood and found that stop signs were warranted at the intersection to
better control interactions between folks travelling in different directions and via different
modes of transportation.
Park Ave
N
315/317 Park Ave
322 Park Ave
5
5
The stop signs have received positive feedback from the neighborhood and the travelling
public. As part of the detailed plan for Park Ave, staff will look at further improvements to the
intersection including the following:
1. Realignment and regrading of the trail terminus
2. Raised pedestrian crossing
3. Bus stop improvements
Figure 6 – East Hopkins/ Park Avenue intersection
Stormwater Improvements along Park Ave
The Smuggler-Hunter Drainage Basin Master Plan contains plans for a robust network of
stormwater infrastructure in the east end of Aspen. The Master Plan includes storm
infrastructure in the northern block of Park Ave to address stormwater conveyance as well as
water quality treatment. Currently, the stormwater is managed by an undersized drywell and
lacks water quality treatment. Infrastructure improvements would include the installation of a
24” reinforced concrete pipe, water quality treatment mechanisms, and an improved outfall into
the river. When installed, this infrastructure will act as a crucial link in the greater network and
will directly serve a large portion of the east end including Park Circle, Park Ave, and Midland Ave.
Detailed plans for Park Ave will include the design of stormwater conveyance and water quality
features along the northern block of Park Ave between Midland and Hopkins.
ALTERNATIVES:
If Council decides not to pursue improvements on Park Ave, the alternatives in Appendix A are
viable options that can be re-explored. If no improvements are made to the Park Ave corridor,
the travelling public will continue to share a constricted roadway. Pedestrians will not have a
separate space from bikers, vehicles, and buses, therefore putting them at risk in the street.
6
6
Additionally, the drainage concerns on Park Ave and Midland Ave will continue to be unresolved,
creating both an environmental hazard and a public safety hazard.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The City of Aspen is continuously working towards a more sustainable, environmentally-friendly
city, and the Park Ave Improvement Project supports that vision. By installing infrastructure for
community members and visitors to comfortably and safely walk and bike around town, vehicle
trips are reduced. The environmental impact of the sidewalk and intersection improvements will
be positive.
The positive environmental impact from the stormwater infrastructure improvements is two
fold. Firstly, the improvements will incorporate water quality treatment. Currently, stormwater
from Park Circle, Park Ave, and Midland Ave runs off from roadways and other impervious areas
with no treatment. The Roaring Fork River adjacent to these roadways is in critical condition and
water quality treatment is an important step for river health. Secondly, the neighborhood
currently lacks stormwater conveyance capacity. In the event of an environmental disaster such
as a flood, the proposed infrastructure will help protect the east end of Aspen from catastrophe.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Funding for design has been appropriated in the 2021 budget. Funding for construction in 2023
is included in the Proposed Capital Asset Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends pursuing detailed design of the following:
1. Critical sidewalk connection along Park Ave
2. Stormwater improvements along Park Ave
3. Intersection improvements at Park and Hopkins
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A – Previously Presented Alternatives
ATTACHMENT B – Preliminary Grading and Layout Plan
ATTACHMENT C – Park Ave Survey
7
ATTACHMENT A – Previous Options for Consideration
8
Anticipated Impacts
1
*option requires additional design
Completing sidewalk connections on Park Ave with two-way traffic*
Pros:
•Improves pedestrian safety and
addresses visibility
•No traffic pattern changes
•Moderate construction impacts
Cons:
•Requires removing existing residential
landscaping in the right-of-way
9
Anticipated Impacts
2
*option requires additional design
One-way Streets* Pros:
•Improves pedestrian safety and addresses
visibility
•Would not require removing existing
residential landscaping in the ROW
•Drainage concerns could be addressed at
this time
Cons:
•Traffic pattern changes may create
additional travel time for residents
•May increase drive speeds without
additional traffic calming measures
•Significant construction impacts
10
Anticipated Impacts
3
*option requires additional design
Improve intersection of Hopkins/ Park and trail drainage*
Pros:
•No changes to landscaping or traffic
patterns
•Increased pedestrian visibility
•Limited construction impacts
Cons:
•Does not address poor pedestrian and
vehicle interaction on Park Avenue
11
Anticipated Impacts
4
Do Nothing
Pros:
•No changes to landscaping or traffic
patterns
•No construction
Cons:
•Does not address poor pedestrian and
vehicle interaction on Park Avenue
12
ATTACHMENT B – Preliminary Grading and Layout Plan
13
CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
970-920-5080
ASPEN, COLORADO
201 N. MILL ST.
CITY OF ASPEN
SHEETPark Avenue and Midland St - Sidewalk and Roadway Installation
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND LAYOUT PLAN
PD-0114
ATTACHMENT C – Park Avenue Survey
15
16
17
18
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: April Long, PE, Clean River Program Manager
PJ Murray, EIT, Project Manager II
THROUGH: Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
MEMO DATE: September 13, 2021
MEETING DATE: September 20, 2021
RE: Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No request of Council. Staff is presenting the findings and
recommendations from the consulting team in the Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
(Attachment A), which will be used as a guiding document in the Clean River Program.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The Clean River Program has identified three major
threats to river health: pollution in stormwater runoff from developed areas, degraded
riparian areas, and low river flows during dry and warm months.
“Riparian area” is the strip of land immediately adjacent to a river or stream. It includes
the floodplain and is typically vegetated, which helps shade, buffer, and protect the stream
from impacts from upstream land uses. Riparian areas are unique and different from
upland areas or aquatic areas (those underwater in the river). They provide physical,
biological, and ecological functions that are critical to stream health and often provide
many social benefits as well. In Aspen, this area is often referred to as the stream margin.
Development of commercial and residential real estate near the Roaring Fork River in
Aspen has resulted in removal, alteration, and degradation of the River’s protective
riparian area. Aside from the obvious impacts that development has on riparian areas,
such as removal of riparian vegetation, it can also cause:
• an increase in pollution from hard surfaces that can now sheet flow into the river
instead of being filtered by thick vegetation;
• an increase in pesticides and fertilizers typically used on lawns that have been
placed where riparian areas were before;
• decreased bank stabilization, increased erosion, and channel modification;
• increased sediment from banks that were previously vegetated;
• simplification of plants allows non-native and invasive species opportunity to
spread;
• lack of shade causes increases in stream temperatures, reducing oxygen available
for aquatic life; and
• decreased species habitat affects the food chain that aquatic life depends upon.
19
For these reasons, degraded riparian areas are linked to water quality problems in the
Roaring Fork River including turbid water, nutrient enrichment, bacterial contamination,
increases in organic matter loads, metals, salts, oil/grease, pesticides, herbicides,
temperature increases, and increased trash and debris transported by stormwater runoff.
Critically, the State of Colorado recently listed the Roaring Fork River through Aspen, as
an Impaired Waterway under the Clean Water Act due to observations of unhealthy
aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. The Riparian Area Assessment and Plan is an
effort to begin addressing degraded riparian areas by assessing the existing condition of
Aspen’s riparian areas and identifying and prioritizing opportunities for protection and
improvement.
DISCUSSION: In 2019, the City contracted with DHM Design, a landscape architecture
firm in Carbondale, to develop a Riparian Area Assessment and Plan. The overarching
goals of the project were to characterize the current condition of the riparian areas in
Aspen and identify and prioritize areas and actions that would provide the most ecological
benefit for improving river health for implementation by the City of Aspen. The final report
is included as Attachment A.
Review of Existing Conditions:
The project was completed in three steps. First, the team provided an assessment and
characterization of the existing riparian condition within Aspen (Attachment A, Section 2).
DHM led a consulting team comprised of hydrologists, biologists, botanists, ecologists to
conduct extensive field and aerial inspection of the riparian areas along the Roaring Fork
River. Using guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s Environmental Integrity Assessment (EIA)
methodology, the team analyzed the field conditions and various other types of data to
characterize the current condition of Aspen’s riparian areas. Factors that can affect the
quality of a riparian area include width, topography (slope), vegetation, invasive species,
soil conditions, management, upstream land uses, flood potential, woody species,
stormwater discharges, etc. Using the EIA, riparian areas along the Roaring Fork were
given a rating using a common letter grading scheme of A – D, with A being “excellent”
and D being “poor – a significant deviation from reference condition”. These
methodologies recognize width, vegetation, and land use as the most significant factors
and therefore receiving the most weight. As a result, the overall score for the riparian
areas in Aspen fall between C- and B+ throughout the planning area, which can be easily
reviewed in a table showing all rankings for each metric or on the GIS layer created for
this project.
Assessment activities performed during this characterization effort indicate that some of
largest impacts to riparian function include:
1. The reduction in the width of vegetated buffers that separate riparian zones from
urban land uses,
2. The high degree of fragmentation of the vegetated buffers that persist, and
3. The expectation that large portions of the riparian zone receive untreated urban
runoff during storm events and snowmelt.
20
Review of Existing Code:
Second, a review of existing studies, completed projects, and City codes and regulations
pertaining to riparian areas within the City was conducted (Attachment A, Section 3).
Sections of Aspen’s municipal code were evaluated in the context of EPA’s National
Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas to identify
existing regulations that may respond in part or in whole to riparian lands preservation,
aquatic environments protections, and surface water quality protections.
The review showed that opportunities for riparian and aquatic ecosystem preservation,
mitigation, or enhancement for the specific objective of water quality protection do exist
within various sections of code related to floodplain development, tree removal,
development in sensitive lands (Stream Margin Review), and the Urban Runoff
Management Plan. However, they generally do not form an explicit or cohesive strategy
identifying water quality protection as an objective of city code. In addition, protections
remain subject to a wide variety of interpretations dependent on the particular makeup or
motivation of approval bodies like planning/zoning committees or town councils, rather
than being institutionalized in code bodies in order to buffer changing short term social or
political influences.
The existing studies provided many specific recommendations for improving and
protecting riparian areas, which were compiled into a list in the appendix of the report.
The primary means for improving and protecting riparian zones as identified by existing
studies and codes included the following:
• Control access points
• Promote action on private property
• Control land uses in riparian corridor
• Implement riparian restoration projects
• Protect high value riparian areas
• Reduce impacts from stormwater runoff
Recommendations:
In the third and final step of the project, the consulting team used the data from the
assessment and reviews to develop a list of recommendations that fall into three major
categories for implementation – policies, programs, and projects. Policy actions are
those regulatory actions that the City could enact to enforce, limit, plan development and
use within the riparian area, as well as preserve, protect and plan for critical areas within
the corridor. Programs are actions that the City could undertake to incentivize best
practices within riparian areas and educate the public about riparian areas. Projects
include the “shovel in the dirt” variety action items.
The analysis and recommendations were presented to a stakeholder group for feedback
and input, which was then used to create a prioritized and actionable list of projects,
policies, and programs for the City to implement in order to improve and protect local
riparian areas (Attachment A, Section 4). Stakeholders were asked to consider and rank
the anticipated effectiveness and feasibility of implementing each recommended action
based on their own perspective as well as legal, socio-political, or financial constraints.
21
Coupling expectations for the relative effectiveness of each recommendation with the
feasibility assessments performed by stakeholders will help City staff, elected officials,
and members of the community identify and implement the most practical and compelling
actions first while building support for those actions with more uncertain outcomes or
requiring a greater degree of financial and/or political support. All recommendations are
listed in Attachment A, Section 6, and range from strengthening buffer protections in City
land use codes to creating a fee-in-lieu program to increasing the width of the riparian
area at Garrish Park.
Conclusions:
The size, scale, connectivity, and relationship of the riparian area is a major driver in the
overall condition of the ecosystem. The team concluded that there are areas within the
riparian corridor that could be improved in a manner that would positively impact water
quality, wildlife habitat and other important ecological characteristics. Notably, the riparian
and water quality projects currently undertaken by the City of Aspen appear in the data
to have a positive influence on the EIA scores.
Addressing the health of the riparian area in Aspen will require a creative and multi-prong
approach. The City should carefully weigh actions that address short-term, localized,
acute issues such as storm water discharge points and wider city-wide goals that look
towards the future and guide the continued development of Aspen. The benefits provided
by healthy riparian areas numerous and contribute to a thriving community and
ecosystem. Development of commercial and residential real estate in close proximity to
the Roaring Fork River and protecting the critically important riparian ecosystem do not
have to be contradictory goals.
Effective management of riparian areas within Aspen will balance the cultural demands
on the riparian resources while protecting of vital ecosystem functions.
Policy, program, and project recommendation categories are of equal importance. The
City should work to implement recommendations from each category in concert. This
multi-pronged approach to improving the condition of the riparian area in Aspen will have
the greatest impact.
The stakeholder group felt strongly that that the City should work to protect high quality
functioning riparian areas in Aspen. Protection is the number one tool because it has
more immediate (more timely) and higher ecological effectiveness than restoration
(restoration can take decades to reach full effectiveness). Restoration projects may be
limited or constrained due to land ownership. Therefore, partnering with private parties,
and incentivizing and regulating private development in the riparian area is critical to move
the needle on the health of the riparian system. Finally, projects, programs, and
management on City-owned land remain extremely important to improving river health in
Aspen.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The funding for this project was allocated in 2019 from the
Stormwater (160) Fund and was supported by a grant of $28,500 from the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB) Watershed Restoration Program.
22
RECOMMENDATIONS: No recommendations at this time.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A – Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan, 2021.
23
24
25
CITY OF ASPEN:
RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN
Prepared for The City of Aspen
Engineering Department
201 N Mill Street
Suite 203 of the Mill
Building Aspen, CO 81611
Prepared by DHM Design and Lotic Hydrological
With Peak Ecological, Colorado Wildlife Sciences and
Brad Johnson Ph.D.
May 2021
26
2
Table of Contents
Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 3
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4
PLANNING PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................6
PLANNING MOTIVATIONS ..............................................................................................................7
PROJECT PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 13
2. CONDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF RIPARIAN AREAS ............................................................. 13
EIA ASSESSMENT RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 19
Major Ecological Factor Results .......................................................................................................................... 19
Aggregated Results ............................................................................................................................................. 23
3. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS, PROJECTS, AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................... 30
REVIEW RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 35
4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITY ACTION ................................................................................... 36
5. STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ................................................................................................... 37
Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 37
Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 37
6. PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 40
Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 41
Programs ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 44
7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix A: City of Aspen rules and regulations relating to riparian areas
Appendix B: City of Aspen stormwater treatment requirements
Appendix C: Ecological Integrity Assessment protocols and methodologies
Appendix D: Riparian conditional assessment results
Appendix E: Review of previous studies focused on riparian areas in City of Aspen
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Summary Presentation
27
3
Definitions
Riparian Area - The zone of interface between the land and a river or stream. The land located immediately
adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries. This area is often referred to in the Land Use Code
as the floodplain (100 year and/or flood hazard area) or stream margin.
Riparian Buffer - A vegetated area (a "buffer strip") near a stream, usually forested, which helps shade
and partially protect the stream from the impact of adjacent land uses through physical, biological,
ecological functions, and important social benefits.
Riparian Corridor - A geographic description of unique biotic community consisting of the vegetation,
soils, and ecological functions that occurs adjacent to a body of water. A linear description of the “riparian
area.”
Wetland - Areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year
or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season.
Water Quality - Describes the condition of the water, including chemical, physical, and biological
characteristics, usually with respect to its suitability for a particular purpose such as drinking or ecological
impact.
Ecological Integrity - The ability of an ecosystem to support and maintain ecological processes and a
diverse community of organisms.
Turbidity - A measure of the degree to which the water loses its transparency due to the presence of
suspended particulates. The more total suspended solids in the water, the murkier it seems and the higher
the turbidity.
28
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The riparian corridor and Roaring Fork River are integral to the identity and aesthetic character of Aspen.
Many of the City’s iconic views, parks, trails, and other amenities can be found along the river corridor.
Riparian areas support delivery of critical ecosystem goods and services to the local community. The
benefits provided by healthy riparian areas include:
» Improved water quality by slowing and filtering overland flows
» Nutrient cycling and pollutant assimilation
» Stream bank stabilization and erosion control
» Flood risk abatement
» Water and sediment storage
» Wildlife habitat and high levels of biodiversity
» Cultural benefits such as recreation, aesthetics, tourism and strengthened community
identity and sense of place
Development of commercial and residential real estate in close proximity to the Roaring Fork River and
protecting the critically important riparian ecosystem can be divergent goals. Aspen’s historical patterns of
residential and commercial development and the locations of numerous open space parcels and parks along
the Roaring Fork River are the physical manifestation of these goals. Effective management of riparian
areas within Aspen requires balancing the cultural demands on the riparian resources while protecting of
vital ecosystem functions. The Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan (ARAAP) intends to provide a
prioritized list of projects and actions to protect and restore the riparian areas in Aspen. Improving the
functional condition of the riparian ecosystem through Aspen will provide significant local benefits,
including the protection and enhancement of water quality in this urban environment.
THE RIPARIAN AREA IS THE LAND LOCATED
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE ROARING FORK RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES. THIS AREA IS OFTEN REFERRED
TO AS THE FLOODPLAIN (100 YEAR AND/OR FLOOD
HAZARD AREA) OR STREAM MARGIN
THE BOUNDARY OF THE RIPARIAN AREA, THE
ADJOINING UPLANDS, AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IS
GRADUAL AND RARELY SHARPLY DEFINED. RIPARIAN
AREAS ARE UNIQUE FROM THE UPLANDS AND AQUATIC
AREAS; CHARACTERIZED BY HIGH LEVELS OF SOIL
MOISTURE, FREQUENT FLOODING, AND A SPECIALIZED
ASSEMBLAGE OF PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES.
THROUGH THE INTERACTION OF THEIR SOILS,
HYDROLOGY, AND BIOTIC COMMUNITIES, RIPARIAN
AREAS MAINTAIN MANY IMPORTANT PHYSICAL,
BIOLOGICAL, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS, AND
IMPORTANT SOCIAL BENEFITS.
Figure 1: A residence in close proximity to the Roaring Fork River.
Native vegetation has been cleared in this area to visually connect the
residence to the stream and increase the amount of lawn area.
29
5
The headwaters of the Roaring Fork River flow northwest, down Independence Pass and through Aspen.
The riparian complex along the river varies in character and health as the river makes its way to its
confluence with the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs. Nearly 75% of streams studied in the Roaring
Fork Watershed have moderately modified to severely degraded riparian habitat1. Nearly 20% of the
riparian habitat and more than 15% of instream habitat in the Upper Roaring Fork sub-watershed section
that includes Aspen, was previously classified as “severely degraded” while the areas upstream and
downstream of Aspen were ranked as “high quality” or only “slightly modified”2.
The evidence of the degradation to riparian habitat can be readily witnessed, even by a non-expert observer.
Areas upstream and downstream of Aspen such as Northstar Nature Preserve and the confluence of Castle
Creek, are heavily vegetated and are locations where wildlife and birds are frequently seen. In contrast,
many areas along the Roaring Fork through Aspen have been obviously modified by humans and riparian
vegetation is not as abundant or continuous. These disparities are not uncommon or necessarily negative
considering the urban nature of the Roaring Fork River through Aspen. However, through thoughtful
planning, creative solutions and a dedication to river stewardship the quality of the riparian areas through
Aspen can be improved. In turn, water quality, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic and recreational values of the
river corridor can be enhanced.
1 Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, 2012 Ruedi Water and Power Authority, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Clarke, Sharon, et al,
Figure 2. Riparian areas in and around Aspen exhibit varying degrees of impact from human activities. Intact riparian corridors
(left) exist above and below the City. In many other areas, development has eliminated riparian forests (center) or modification
of streambanks (right) limits their extent and functional condition.
PROJECT GOALS
TO PRESERVE, RESTORE AND CREATE IMPORTANT RIPARIAN AREAS THAT PROVIDE VALUABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, CULTURAL
AMENITIES, RECREATION, ECONOMY, AND HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE IN ASPEN.
TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC, PRIORITIZED PROJECTS WITHIN THE RIPARIAN CORRIDOR IN ASPEN THAT WILL REDUCE IMPACTS FROM
URBAN POLLUTANTS AND STORM WATER RUNOFF, STREAM BANK DEVELOPMENT, HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION,
AND ALTERED HYDROLOGICAL CONDITIONS WHILE MAXIMIZING CITY EFFORTS, BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY.
30
6
PLANNING PURPOSE
The overarching goals of the project were to:
1. Conduct a systematic assessment of riparian quality through Aspen and identify conditions that
affect the water quality, ecological integrity, recreational amenities, and aesthetic values of the
riparian area.
2. Use the data collected and analyzed during the assessment to identify and prioritize areas for
preservation or restoration.
3. Work with stakeholders to identify priority geographies, methods, and preferences for
conservation, preservation or restoration strategies.
4. To create a prioritized list of management actions for implementation by the City of Aspen.
Figure 3: Jennie Adair Regional Stormwater Quality Project – “A constructed wetlands basin is a shallow
retention pond that has a continuous base flow which promotes the growth of rushes, willows, cattails and
reeds. The shallow pond, along with vegetation, slows down runoff and allows time for sedimentation,
filtering, and biological uptake. Wetlands greatly improve water quality while at the same time providing
natural aesthetic areas, increasing wildlife habitat, and providing erosion control. Constructed wetlands
are engineered to mimic natural wetlands which can be viewed as the “kidneys” of the hydrologic cycle
due to their filtering and cleansing capabilities.2” These important areas in Aspen are both innovative and
critical. These areas of green infrastructure treat urban runoff creating better conditions for the rest of the
riparian area which maintain aesthetic, habitat and cultural values.
2 https://www.cityofaspen.com/334/Best-Management-Practices
31
7
PLANNING MOTIVATIONS
The riparian corridor through Aspen was
degraded by resource extraction and land use
change over the previous 150 years. Throughout
Aspen reach, channelization, developmental
encroachment, alteration and generalization of
native vegetation, soil degradation, changes to
flow regimes and hydrology have significantly
altered the character and functionality of riparian
areas. Historical aerial images indicate that areas
covered by roadways, sidewalks, lawns, and
structures doubled in near-stream areas between
from 1951 and 2016 (Figure 4). Conversion of
significant areas from grasses to trees and shrubs
during that same period reflect the progressive
recovery of the river corridor from the heavy
impacts evident in late 19th-century photographs.
While some recovery of riparian vegetation is
evident, recent observations indicate continuing
impacts from urban land uses and development
patterns within Aspen. These cumulative impacts
are expected to diminish overall ecosystem
quality and, potentially, make the river
environment more susceptible to negative impacts
associated with future development, wildfire, or
climate change.
Figure 4. Land cover changes within 500 feet of
the river corridor through Aspen observed in
aerial images collected in 1951 and 2016. At the
turn of the 20th century much of Colorado,
including the Aspen area was deforested.
Excellent gains in vegetative cover have occurred
since then. To restore and enhance the riparian
corridor there is still work to be done. The graphic
in the center of the figure shows change in
vegetation and cultural cover over time, and how
those changes have occurred geographically. For
instance, in 1951 21 acres of Aspen were
developed. Roughly a third of those areas are still
developed today while a third have been
converted to grass coverage, and a third to tree
and shrub coverage. Today, 41 acres of Aspen is
developed, representing over a 50% increase in
development in the last 65 years, that has
occurred mostly through the change of grass
coverage to developed area.
32
8
Impacts from a wide variety of land and water development activities may result in stream and riparian area
degradation. Some of these impacts include:
• Pollutant loading:
o Sediments and chemical pollutants transported from impervious areas to riparian zones as sheet
runoff or through the stormwater collection systems
o Fertilizers and pesticides from lawns and gardens entrained in runoff and shallow ground water
o Sediment from construction sites and hillslope erosion
• Loss of riparian vegetation and habitat:
o Simplification of riparian community composition and structure due to landscaping or invasive
species
o Clearing riparian forests to make way for commercial or residential development
• Altered floodplain and riparian hydrology:
o Bank armoring with rip-rap or concrete
o Channel modification
o Streamflow alteration by trans-basin diversions, reservoir operations, and surface water
diversion
Urban development and land use within Aspen and
the surrounding watershed contribute to changes in
stream hydrology, stream morphology, stream water
quality and aquatic ecology3. All of these factors
have a profound impact on the ecological integrity
of the riparian corridor and the ecological services it
provides. Water quality problems in the Roaring
Fork River likely related to riparian degradation
include turbid water, nutrient enrichment, bacterial
contamination, increases in organic matter loads,
metals, salts, oil/grease, pesticides, herbicides,
temperature increases and increased trash and debris
transported by storm water runoff (Figure 5).
Critically, the State of Colorado recently listed the
Roaring Fork River through Aspen, as an Impaired
Waterway under the Clean Water Act due to
observations of unhealthy aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities4.
Particular organisms that occupy a specific
environment or environmental niche can be good
indicators of the relative health of that ecosystem.
These organisms reflect the chemical, physical, and
biological conditions in which they evolved.
Biological community changes and human impacts
can be studied by evaluating these organisms. The
presence of species that are intolerant of pollutants
or habitat distresses, or the presence of communities
dominated by native taxa are generally thought to
3 Urban Runoff Management Plan: A Guide to Stormwater Management in the City of Aspen Revised, 2014. City of Aspen, Update
to April 2010 Version Prepared by City of Aspen Engineering Department
4 Department of public health and environment Water quality control commission 5 ccr 1002-93 Regulation #93 Colorado's
section 303(d) list of impaired waters and monitoring and evaluation list
Figure 5. Patterns of runoff affected by streamside
development. Following development, pollutants are mobilized
from the Figure 6: Urban development reduces infiltration and increases
surface runoff through near-stream areas.
33
9
indicate positive relative health of that environment. Absence of sensitive forms, dominance by tolerant
species, or complete absence of certain organisms may indicate degraded conditions and ecosystem stress.
In Aspen, the condition of the macroinvertebrate communities indicates that there is ecosystem stress in the
Roaring Fork River through Aspen.
Impairment of macroinvertebrate health observed in the Roaring Fork River through Aspen in recent years
may be due, in part, to degradation of riparian areas. The degradation within the riparian corridor also
impacts fish and wildlife, bank stability, aesthetics, flooding and recreation. Many of the impacts to the
river are from non-point source pollutants, meaning the origin of the pollutants is difficult to establish due
to their wide distribution across the local landscape.
Table 1: Results from Previous Studies Examining Riparian Health
5 Connors, John Patrick, et al. “Landscape Configuration and Urban Heat Island Effects: Assessing the Relationship between
Landscape Characteristics and Land Surface Temperature in Phoenix, Arizona.” Landscape Ecology, vol. 28, no. 2, 19 Dec. 2012,
pp. 271–283, link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s10980-012-9833-1, 10.1007/s10980-012-9833-1. Accessed 9 Oct. 2019.
6 Klapproth, Julia C. and Johnson, James E. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Effects on Water Quality,
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech and Virginia State University. 2009
Impact Effects
Increased impervious area
such as; roads, driveways,
patios, parking lots, building
footprints and roofs.
Increased runoff and decreased infiltration lead to degradation within the
watershed by greatly reducing base stream flow while increasing the stream
temperature and runoff velocities which can lead to more severe and frequent
localized flooding, erosion and impaired aquatic conditions. These areas also
lead to the transportation of large pollutant loads downstream without the
opportunity for natural filtering by the soil. There is also research that
concluded that impervious surfaces contribute to the urban heat island
effect 5.
Urban runoff resulting in the
addition of pollutants to the
landscape and waterways such
as; petroleum byproducts,
pathogens, pesticides/
herbicides and fertilizer,
hazardous waste etc.
Pollutants noted to be present by the 2008 State of the Watershed report
within the COA include iron, lead, selenium, cadmium, pH, nitrite, total
phosphorus and dissolved Oxygen. Many of these pollutants come from basic
human activities such as driving gasoline vehicles and fertilizing lawns.
Sources of metals in runoff include vehicular traffic areas including roads and
parking areas, atmospheric deposition, and historic mining activities. These
pollutants impact water quality, habitat vitality, wildlife and human health.
Construction, land
disturbance such as
grading, street sands,
exposed soil, dirt roads
and driveways, and
eroded channels.
Sedimentation profoundly effects water quality and stream life. Discharged
sediment to the Roaring Fork River has detrimental effects including
“smothering” of aquatic habitat, increased turbidity/decreased light
penetration, increased temperatures, oxygen depletion and impacts to fish.
Mineral soil particles and eroding sediments may transport other substances
such as plant and animal wastes, nutrients, pesticides, petroleum products,
metals, and other compounds that can cause water quality problems 6. The
2008 State of the Watershed Report identified excessive sedimentation as a
primary source of impacts to the Roaring Fork River. Primary sources of
sediment in runoff include erosion from steep slopes, sand from winter
application, sediment from construction sites, urban runoff from impervious
areas where particulates accumulate and natural “background” sources of
sediment.
Clearing of native vegetation
and/or planting of non-native
species in lawns and gardens
This impact results in a massive decrease in the diversity and ecosystem
composition of the Roaring Fork River’s riparian area. This change in landscape
composition results in a loss of biodiversity and habitat, reduced tree canopy
and shade, potentially reduced water filtering and infiltration capacity.
34
10
In addition to providing aesthetic, social, and habitat values and services in urban settings, riparian forests
naturally provide key water quality treatment and protection services for surface waters due to their
landscape location between developed environments and streams (see figure 6). In this way riparian areas
act as “buffers” between developed areas and streams. Healthy functioning buffers reduce stormwater loads
by promoting infiltration before runoff, removing or attenuating sediment and other contaminants,
maintaining bank stability during high flows, and providing base food chain inputs to aquatic and terrestrial
life. Proper design, placement, and protection of vegetative buffers serves as an efficient and sustainable
long-term solution to mitigating urban water quality impacts to receiving streams.7
Critical factors like width, orientation, plant species composition, management practices, and landscape
location should be considered in buffer protection, planning, and design.8 The width of vegetated buffers is
a primary determinant of their ability to protect streams against impacts of upland land use activities. Buffer
width is most often measured as the horizontal distance from the high-water mark (or vegetation line) of a
stream channel to the upland edge of the vegetated zone. Research identifies a variety of effective buffer
widths according to the ecosystem service of interest.
For water quality protection, EPA recommends a minimum buffer width of either 100 feet, or the extent of
100-year floodplain plus 25 feet, on both sides of a stream, whichever is greater.9 Although individual
streams and locales may exhibit varying floodplain and hillslope geomorphology as well as native
vegetation community types, this generalized distance aims to integrate best-available science and promote
straightforward delineation of important zones to ease implementation and enforcement of land use
restrictions by decision makers. While broadly supported by scientific literature, the reality in downtown
Aspen and similar urban settings is that streamside property is desirable, often commanding a market
premium, and many locations have already experienced extensive development intensities prior to the mid-
nineteenth century advent of current US environmental law and modern urban planning.
To maximize water quality protection while acknowledging human uses, principles of the 3-zone buffer
system can guide land use planning and decision making in near-stream areas. The 3-zone system
delineates vegetated areas in three nested zones parallel to the channel. Each zone performs one or more
important water quality protection functions and is characterized by unique optimal widths, vegetative
target, and management objectives. 10 Highlighting individual functions of each zone allows land managers
to efficiently maximize desired benefits of the buffer.11 Zone 1, the overbank zone, protects the physical
and ecological integrity of both the stream channel natural environment and near-stream human
infrastructure. Riparian vegetation and wetlands slow the movement of water across the landscape, reducing
pollutant loading via biological uptake or chemical transformation. Zone 2, the transitional zone, contains
the major transition from frequently inundated areas to dryer uplands. Zone 2 extent varies strongly with
stream size, channel geometry, and local topography, including bank steepness. It generally includes the
100-yr floodplain, connected slopes, and connected wetlands. Within the urban context, its key function is
to cushion and shield the stream from various effects of upland development. Zone 3, the upland zone, acts
as the “buffer’s buffer”, extending an additional distance from Zone 2’s edge and providing important
protections against sediment entrained in urban runoff. Functional effectiveness of the vegetated buffer is
promoted by varying classes of land use restrictions for each zone, providing an operational framework for
managers to protect and improve water quality.
7 National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
8 Ibid.
9 USEPA. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and
Regulations. EPA/600/R-05/118
10 USDA. 1998. Stream corridor restoration. Revised August, 2001. www.usda.gov/stream_restoration
11 Hawes, E., & Smith, M. 2005. Riparian buffer zones: Functions and recommended widths. Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study
Committee, 15, 2005.
35
11
Figure 6: Function of Riparian Buffers
36
12
Table 2. Riparian widths recommended for protection of various resource attributes (Adapted from Hawes
and Smith, 2005).
Source
Buffer Width (ft.) Recommended for Attribute Protection
Habitat
for
aquatic
life
Temperature
moderation
Retain/decrease
nutrients
Sediment
control
Bank
stabilization
Pesticide
retention
Wegner (1999) - 33 - 98 50 -100 82 - 328 - > 49
US Army Corps
(1991) 98 33 - 66 52 - 164 33 - 148 49 - 98 49 - 328
Fisher and Fischenich
(2000) > 98 - 16 - 98 30 - 200 30 - 66 -
Broadmeadow and
Nisbet (2004) 33 - 164 49 - 230 16 - 98 49 - 213 - -
Range of
recommended
widths
33 - 164 33 -230 16 - 98 30 -328 30 - 98 49 - 328
Figure 7. EPA's three-zone riparian buffer framework provides for analysis of structural and impervious
area encroachment in high water quality impact areas. The number of existing structures and acreage of
impervious surfaces (structures, driveways, roads) are reported for each buffer zone on the Roaring Fork
and other major streams within Aspen’s city limits
37
13
Table 3. Riparian buffer zone analysis summary statistics for City of Aspen streams, grouped by city zoning
class.
Stream/Zone
Land Use Designations Within the 3-Zone Buffer (Acres)
Commercial
(acres)
Lodging/
Recreation
(acres)
Multi-
Family
Residential
(acres)
Open
Space
(acres)
Residential
(acres)
Not
Assigned
(acres)
Total
(acres)
Roaring Fork
River 4.5 9.0 6.2 13.8 44.3 2.7 80.6
Zone 1 1.4 2.3 1.3 4.4 11.4 0.9 21.8
Zone 2 2.0 4.4 3.1 6.8 22.1 1.3 39.7
Zone 3 1.1 2.3 1.8 2.6 10.7 0.5 19.1
Castle Creek 1.0 0.1 7.2 21.2 29.4
Zone 1 0.3 - 0.0 1.9 5.5 - 7.6
Zone 2 0.5 - 0.0 3.6 10.6 - 14.7
Zone 3 0.2 - 0.1 1.7 5.1 - 7.1
Hunter Creek 0.01 1.5 2.9 4.4
Zone 1 - 0.00 0.3 - 0.7 - 1.0
Zone 2 - 0.01 0.8 - 1.5 - 2.3
Zone 3 - 0.00 0.4 - 0.7 - 1.1
Maroon Creek 0.1 34.2 1.2 35.4
Zone 1 - - 0.0 8.6 0.0 - 8.6
Zone 2 - - 0.0 17.4 0.6 - 18.0
Zone 3 - - 0.1 8.2 0.6 - 8.8
All streams/zones 5.5 9.0 7.9 55.2 69.5 2.7 149.8
Zone 1 1.6 2.3 1.7 14.9 17.6 0.9 39.0
Zone 2 2.5 4.4 3.9 27.8 34.8 1.3 74.7
Zone 3 1.4 2.3 2.3 12.5 17.1 0.5 36.1
PROJECT PROCESS
This assessment and report were completed in three steps. First a conditional assessment of the riparian
areas within Aspen was conducted. This multipronged assessment used various types of data and
assessment methods to characterize the current condition of riparian areas (Section 2). Second, a review of
existing studies pertaining the Roaring Fork’s riparian areas and a detailed review of City codes and
regulations was conducted (Section 3). Third, data from the assessment and reviews was collated and
presented to both a stakeholder group and to the public for feedback and input. Finally, the
recommendations and input from stakeholders and the public was used to create a prioritized and actionable
list of projects, policies and plans for the City to implement in order to improve and protect local riparian
areas (Section 4).
2. CONDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF RIPARIAN AREAS
The condition of riparian areas within Aspen was evaluated using the Ecological Integrity Assessment
(EIA) methodology developed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program at Colorado State University12.
This method has been used extensively throughout Colorado’s river basins. The EIA measures overall
12 Lemly, J., L. Gilligan and C. Wiechman (2016). Ecological Integrity Assessment for Colorado Wetlands. Field Manual, Version
2.1, Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO 80523.: 116 pp.
38
14
wetland and riparian habitat condition and places an emphasis on biological integrity. By focusing on
biological integrity, the EIA method can be used to track changes in vegetation species composition and
structure over time or after completion of restoration activities. At the highest level, the EIA divides riparian
integrity into three primary Rank Factors: Landscape Context, Condition, and Size. Within each of these
Rank Factors, the EIA identifies one or more Major Ecological Factors essential to ecosystem integrity.
These metrics include landscape fragmentation, buffer width and condition, native plant species cover and
composition, woody species regeneration, hydrological functioning, soil condition, water quality, and
overall size. The final EIA outputs include a ranking of riparian condition on an academic grading scales
as presented in the table below.
39
15
Table 4: EIA Rating Descriptions
Rating Degree of
Deviation
from
Reference
Condition
Ecological Factors contributing to Riparian Integrity
Excellent (A) Reference
Condition
(No or
Minimal
Human
Impact)
• Riparian area functions within the bounds of natural disturbance regimes.
• The surrounding landscape contains natural habitats that are essentially
fragmented with:
o Little to no stressors such as point of erosion
o Vegetation structure and composition are within the natural range
of variation
o Nonnative species like Kentucky bluegrass are essentially absent
o A comprehensive set of key species like macroinvertebrates are
present
o Soil properties and hydrological functions are intact
• Management should focus on preservation and protection.
Good (B) Slight
Deviation
from
Reference
• Riparian area predominantly functions within the bounds of natural
disturbance regimes.
• The surrounding landscape contains largely natural habitats that are
minimally fragmented with few stressors:
o Vegetation structure and composition deviate slightly from the
natural range of variation
o Nonnative species and noxious weeds are present in minor
amounts
o Most key species are present
o Soils properties and hydrology are only slightly altered
• Management should focus on the prevention of further alteration.
Fair (C) Moderate
Deviation
from
Reference
• Riparian area has a number of unfavorable characteristics.
• The surrounding landscape is moderately fragmented with several
stressors:
o The vegetation structure and composition are somewhat outside
the natural range of variation
o Nonnative species and noxious weeds may have a sizeable
presence or moderately negative impacts
o Many key species are absent
o Soil properties and hydrology are altered
• Management would be needed to maintain or restore certain ecological
attributes.
Poor (D) Significant
Deviation
from
Reference
• Riparian area has severely altered characteristics.
• The surrounding landscape contains little natural habitat and is very
fragmented:
o The vegetation structure and composition are well beyond their
natural range of variation
o Nonnative species and noxious weeds exert a strong negative
impact
o Most key species are absent
o Soil properties and hydrology are severely altered
• There may be little long-term conservation value without restoration, and
such restoration may be difficult or uncertain.
40
16
Photo examples of riparian areas along the Roaring Fork River exibiting A-D ratings.
Example of an Excellent (A) rating. This area
displays connectivity within the vegetation,
floodplain connectivity, and a diversity of riparian
species.
Example of a Good (B) rating. This area displays
connectivity within the vegetation, and minimal
bank scouring. Note the non-native lawn grass in the
center right of the photograph.
Example of a Fair (C) rating. This area displays
riparian vegetation that has been impacted by trails
and human access. Non-native species are present
and the river has been channelized.
Example of a Poor (D) rating. This area is highly
impacted by residential developments, lawn,
channelization of the river leading to scoring and the
removal of riparian vegetation.
The project team chose this method over other similar assessment methods because the EIA method is
ecologically based. This approach allowed the project team to address a wide array of system wide
processes and interactions, as well as seamlessly integrate other data such as wildlife data and historical
conditions analysis. The CNHP EIA method has the following benefits:
• Colorado specificity with wide applicability,
• The ability to target specific sites for restoration/preservation,
• Pinpoints ecological stressors, and
• Provides a framework for post-project monitoring and evaluation
41
17
Individual Assessment Areas (AAs) were
delineated by segmenting the existing riparian
corridor into polygons that shared similar
dimensions along their outside edges. Polygon
sized was determined by first determining where
the historic or expected extents of the riparian
area would be. This was done through field
surveys and GIS modeling based on contour and
watershed data, discussed in depth further on in
this section. This information created the outside
edge, offset from the river. This new polygon
that represented the historic or expected riparian
area was then divided into 100-meter-long
sections on the outside edge. 100 meters was
chosen as a “Goldie Lock’s” dimension. This
created large enough areas that the data is robust
and not too small of areas so that collection and
review data would be burdensome.
To establish individual assessment areas, the existing riparian zone was first hand digitized in a Geographic
Information System (GIS) by cross-referencing vegetation communities evident in six-inch resolution aerial
photos, digital elevation models derived from Pitkin County LiDAR images, and flood modeling inundation
boundaries generated by the City of Aspen’s hydraulic model for delineating floodways. The riparian
polygon was then split into river-right and
river-left segments by clipping it to the bounds
of the Roaring Fork River. The outside edges of
these -right and -left segments were
dynamically segmented into 100-meter lengths.
Lines were extended from the start and end of
each line, back to the edge of the Roaring Fork
River. These lines were oriented roughly
perpendicular to the river bank and formed the
upstream and downstream bounds of each AA.
Each AA was given a unique identification
code that indicated the adjacent water body, the
approximate river mile stationing as defined by
the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s
Source Water Route Framework, and whether
the AA fell on the right or left side of the river
when looking downstream
WHAT IS ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY?
Ecological integrity can be defined as “the structure,
composition and function of an ecosystem operating within
the bounds of natural or historic disturbance regimes”.
Ecological integrity has also been defined as “the summation
of chemical, physical, and biological integrity” or the ability of
an ecosystem to support and maintain a full suite of
organisms with species composition, diversity, and function
comparable to similar systems in an undisturbed state. High
ecological integrity is generally regarded as an ecosystem
attribute where expected structural components are
complete, and all ecological processes are functioning
optimally. To have integrity, an ecosystem should be
relatively unimpaired across a range of characteristics and
spatial and temporal scales.
42
18
Figure 8. River stationing, Assessment Area (AA) delineations, and naming conventions used in this
planning effort intend to help stakeholders map assessment results back to local geographies.
43
19
Once the assessment areas were established, the project team preformed a Level 2 EIA assessment on
riparian zones delineated within the planning area. A modified version of the EIA protocol (Appendix C)
was used to evaluate conditions in each AA. Modification of the EIA protocol was made necessary by the
adjacency and linear orientation of the AAs and unique conditions produced by the urban environment.
Notably, an assessment of wildlife and habitat values of each AA was included as an additional protocol.
The assessment specifically considered the Major Ecological Factors and Metrics presented in the table
below. A score was developed for each metric and these scores from each AA were combined to
communicate an aggregated condition. Results are presented in both maps and tabular format in Appendix
C. A stressor checklist accompanied the EIA results for several metrics. These checklists should help
stakeholders identify the most pressing stressors faced by riparian areas in the City.
Table 5: EIA Evaluation Criteria
Rank Factor Major Ecological Factor Metric
Landscape Context
(L)
Landscape L1. Contiguous Natural Land Cover
L2. Land Use Index
Buffer B1. Perimeter with Natural Buffer
B2. Width of Natural Buffer
Condition (C)
Vegetation
V1. Native Plant Species Cover
V2. Invasive Nonnative Plant Species
Cover
V3. Native Plant Species Composition
V4. Vegetation Structure
V5. Regeneration of Native Woody
Species
V6. Coarse and Fine Woody Debris
Hydrology
H1. Water Source
H2. Hydro period
H3. Hydrologic Connectivity
Physio chemistry S1. Soil Condition
S2. Surface Water Turbidity / Pollutants
Size (S) Size Z1. Comparative Size
Z2. Change in Size
EIA ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Results of the Level 2 EIA showed that, at present, the riparian corridor through Aspen is in good condition.
There are areas within the riparian corridor that could be improved in a manner that would positively impact
water quality, wildlife habitat and other important ecological characteristics. Notably, the riparian and water
quality projects currently undertaken by the City of Aspen appear in the data to have a positive influence
on the EIA scores.
Major Ecological Factor Results
Landscape (L1, L2)
The evaluation of land use and land cover characteristics in the local drainage areas associated with each
AA showed a high fraction of impervious cover and extensive residential and commercial development. In
other words, roads, parking lots, driveways and patios were very prevalent. There are few areas within
Aspen where contiguous natural land cover extends a great distance from the riparian zone. Scores for
44
20
landscape metrics are low throughout the planning area but tend to decrease with increasing proximity to
the urban core.
Buffer (B1, B2)
This assessment considered the width of the vegetated buffer adjacent to riparian areas. This buffer area
plays an important role in protecting riparian zones from the impact of upland land use activities.
Assessment results for buffers tended to reflect the scores for local landscape condition. Vegetation
communities adjacent to riparian zones are highly fragmented and exist in a largely modified condition
within Aspen (B1 - Perimeter). AA perimeters surrounded by 100% natural land cover received an A-grade
while AAs with >25% natural buffer received a D-grade. The width of contiguous ‘natural’ vegetated
buffers is constrained by roads, trails, lawns, and structures (B2 - Width). AAs surrounded by at least 100
meters of natural land cover received a A-grade while AAs with <25 meters of natural buffer width received
a D-grade. The width of contiguous ‘natural’ vegetated buffers is constrained by roads, trails, lawns, and
structures. Scores for the condition of buffer areas tend to decrease with increasing proximity to the urban
core.
Vegetation (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6)
Results indicate varying degrees of impact to riparian areas
throughout Aspen (Appendix D).
Of the 41 AAs analyzed:
Those AAs which received an A rating exhibited a relatively
healthy and diverse riparian compositions and structure
typically dominated by an over story of narrow leaf
cottonwood and blue spruce with native shrubs such as
redosier dogwood, twinberry honeysuckle, thinleaf alder,
river birch, Rocky Mountain maple, chokecherry and several
species of willows. Regeneration of native woody species
and woody debris was present at some level. The herbaceous
component of these areas was comprised of native upland and
wetland species such as: bluejoint reedgrass, fringed brome,
water sedge, beaked sedge, fowl mannagrass, Baltic rush,
fowl bluegrass, largeleaf avens, false Solomon seal, bog
orchids, meadowrue, field horsetail, souringrush and roundleaf wintergreen. The AA’s with this species
cover, composition and structure had the highest scores. AA’s with vegetation that deviated from the
reference condition (A Rating), were rated lower due to one or more of the following; less native species
cover and more invasive non-native species cover (V1, V2), a less diverse composition of species (V3-
percentage of various species), a less diverse species structure (V4-number of distinct species).
The vegetation composition is by no means pristine; all of the AAs supported some contain non-native
naturalized species. The most common being redtop and reed canarygrass. In addition, noxious weeds were
frequently encountered, the most abundant being ox-eye daisy, Canada thistle, common tansy, and
plumeless thistle.
In general, those AAs with lower scores showed little to no riparian shrub (woody understory) component
or the shrub layer appeared to have been replaced by non-native pasture grasses such as smooth brome,
timothy, and orchardgrass; bluegrass lawns; or other landscaping (V5). These areas also have a lack of
woody debris (V6). The most significantly degraded sites also lacked a mature overstory of narrowleaf
cottonwood or willows and instead were dominated by non-native pasture grasses and weeds (V1,V2).
Finally, some of the AAs received lower scores due to the composition and structure of the vegetation’s
which was highly effected by the relatively narrow dimension of the riparian zone and close proximity to
existing commercial and residential development and/or recreational trails (V3, V4).
A
12%
B
44%
C
32%
D
12%
Vegetation Scores
A B C D
45
21
Hydrology (H1, H2, H3)
Source water (H1) that comes from precipitation and groundwater to
the Roaring Fork River within Aspen tends to be of high quality, the
river is the primary water source for riparian zones in the planning area.
Episodic inputs of urban drainage sheet flow are expected to negatively
impact riparian zones throughout the City during rainfall events and
snowmelt runoff. The City’s stormwater system collects and treats large
quantities of stormwater before it is discharged into riparian areas and
the river. However, numerous small and untreated stormwater
outfalls continue to discharge stormwater to riparian zones in
some areas. The Water Source metric was scored at a ‘B’
ranking in most locations due to the impact of urban runoff on
the Roaring Fork River during snowmelt runoff and summer
precipitation events. In where untreated stormwater appears to
discharge directly into riparian areas, a ‘C’ ranking was assigned.
The Hydroperiod (H2 - or seasonal influx of water into the system, spring
through fall) of flows entering riparian zones from the Roaring Fork River is
altered by the Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion System (IPTDS)
and several in-basin surface water diversion. The operation of the IPTDS alters the magnitude of floods—
and the corresponding flood inundation extents—that occur every 5-10 years. The reduction in 5-10-year
flood magnitudes is hypothesized to reduce the extent of riparian vegetation over time. The impact to local
peak flows resulted in the assignment of a ‘C’ ranking for the Hydroperiod metric throughout the planning
area.
Hydrological connectivity (H3) between the Roaring Fork River and adjacent riparian areas is also likely
impacted by channel and streambank alteration, levees, dikes, and other infrastructure. The Roaring Fork
River is moderately entrenched through glacial deposits and does not exhibit large native floodplains. The
degree to which structural modifications alter the timing and frequency of overbank flows in riparian areas
appears low to moderate throughout Aspen. Most locations received at ‘A’ ranking for this metric.
Physiochemistry (S1, S2)
The ecological response to urbanization is influenced by runoff entering stream channels. The
characteristics of runoff is controlled by quality and quantity of impervious land cover and stormwater
infrastructure. The chemical and hydrological characteristics of this runoff effect the flow regime, habitat
structure, and biological processes in streams. These changes can be measured in chemical and physical
environment of the stream. Losses of biological diversity or changes in assemblage composition and
structure (i.e. Disturbance) are indicators of changes to the soil condition (S1) and surface water
turbidity/pollutant load (S2) can be indicators of negative impacts to ecological health influenced by runoff.
Soil condition (S1) across the AAs was measured for the degree which human impact has disturbed the
natural soil or substrate. These disturbances have to potential to impact the hydrology or the riparian area
and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. The AA’s were largely graded a ‘C’ due to widespread
impacts associated with development, compaction, or diffuse recreational use. Some locations received ‘D’
rankings. due to high levels of human activity and observable impacts to soils within the riparian area (e.g.
extensive social and fishing trails).
Recent observations of degraded aquatic macroinvertebrate community conditions resulted in placement of
the Roaring Fork River through Aspen on the list of Impaired Waterways under the Clean Water Act. Data
collection between 2010-2012 indicated a gradient of degradation, starting at the upstream end of the city
boundaries and progressing to the confluence with Maroon Creek. Data collected in 2015 and 2018 suggest
that conditions may be improving but the river remains on the list of Impaired Waterways. The geographic
46
22
alignment of water quality impacts and urban land uses suggests that degradation of macroinvertebrate
communities may be related to pollutants sourced from urban activities. Riparian areas typically act as
water quality buffers, filtering out a wide variety of pollutants before water makes its way to the river.
Historical degradation of riparian areas may, thus, be a partial control on water quality conditions in the
Roaring Fork. Unfortunately, the resolution of water quality does not support identification of specific
locations or land use activities that drive the degradation signal. Therefore, all AAs within the planning area
initially received a ‘C’ ranking for pollutants and AAs receiving water from stormwater outfalls were
downgraded to a ‘D’ ranking for the S2 ranking.
Size (Z1, Z2)
Each AA was assigned a ranking for relative size based on a ranked value list of acreages. In this manner,
a ranking of ‘D’ was assigned to the smallest AAs in the planning area and a ranking of ‘A’ was assigned
to the largest AAs (Z1). Low scores do not characterize any degree of impact, only a small relative size. To
normalize this data, the existing size of each AA was then compared to an approximated area extent of the
native riparian zone in that location. The approximated natural extent was determined through combination
of historical aerial imagery and hydraulic modeling results. Outcomes indicate the degree to which
historical land use activities have encroached on riparian vegetation (Z2). The Roaring Fork River is
entrenched along many sections of the river corridor through Aspen. Historical and existing riparian areas
are largely restricted to steep streambanks very close to the river. The largest encroachments on riparian
areas occur in flat, low-lying areas where overbanking flows supported broad riparian forests. Many of
these areas are now occupied by lawns, gardens and homes.
Wildlife
While many of the AAs are significantly compromised by residential, commercial, and/or infrastructure
development, a few are important to wildlife. The EIA system does not generally incorporate
wildlife as a rating category. For this study wildlife values were rated
across the AA’s because wildlife protection and preservation is an
important issue within Aspen, and because the Roaring Fork River corridor
provides critical wildlife habitat within Aspen. Some AAs are valuable
because they contain relatively intact plant communities which provide effective
habitat, others are notable due to their adjacency to important habitat or
conservation lands and provide access to the riparian corridor and the Roaring
Fork River, and some provide both effective habitat, are adjacent to conservation
lands, and provide wildlife access to the corridor and the river.
47
23
Table 6: Wildlife Values
Riparian AA Wildlife Value
RF43_R –
RF43.1_R
Effective narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat; Adjacent to mule deer/elk
transition habitat, black bear fall concentration habitat; River access
RF43_R Meadow/old hayfield or pasture; Adjacent to mule deer/elk transition habitat, black
bear fall concentration habitat; Restoration opportunity; River access
RF43.2_R –
RF43.45_R
Effective narrowleaf cottonwood-blue spruce riparian habitat; Adjacent to mule
deer/elk transition habitat, black bear fall concentration habitat; River access
RF43.5_R Effective narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat; Good water source; Adjacent to
mule deer/elk transition habitat, black bear fall concentration habitat
RF43.65_L Very good candidate for wildlife habitat restoration to benefit many species including
deer, bears, migratory birds
RF43.7_L Effective narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat; High structural and species
diversity; Tent trail reduces effectiveness
RF46.4_L –
RF46.5_L
Currently used by elk, deer, moose, riparian & wetland birds, diverse small mammals;
Adjacent to Stillwater Ranch OS & Richmond Ridge; Excellent restoration candidate
to benefit many species
RF46.48_L –
RF46.5_L
Stillwater Ranch OS; Currently used by elk, deer, moose, riparian & wetland birds,
diverse small mammals; Adjacent to WRNF (Richmond Ridge); Adjacent to mule
deer/elk transition habitat, black bear fall concentration habitat; Provides connectivity
between the river and mule deer /elk summer range & elk winter range; Excellent
restoration candidate to benefit many species
RF46.6_L –
RF46.8_L
Relatively wide spruce dominated with aspen & narrowleaf cottonwood regeneration;
Used by elk & mule deer with good structural diversity at east end
RF46.4_R –
RF46.6_R
Disturbed but recovering; Connectivity to Stillwater Ranch OS; Heavy deer use;
Good potential restoration site to benefit all riparian species plus elk, deer, moose
Aggregated Results
The EIA methodology provides a weighting scheme for aggregating scores from individual metrics into
rankings for the following Factors: Landscape, Condition, and Size. Up to eighteen different EIA metrics
were evaluated for each of the 132 separate AAs included in the planning area. Aggregate rankings were
computed for each AA using the approach recommended in the EIA manual.13 Overall rankings for
ecological integrity of each AA was computed by weighting the rankings from the three Factors. The EIA
system for overall rankings weight the vegetation metrics most heavily because in non-urbanized settings
these metrics yield the most data about the ecologic condition of the resource. As a result, the overall scores
for the riparian area is Aspen fall between C- and B+ throughout the planning area. Assessment results
show persistent and widespread degradation of the metrics associated with the Landscape and Buffer EIA
Factors. Degradation of vegetation community structure is evident near the urban core and impacts to
physiochemistry are expected to exist in locations where stormwater discharges to riparian zones. Degraded
vegetation is more pervasive on the left side of the river, reflecting the greater concentration of urban
development right of the Roaring Fork River.
Aggregated results for the Landscape Context rank factor are presented in the following pages in map form.
This rank factor was selected for display in maps (Figures 10-13) because it was most relevant to project
identification in subsequent planning steps and major goals to improve water quality in the context of the
13 Lemly, J., L. Gilligan and C. Wiechman (2016). Ecological Integrity Assessment for Colorado Wetlands. Field Manual, Version
2.1, Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO 80523.: 116 pp.
48
24
Roaring Fork through Aspen. This data set could be combined in a multitude of different ways to draw out
different factors or to attempt to isolate a specific set of ecological or policy needs/issues 14. The landscape
context scores were deemed most enlightening for informing about the types of policies, projects and
programs that the City might implement to improve riparian area conditions and the water quality of the
Roaring Fork River. The focus on Landscape Context provides the most actionable and relevant information
to project identification/prioritization and commercial and residential development and redevelopment
decision-making in the City of Aspen.
Maps are presented in a downstream to upstream sequence and are followed by a table of rankings that
include both aggregated EIA values and the individual scores for each metric in each AA (See page 28).
See Appendix D for detailed discussions of assessment results.
Assessment activities performed during this planning effort indicate that some of largest impacts to riparian
function include:
1) The reduction in the width of vegetated buffers that separate riparian zones from urban land uses,
2) The high degree of fragmentation of the vegetated buffers that persist, and
3) The expectation that large portions of the riparian zone receive untreated urban runoff during storm
events and snowmelt.
These issues are not unique to Aspen, rather, they are a typical outcome where urbanization occurs along
river corridors. Impacts of development on riparian areas is widely recognized. Unique to Aspen is the
political capitol and community desire to effect change in these areas. Meaningful policies, programs and
projects can be developed to impact these issues. Proposed actions are discussed in detail in Section 6:
Recommendations.
14 The GIS data set is available through the City of Aspen Engineering Department
49
25
50
26
51
27
52
28
53
29
54
30
3. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS, PROJECTS, AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Sections of Aspen’s municipal code were evaluated in the context of EPA’s National Management
Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban areas to identify existing regulations that may
respond in part or in whole to riparian lands preservation, aquatic environments protections, and surface
water quality protection.15 The regulations concerning development and changes within the riparian
corridor are comprised of two main sets of codes set by the City of Aspen, land use codes, and municipal
codes. The following table summarizes the City of Aspen land use and municipal codes which pertain to
floodplain areas and stream margin setbacks. The table also summarizes the accompanying documents
which have been adopted by these codes. See Appendix A for these sections of code in their entirety.
Table 7:City of Aspen Land Use and Municipal Codes Pertaining to Riparian Areas
Codes and Adopted
Plans/Documents Summary
City of Aspen Land Use Code:
Title 8, Building and Building
Regulations, Chapter 8.20
International Building Code,
Section 1612.3. Establishment of
Flood Hazard Areas.
Flood hazard areas are based on a series of federal maps.16 This
international standard has been adopted by the City of Aspen.
The hundred-year floodplain area is the most commonly
referenced area in the existing regulations. The purpose of these
regulations is to control the alteration of the natural floodplains;
prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will
unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood
hazards in other areas; restrict or prohibit uses which may result
in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or
velocities; protect and preserve the natural riparian corridor; and
to control filling, grading, dredging, and other development
which may increase flood damages 17.
City of Aspen Municipal Code:
Title 28, Stormwater and
Mudflow
This title was developed to “protect, maintain and enhance the
health, safety, and welfare of the watersheds and public residing
in watersheds within this jurisdiction by establishing minimum
requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects
mudflow and of increased effects of post-development
stormwater runoff and non- point source pollution associated
with new development and redevelopment.” The title applies to
all construction or development activity unless the project is
granted an exemption by the City of Aspen. The title relies on
the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) summarized
below. Impervious surface creation has the option of being
mitigated by fee as opposed to by detention at the discretion of
the City Engineer.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2005). National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas.
16 Federal Emergency Management Agency in an engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study for City of Aspen,” dated June 4, 1987,
as amended or revised with the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Map 28 (FBFM)
17 Urban Runoff Management Plan: A Guide to Stormwater Management in the City of Aspen Revised, 2014. City of Aspen, Update to April 2010
Version Prepared by AMEC and the City of Aspen Engineering Department
55
31
City of Aspen Land Use Code:
Title 26, Chapter 26.435
Development in
Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA). §26.435.040.
Stream Margin Review
Stream margin development is regulated by type, amount and
effect of proposed development. Review of stream margin
development applies to all proposed work within 100 feet of the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries and
to all development within the Flood Hazard Area (hundred-year
floodplain). Activities regulated by this code include but are not
limited to, building or enlarging a structure, remodeling or
improving a structure, the placement of a manufactured home,
mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavating, and
drilling. A Floodplain Development Permit Application must
include detailed results from a hydraulic analysis in accordance
with FEMA guidelines, that:
» Determines the effects of the proposed improvements on
the 100-year flood elevation
» Documents any necessary revisions to the floodplain
delineation
» Compares pre-project and post-project conditions
Development that is exempt from review includes many “soft”
improvements such as public trails, practical structures such as
those for access, improvements essential for public health and
safety which cannot be practically relocated elsewhere and in small
remodels of existing structures. Development that complies with
stream margin review standards may be approved by the
community development director. Requirements include that
structures do not increase the base flood elevation, comply with
adopted regulatory plans, dedicate historic public use/access with
fisherman’s easements, vegetation and existing grade is protected,
and only approved native vegetation is planted within 15 feet of
top of slope or high waterline among other restrictions. These
regulations are enforced through the permit process including
opportunities for appeals and special reviews.
City of Aspen Municipal Code:
Title 2. Administration.
Sec. 2.12.140. Stormwater Fees
Fee-in-Lieu of Detention Fee is calculated per cubic foot of
detention. The fee is based on the full (100%) cost of
constructing a detention facility on site. Required detention
storage is calculated at the rate of 6.20 cubic feet per 100 square
feet of impervious area. The city engineer can require applicants
to provide cost and storage estimates at their discretion.
City of Aspen Urban
Stormwater Management Plan
(Manual) 2014
This comprehensive document outlines best management
practices for improving water quality through urban stormwater
management. The focus of the manual is the removal of
sediment from stormwater. There are requirements set forward
by the manual for best management practices.
The Roaring Fork River
Greenway Plan
Plans adopted by the board which have bearing within the
riparian area include: The Rio Grande Trail Management Plan,
the North Star Management Plan and the Roaring Fork Gorge
Management plan
56
32
Table 8: City of Aspen Stormwater Best Management Practices
Project Name Summary
Street Sweeping
The City of Aspen conducts regular street sweeping to help keep
pollutants out of stormwater. Debris, dirt, sand and silt collect in
gutters and along the sides of streets are routinely collected and
deposited in the Pitkin County landfill.
Stormwater Vaults
The City of Aspen uses stormwater vaults to separate trash, sand, and
oils out of stormwater before it discharges into riparian areas and the
Roaring Fork River. Vaults above the Jenny Adair wetlands treat
stormwater collected from the majority of town west of Mill Street.
A vault underneath the parking area in the Rio Grande Recycle
Center treats stormwater collected from the east and middle portion
of town as well as drainage from Copper and Spar gulches on Aspen
Mountain. Additional vaults include the Mill Street Vault, Drywell
in Monarch, and the Contech Vault at Prockter.
Bioengineered Wetlands
The City of Aspen utilizes bioengineered wetlands to treat storm
water at Prockter Open Space, John Denver Park and Jenny Adair
Park. These facilities improve water quality of stormwater collected
from large portions of the urban core before it is discharged into the
Roaring Fork River. These wetlands fall adjacent to or within the
riparian corridor and provide aesthetic and wildlife benefits in
addition to reducing the negative impacts of urban drainage.
The City of Aspen has completed several large stormwater control and treatment projects in recent years to
reduce urban-runoff related water quality impacts to the Roaring Fork River. The table below summarizes
some of those completed projects and indicates additional projects identified by City staff but not
completed.
Table 9: City of Aspen Stormwater Control and Riparian Corridor Projects
Project Name Status Description
Hallam Lake Outfall Improvement
Project Completed
Outfall improvement project at Gillespie
Street outfall to Hallam Lake (360 Lake
Ave). Pipe improvements in Lake Ave. To
reduce bank erosion, restore bank stability
and enhance native vegetation.
Jenny Adair Wetlands Completed
Constructed natural wetlands to partially
treat stormwater before it enters riparian
areas and the Roaring Fork River
Mill St and Gibson Ave Water
Quality Improvement Project
Identified
Future
Opportunity
Design will take place in 2020.
57
33
Project Name Status Description
Rio Grande Stormwater
Improvements (John Denver
Sanctuary) Completed
Constructed wetlands, bioswales, water
quality ponds and sand filter treatment
systems. Completed overflow outfall
improvements. Installed Rio Grande Recycle
Center debris/trash removal vault.
Newbury Park Riparian
Restoration Project Pending TBD
Prockter Open Space
Wetlands/Vault Completed
Constructed wetlands to partially treat
stormwater before it enters riparian zones
and the Roaring Fork River. Installed
Contech CDS or Stormceptor vault
Garrish Park Water Quality
Improvement Project Pending TBD
East Hopkins Avenue Riparian
Restoration Project Pending
Partnership with Aspen Valley Land Trust to
restore riparian area and complete
stormwater outfall improvements.
Anderson Park Stormwater
Improvement Project
Identified
Future
Opportunity
Partnership opportunity with Parks
Department to remove pollutants from
Highway 82 stormwater runoff.
58
34
59
35
REVIEW RESULTS
Opportunities for riparian and aquatic ecosystem preservation, mitigation, or enhancement for the specific
objective of water quality protection do exist within various sections related to floodplain development,
tree removal, development in sensitive lands (Stream Margin Review), and the Urban Runoff Management
Plan. However, they generally do not form an explicit or cohesive strategy identifying water quality
protection as an additional objective of city code. In addition, protections remain subject to a wide variety
of interpretations dependent on the particular makeup or motivation of approval bodies like planning/zoning
committees or town councils, rather than being institutionalized in code bodies in order to buffer changing
short term social or political influences.
Floodplain protections are primarily concerned with safety and financial damage, i.e. prevention of loss of
life or property, and make little or no direct reference to water quality protection goals. The Stream Margin
Review process provides a number of non-specific regulatory powers during project approval, but overall
appears more to target concerns with the aesthetics of near-stream development, lacking explicitly stated
water quality protection objectives. Management measures targeting site hydrology and pollutant
generation of new construction exist in the Urban Runoff Management Plan, but in some cases are stated
as guidelines, without explicitly enforceable or monitorable elements.
In addition, typical landscaping treatments in suburban and urban settings (i.e. herbicide/pesticide and
fertilizer treatments for turf and shrub/tree plantings) regularly utilize complex organochlorine chemical
groups and other compounds known to be highly toxic and detrimental to aquatic life communities. Aspen
city code, like many municipalities, largely refrains from specifying desired land use practices on private
lands, which may promote continuing significant negative impacts to sensitive montane waterways like the
Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek within city limits.
Figure 9: Finding balance between the ecological health and services the river provides and its cultural
allure and use will take thoughtful policy decisions and potentially more stringent regulation.
60
36
4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITY ACTION
The City of Aspen received recommendations for projects, policies and management actions for enhancing
or protecting riparian areas from the following documents and plans:
• Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan (Draft)
• Municipal Water Efficiency Plan: City of Aspen, Colorado (2015)
• Rio Grande Trail Management Plan (2015)
• Urban Runoff Management Plan (2014)
• Upper Roaring Fork River Aquatic Life Use Assessment (2013)
• Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan:
Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (2012)
• Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (2012)
• Catalog of Stream and Riparian Habitat Quality for the Roaring Fork River and Tributaries, Central
Colorado: Roaring Fork River, Segment 3: Tagert Beaver Ponds to the Slaughter House Bridge,
Aspen (2007)
A compiled list of recommendations from each of these documents is summarized in Appendix E. Specific
recommendations responded to the need for protection or improvement of vegetated buffers along the river
corridor. The primary means for improving and protecting riparian zones as identified by previous studies
include the following:
1. Control Access Points
• Numerous areas of the riverbank are trampled and degraded by unregulated human use. Limit
or eliminate social trails which are vectors for noxious weeds. Provide designated fishing
access points.
2. Promote Action on Private Property
• Educate and incentivize property owners to preserve, protect and enhance the native riparian
shrub understory in lieu of converting them to of bluegrass lawns, impervious surfaces or other
landscaping. Educate homeowners about noxious weeds like common tansy that may degrade
riparian ecosystems.
3. Control Land Uses in Riparian Corridor
• Strengthen and/or clarify regulations meant to protect the integrity of existing riparian zones.
4. Implement Riparian Restoration Projects
• Develop and implement plans to restore degraded riparian areas on City-owned/managed
property, favoring those areas expected to receive large amounts of stormwater discharge or
non-point source urban runoff.
5. Acquire and Protect High Value Riparian Areas
• Protect high-quality riparian areas through targeted property acquisition.
6. Reduce Impacts from Stormwater Discharge
• Continue to improve stormwater discharge quality through development of biological
treatment facilities. Include a riparian area restoration component when and where new
facilities are developed.
The full list of proposed actions falling within each of the above categories is presented in Appendix E.
61
37
5. STAKEHOLDER PROCESS
A diverse group of stakeholders were invited to participate in this process. Collective involvement helped
to ensure that 1) the programs recommended for implementation by the planning effort have wide impact,
2) diverse community interests are party to the promotion of specific planning recommendations, and 3)
benefits from recommended projects and programs are both maximized and sustainable. Stakeholders
represented the following organizations and constituencies:
• City of Aspen, Engineering, Environmental Health, and Parks Departments
• Roaring Fork Conservancy
• Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
• Pitkin County Open Space & Trails
• Local Flyfishing Outfitter
• Local Landscape Architect
The list of recommendations contained in previous plans or reports was integrated into a list of proposed
projects, policies and program actions developed during this planning effort. The project team worked with
stakeholders to organize recommendations into three primary categories of action: policy, programs and
projects.
Policy
Policy actions are those regulatory actions, which the City would enact to enforce, limit, plan development
and use within the riparian area, as well as preserve, protect and plan for critical areas within the corridor.
Examples of these types of actions are changes to enforcement of streambank setback regulations and
creation of planning documents such as a sediment management plan. The three subcategories of these
policy actions are:
• Preservation
• Enforcement
• Planning
Programs
Programs are actions that the city would undertake to incentivize best practices within riparian areas and
educate the public about riparian areas. Programs have the potential to catalyze public action and help the
City promote a more robust, connected and healthy riparian area. Program actions fall into two broad
categories:
• Incentives
• Education
Projects
Projects include the “shovel in the dirt” variety action items. These projects fall into five categories based
on: ecosystem context, level of degradation, adjacent land uses, and locations of storm water outfalls and
treatment infrastructure. These project types are:
• Preservation (i.e. conservation easements, acquisition)
• Enhancement (limited restoration activities such as seeding and planting in areas that are of good
quality)
62
38
• Creation (installing riparian communities where they have been eliminated or would be expected
to occur. Especially those locations where these installations would have measurable impacts to
city goals)
• Restoration (repairing degraded areas with ecological based projects including interventions such
as planting, seeding, erosion control, bank stabilization etc.)
• Stormwater Control and Treatment
Stakeholders were asked to rank each proposed action according to its perceived feasibility and
effectiveness. Importantly, the stakeholder group supported the planning efforts but did not have any
meaningful fiscal oversight or the ability to make decisions on behalf of the City Council or staff regarding
budgeting or prioritization of actions for implementation. Activities of the stakeholder group included the
following:
• Screened recommended actions for political, social, financial, land ownership, location, and
logistical constraints. Specifically, the advisory group considered:
o Project scope and costs – Is the project scope actionable and cost effective?
o Ease or practicality of implementation action – Can the project be readily acted upon?
Should implementation priority be advanced due to unique circumstances (e.g. land
ownership, access, timeliness of action)?
o Leveraged opportunities - Are there other stakeholders? Is there volunteer potential? Are
multiple owners championing the action? Does the action enhance visibility of the greater
restoration and protection effort within the community?
o Potential for project success – Is our expected measure of success reasonable and does the
project further the purpose of the Plan?
• Provided feedback to city staff regarding implementation timelines for work.
• Provided guidance for overcoming anticipated problems associated with specific recommended
actions or groups of actions.
• Provided a forum for local stakeholders to share opinions and expertise.
• Championed the goals of the plan and provided political support for recommended actions.
The stakeholder process relied on a three-tier system to rank and prioritize recommended actions. This
process was completed using a survey and through discussion during a virtual meeting (see Appendix F:
Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Summary Presentation). Stakeholders considered the anticipated
effectiveness and feasibility of implementing each recommended action based on legal, socio-political or
budgetary constraints. Ranking recommendations according to the three Effectiveness Levels discussed
below indicated the anticipated impact of a proposed action on improving riparian conditions:
• Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity
of riparian areas through Aspen.
• Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of
riparian areas through Aspen.
• Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the
integrity of riparian areas through Aspen.
Ranking recommendations according to the three Feasibility Levels discussed below indicated the
anticipated feasibility of a proposed action given a broad array of expected constraints:
• Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few
constraints and/or are likely to meet little to no resistance within the community.
• Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of
some local social, land ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
63
39
• Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Evaluation of anticipated effectiveness and feasibility for all recommendations identified by the plan helps
guide City staff toward successful implementation of the most productive set of actions for meeting stated
planning goals. Summing stakeholders perceptions of effectiveness and feasibility rankings provided a
qualitative prioritization system where the lowest scores indicated those actions simultaneously expected
to provide the greatest improvements to riparian areas and present the lowest barriers to implementation
(see Prioritization Graph, next page). The projects, policies, and programs identified are ranked in order
from greatest improvements/lowest barriers to lesser improvements/high barriers to implementation. For
example PROJECT 1 was considered by the stakeholder group to provide the greatest improvement with
the lowest barrier for implementation in contrast to PROJECT 2 at the other end of the priority scale.
Coupling expectations for the relative effectiveness of each recommendation with the feasibility
assessments presented here will help City staff, elected officials, and members of the community identify
and implement the most practical and compelling actions first while building support for those actions with
more uncertain outcomes or requiring a greater degree of financial and/or political support.
64
40
PROJECT 1: Public and private restoration partnerships; in order to
create a larger and more robust riparian buffer and connect high value
habitat and ecosystem services, the City should consider targeted
property easements and partnerships that further the goal of
connectivity of the riparian area through Aspen.
PROJECT 5: Newberry Park Enhancement
PROJECT 4: John Denver Park - Kayak Channel and Armored Bank
Restoration
PROJECT 7: Garrish Park Restoration and Mine Drainage
PROGRAM 2: Incentivize restoration, enhancement, or mitigation
opportunities.
PROJECT 8: Anderson Park and Land Trust Parcel
PROJECT 9: Aspen Club Hydrologic Enhancements
POLICY 1: More-explicitly institutionalize water quality projection
as a goal/objective in city code segments pertaining to riparian lands
uses and protections.
PROJECT 6: Herron Park Enhancement
POLICY 2: Strengthen riparian buffer protections on existing
undeveloped locations with functional condition vegetation
PROGRAM 3: Fee – In – Lieu. At sites where improvements still
remain practically infeasible due to topography, parcel size, etc.,
provide opportunities for in-basin mitigation via fee-in-lieu or other
mechanisms to support off-site work that still provides water quality
benefits directly to the Roaring Fork River system.
PROJECT 3: Jenny Adair - Stormwater Control Facility
PROJECT 10: John Denver Park - Vegetation Management & Cattail
Control
PROGRAM 1: Educating property owners on how to maintain
naturalized riparian buffers. Highlight importance of a zoned approach
to landscaping and structure development near riparian areas.
PROJECT 2: Mill Parcel Restoration
65
41
6. PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy, program and project recommendation categories are of equal importance. The City should work to
implement recommendations from each category in concert. This multi-pronged approach to improving the
condition of the riparian area in Aspen will have the greatest impact. The stakeholder-indicated
evvectiveness and feasibility rankings for each action are presented in Appendix F. The following high-
priority actions are recommended for implementation by the City of Aspen:
Policy
The policies below were nearly equal in anticipated effectiveness and feasibility by the stakeholder group.
An important distinction is that the first policy action relates to goal setting and the second policy action is
the implemented regulation of that goal.
1. More-explicitly institutionalize water quality protection as a goal/objective in city code
segments pertaining to riparian lands uses and protections
Rationale: The current iteration of the City’s Steam Margin Setback does not explicitly state water
quality or riparian protection as a goal. The original intent of the code to protect view sheds and
aesthetics does not encompass the functional values of the riparian areas in Aspen. In future
iterations of city code, more-explicitly state water quality protection as an objective in code sections
that target use and development of floodplains, wetlands, riparian buffers, or specific site
development patterns. Institutionalizing water quality protections will make development project
reviews and stream impacts less subject to influences by temporary social and political positions.
2. Strengthen riparian buffer protections on existing undeveloped locations with functional
condition vegetation
Rationale Protecting existing locations with functional riparian buffers and preventing further loss
is more cost-effective than fixing or restoring sites once degradation has occurred. In short, it is
better to protect and enhance areas in relative good condition than to restore areas that have been
impaired. Maintaining or increasing riparian buffer, vegetation, and floodplain development
restrictions for remaining parcels with undeveloped and naturally vegetated stream-adjacent
locations responds strongly to the ‘ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ approach to water
quality protection and land use planning.
Implementation of this policy could take significant political capitol. Importantly, this policy
should not preclude development but guide where and how development occurs.
66
42
Programs
Through providing a “carrot,” rather than a “stick” the City can incentivize homeowners to make impactful
changes to their landscapes that will benefit the wider community. These improvements could be in
conjunction with a redevelopment or building project or undertaken as a singular project by the residential
owner. The stakeholder group found the first program to be the most effective and feasible due to the already
robust regulatory process for development in Aspen. Educational programs were deemed to be less effective
by far, but still worthy endeavors to undertake. Significantly, the stakeholder group recommended that
action on private property as a high priority. Without effecting change in these areas the other work done
by the City was considered less effective overall.
1. Incentivize restoration, enhancement, or mitigation opportunities
Rationale Many negative water quality impacts in Aspen occurred during earlier development
periods which either pre-dated modern water quality law (pre-1970s) or where characterized by
differing social values regarding streams and rivers than current times. Directly fixing impacts
accrued at these sites remains logistically problematic or prohibitively expensive.
During redevelopment opportunities the City can incentivize property owners or project proponents
to improve or enhance degraded conditions by increasing stream setbacks, restoring native
vegetation, modernizing stormwater treatment BMPs, and implementing increased Green
Infrastructure/Low Impact Design concepts in development plans (e.g. decrease connected-
impervious surfaces, increase on-site groundwater infiltration, decrease runoff, etc.).
The socioeconomic landscape of Aspen includes private property owners who are relatively price
insensitive. The scale of financial incentives the City can accommodate may be limited. Other
attractive incentives for private property owners include breaks or increases for; floor area ratio
(FAR), Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP), accessory buildings, and transferable
development rights.
Additionally, to preserve the investments in these improvements the City should explore adding
incentivized improvements to the parcel data so that improvements are retained through changes in
ownership and over time.
2. Fee – In – Lieu:
Rationale Properties not undergoing redevelopment and where improvements are practically
infeasible due to topography, parcel size, etc., provide opportunities for in-basin mitigation via fee-
in-lieu or other mechanisms. Fee-in-lieu is also an option for nonconforming structures, where the
nonconforming structure removal impacts outweigh the benefits of its removal. Fee-in-lieu
supports off-site work that still provides water quality benefits directly to the Roaring Fork River
system. The City’s already robust permitting process is a promising avenue for effecting these
changes.
3. Educate property owners on how to maintain naturalized riparian buffers. Highlight importance
of a zoned approach to landscaping and structure development near riparian areas.
Rationale Although land use practices on individual residential parcels typically do not supply
large pollutant loads, collectively, the relative percentage of residential parcels bordering
waterways in Aspen means these land uses are capable of supplying significant total contaminant
inputs. Stream-friendly land use practices in riparian areas can generate significant water quality
67
43
benefits long term. Practices include avoidance of non-native, ornamental, or maintained
landscaping designs that include impervious surfaces and require regular chemical fertilization and
pesticide/herbicide treatments. Instead, promotion of native vegetation communities, non-
hardened/pervious surfaces, avoidance of structures, no-mow zones, and preservation of natural
site topography and hydrologic characteristics will inculcate stream-friendly land uses and
mentalities in riverfront property owners.
Educational outreach opportunities encourage stewardship of the riparian area in Aspen by home
owners through building community support and individual action. Educational outreach could take
many forms from online “how-to” guides, seminars, pop up events, demonstration landscapes,
social media outreach and paper fliers and/or mail. This type of program works to enhance the
health of riparian systems and the associated water quality in Aspen by working to build awareness
within the community that will lead to individual action. Program components should cover a wide
array of educational components including:
• Building awareness and sensitivity to the riparian areas and their associated challenges
• Growing knowledge and understanding of the riparian areas and their associated challenges
• Shifting attitudes of concern for the riparian area and enhancing motivation to improve or
maintain quality
• Teaching skills to identify and help resolve challenges within the riparian area
• Providing opportunities for participation in activities that lead to the resolution of
challenges
Educational outreach is time and financially intensive. Private entities can be difficult to reach and require
substantial time investments. The voluntary nature of this program would necessitate that significant
resources be devoted to the program in order to see an impact at scale.
68
44
Projects
Projects enjoyed support across the board. Similar to the policy and program sections, projects that address
private land were seen as the most impactful.
1. Public and Private Restoration Partnerships
Rationale The mosaic of property ownership and quality of riparian areas throughout the Aspen
presents a dilemma to creating large swaths of healthy riparian forest. In order to create a larger
and more robust riparian buffer and connect high value habitat and ecosystem services, the City
should consider targeted property easements, conservation easements, and partnerships that further
the goal of connectivity of the riparian area through Aspen. Working with community
organizations, members of the public and land trusts, the City can work to accomplish the goal of
connectivity through agreements and easements. This project potentially has the benefit of greater
community support and buy in. Although partnerships are difficult to establish and maintain this
ongoing program could have significant impact and benefit to the riparian area in Aspen.
69
45
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
NEWBERRY PARK
Objectives:
Remove old bridge pier from streambed to
support natural sediment transport dynamics
and promote healthy channel function.
Increase vegetation diversity though
targeted vegetation management.
Tie natural hydrology into bank to extend
the riparian corridor.
Rationale:
The old bridge pier is abandoned
infrastructure likely alters patterns of
sediment movement along the streambed in
this section of the Roaring Fork River. The
result may be simplification of some aquatic
habitat features. The concrete in the riverbed
is also highly visible and aesthetically
undesirable.
Additionally, the section of vegetation
between the trail and the river has become a
monoculture. Targeted vegetation
management would increase vegeration
structural diversity and character.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
• Increased vegetation diversity
ASSESSMENT RATING:
OVERALL: C+
LANDSCAPE: D
CONDTION: C+
SIZE: A+
70
46
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
JOHN DENVER PARK | KAYAK CHANNEL AND ARMORED BANK
Objectives:
To improve natural channel processes and
encourage establishment of streamside
vegetation.
Rationale:
The narrow kayak channel was originally
developed as a recreational ammenity and as an
important improvement to utilize and maintain
water rights. Numerous opportunities exist to
promote establishment of streamside vegetation.
This project may be confined to planting native
riparian vegetation in bare areas and between
boulders or may be extensive and include
reducing the elevation of the mid-channel island
and replanting that area with native vegetation.
The latter project scope would help the full
channel width activate at high flows, adding or
maintaining capacity for conveyance of water
and sediment and improving aquatic and riparian
habitat complexity. Several site limitations exist
that would need to be addressed. These include
the large amounts of rip-rap placed along the
banks to create recreational features and the
heavy foot traffic along some portions of the
riverbank. Any work conducted at the site would
have significant interpretation opportunities.
Immediately upstream of the kayak channel,
there are opportunities to enhance the armored
bank with targeted planting strategies. This
would have the benefit of adding biologic
stabilization and ehancing the aestetics of the
bank.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Temperature improvements
• Riparian and wetland function
• Habitat creation
• Recreation opportunities
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
ASSESSMENT RATING:
OVERALL: C-
LANDSCAPE: D
CONDTION: C+
SIZE: C-
71
47
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
GARRISH PARK | PARK RESTORATION AND MINE DRAINAGE
Objectives:
To improve water quality in mine drainage before it
enters the Roaring Fork River
To implement riparian restoration and management
strategies that conform to the principles of the “3-Zone
Buffer System”.
Restrict the number and use of social trails.
Install educational and interpretive facilities targeted
at daily users and adjacent property owners.
Rationale:
Restoration and ongoing management according to the
principals of the “3-Zone Buffer System” at this
highly-visible location would also provide the City of
Aspen with an opportunity to draw attention to the
importance of healthy functioning riparian zones.
Treating mine drainage through a series of artificially-
created wetlands may help reduce water quality
impacts to the Roaring Fork River.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Water temperature improvements
• Streambank soil de-compaction.
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
ASSESSMENT RATING:
OVERALL: C+
LANDSCAPE: C-
CONDTION: B-
SIZE: B+
72
48
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
ASPEN CLUB
Objectives:
To create a side channel on the left bank to increase
diversity of river morphology.
Narrow artificially large channel to reconnect
floodplain and encourage overbank flow onto riparian
benches.
Create a private/public partnership opportunity.
Improve wheeler ditch diversion to promote/enhance
vegetation of a mid-channel bar.
Rationale:
The Roaring Fork River through the Aspen Club
property zone consists of cleared riparian corridor,
infrastructure (trails/bridges) and other improvements.
The opportunity to increase riparian improvements in
this zone would be highly beneficial and include a
fairly easy implementation process. This zone is also
a large stretch of publically owned riparian zone with
good connectivity to privately owned riparian zones,
which provides good opportunity for partnerships.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Improved channel function
• Water quality improvement
• Water temperature improvement
• Habitat connectivity
• Wetland creation
• Improved aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
• Partnership opportunity
ASSESSMENT RATING:
OVERALL: C+
LANDSCAPE: C+
CONDTION: C+
SIZE: B+
73
49
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
ANDERSON PARK & LAND TRUST PARCEL
Objectives:
To implement a riparian enhancement strategy
targeted at:
• Native woody riparian area age diversity
• Native woody riparian species diversity
• Improved habitat in narrow band
Rationale:
The riparian corridor on this City of Aspen owned
property consists of a southern bank that has a
very narrow gallery cottonwood over story.
Although the north bank is constrained with a
development at the river edge, there is significant
opportunity to increase age class diversity, species
diversity, and flood plain connectivity through
this specific zone of Roaring Fork River corridor
in a very dense, urban setting.
Directly downstream of Anderson Park, the
smaller Land Trust Parcel includes much less
linear length of riparian corridor. However, there
is good opportunity here to employ the same
strategies used at Anderson Park. There are
benefits to looking at this project as a holistic
approach, rather than as two separate projects.
Mainly in cost of mobilization, design and
implementation, but also in the ecological benefit
of impacting a larger area.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Water temperature improvements
• Streambank soil de-compaction.
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
ASSESSMENT RATING:
OVERALL: C+
LANDSCAPE: D
CONDTION: C+
SIZE: A-
74
50
PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:
HERRON PARK
Objectives:
To implement riparian
restoration and
management strategies
that conform to the
principles of the “3-Zone
Buffer System”.
Restrict the number and
use of social trails.
Install educational and
interpretive facilities
targeted at daily users and
adjacent property owners.
Rationale:
Restoration and ongoing
management according to
the principals of the “3-
Zone Buffer System” at this highly-visible location would also provide
the City of Aspen with an opportunity to draw attention to the
importance of healthy functioning riparian zones.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Water temperature improvements
• Streambank soil de-compaction.
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
ASSESSMENT RATING:
OVERALL: B-
LANDSCAPE: C-
CONDTION: B-
SIZE: A+
75
51
PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:
JENNY ADAIR -
STORMWATER
CONTROL FACILITY
Objectives:
To further improve
the water quality of
storm water exiting
the Jenny Adair storm
water control facility.
Adaptively manage
the evolving system to
continue the high
quality of water
treatment.
Examine the flow
routing and ponded
water depths within
the facility.
Riparian vegetation restoration through planting various
wetland shrubs, forbs, and sedges.
To improve hydrological connectivity with the Roaring Fork
River through structural modification of site topography.
Rationale:
Built in 2007, Aspen’s Jenny Adair Regional Stormwater
Quality Project is an excellent example of green infrastricure.
The artificial wetlands area reduces pollutants entering the
Roaring Fork River by channeling stormwater runoff through
a series of filters. The goal for stormwater treatment areas is
for them to have the highest level of water quality function
possible. The value of these naturalized systems is that the
provide high quality filtering of water in concentrated areas,
which means that the rest of the riparain area is less impacted
by urban runnoff.
Opportunities exist to adaptively manage these features. As
this important storm water treatment system has evolved over
time, there are important opportunities to improve riparian
health as the system has matured. Vegetation treatments, age
class diversity improvements, and physical water course and
pond edge manipulations could be considered to allow for
continuing riparian health and improvements. The existing
pond could be modified to function as a wetland feature,
further facilitating pollutant reduction and stormwater
filtering.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Water quality improvement
• Water temperature improvement
• Wildlife habitat connectivity
• Fragmentation reduction
• Wetland creation
• Infrastructure improvement and greening.
• More desirable aesthetics
ASSESSMENT RATING
OVERALL: B-
LANDSCAPE: C+
CONDTION: B+
SIZE: C+
76
52
MAITENANCE RECOMMENDATION:
JOHN DENVER PARK | VEGETATION MANAGEMENT & CATTAIL CONTROL
Objectives:
To maintain and enhance vegetation community
diversity in the John Denver Park Storm Water
Facility.
To mitigate water eutrophication through
adaptive management practices.
Rationale:
Opportunities exist to encourage the
functionaility and aesterics of the park through
non-desirable invasive wetland species
management. Species like Cattails (Typha sp).
will likely take over as the dominant species in
large sections of the John Denver Park Storm
Water Facility unless they are actively managed.
The city could choose to remove some cattails
and replant desirable wetland vegetation.
Regularly cutting of cattails could be conducted
until Replaced with native vegetation establish.
Storm water in the lower conveyance appears
eutrophic and receives the smallest amount of
treatment of any of the water flowing into the
John Denver constructed wetland complex
before it empties into the Roaring Fork River.
Vegetating the channel bed (variously) would
promote pollutant uptake/storage and some
downstream water quality improvement.
Vegetation could be cut and hauled off routinely
to remove nutrients from the system.
The artificial wetlands area reduces pollutants
entering the Roaring Fork River by channeling
stormwater runoff through a series of filters. The
goal for stormwater treatment areas is for them
to have the highest level of water quality function
possible. The value of these naturalized systems
is that the provide high quality filtering of water
in concentrated areas, which means that the rest
of the riparain area is less impacted by urban
runnoff. Adaptive management stratetegies are
suggested to maintain the high quality and
effectiveness of these systems.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Water quality improvements
• Biological diversity
• Habitat value
• Adaptively managing infrastructure
• Education and outreach
ASSESSMENT RATING:
OVERALL: C-
LANDSCAPE: D
CONDTION: C+
SIZE: C-
77
53
PROJECT RECOMMENDATION:
MILL PARCEL
Objectives:
To restore the native vegetation community along
the floodplain bench on the northwest side of Mill
Street.
To control invasive species along the streambanks
on the southern side of the road crossing.
Enhance the habitat and water quality of the pond
near the ACRA.
Modify site topography and plant various native
wetland species to improve the habitat
characteristics of the pond’s vegetated fringe.
Enhance the internal forest’s diversity in age class
and structure.
Maintain the parcel’s water rights and fisheries
use.
Rationale:
This park features art, the powerhouse building,
restroom facilities, trail access, and river access.
The riparian forest in this area is heavily impacted
by foot traffic which has compacted the soil and
led to a loss of vegetative diversity. Additionally,
the river channel here has been altered by
development and could be restored to improve
functionality both for hydrologic flows and fish
habitat. Lastly, the lack of riparian trees along the
southern bank contribute to increased stream
temperature. Restoration of woody vegetation
would aid shading, and contribute organic detritus
to this stretch. Restoration at this highly-visible
location would also provide the City of Aspen with
an interpretive opportunity on the importance of
healthy functioning riparian zones.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS:
• Improve natural channel function
• Restore floodplain bench
• Improve fish and macroinvertebrate habitat
• Improve stream shading
• Education and outreach
ASSESSMENT RATING
OVERALL: C+
LANDSCAPE: C-
CONDTION: B-
SIZE: C+
78
54
7. CONCLUSIONS
Addressing the health of the riparian area in Aspen requires a creative and multi-prong approach. The City
should carefully weigh actions that address short-term, localized, acute issues such as storm water discharge
points and wider city-wide goals that look towards the future and guide the continued development of
Aspen. The identity, aesthetic character and function health of Aspen are tied to the river corridor. The
benefits provided by healthy riparian areas numerous and contribute to a thriving community and
ecosystem. Development of commercial and residential real estate in close proximity to the Roaring Fork
River and protecting the critically important riparian ecosystem do not have to be contradictory goals.
Effective management of riparian areas within Aspen will balance the cultural demands on the riparian
resources while protecting of vital ecosystem functions.
It is imperative that the City work to protect high quality functioning riparian areas in Aspen. This action
is paramount in reaching the goals outlined in this plan. Protection is the number one tool in the kit of parts
presented in these pages; it has greater cost and ecological effectiveness than restoration. Additionally,
partnering with private parties, and incentivizing and regulating private development in the riparian area is
critical to move the needle on the health of the riparian system. The size, scale, connectivity and relationship
of the riparian area is a major driver in the overall condition of the ecosystem. Finally, projects and
programs on City owned land remain an important and valuable contribution to the ecosystem health,
function and water quality in Aspen. The innovative storm water treatment systems implemented by the
City are examples of excellence in bioengineering and commitment to holistic ecosystem health. Utilizing
the same goals, principles, political capitol and planning that made those projects a reality can be used to
improve the functional quality of publically owned land in Aspen through adaptive management and
restoration activities.
79
References
Clarke, Sharon, et al. State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008 Sponsor: Ruedi Water & Power Authority
Lead Consultant: Roaring Fork Conservancy.
Regional Water Efficiency Plan Roaring Fork Watershed, Colorado Prepared for Ruedi Water & Power Authority.
Prepared by: Element Water Consulting and Water DM Demand Management
S.K. Mason Environmental, LLC and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 2012 Upper Roaring Fork River Aquatic Life Use
Assessment 2013 Sponsor: Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Lead Consultant: Roaring Fork Conservancy
2012 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan and 2012 Roaring Fork Watershed Management Plan. Sponsor:
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Updates 11/2014
City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400
Urban Runoff Management Plan A Guide to Stormwater Management in the City of Aspen Revised. 2014.
Storm Drainage Master Plan for The City Of Aspen, Colorado Prepared for The City Of Aspen, Colorado Prepared By:
WRC Engineering, Inc.2001.
Malone, Delia, and John Emerick. Catalog Of Stream and Riparian Habitat Quality for the Roaring Fork River and
Tributaries, Central Colorado Prepared by the Roaring Fork Stream Health Initiative. 2007.
Spackman, Susan, et al. Roaring Fork Watershed Biological. 1997.
Neubaum, Daniel. Ecological Research Assessment for the Roaring Fork Watershed, Colorado. 2007.
Gardner-Smith, Brent. “Upper Roaring Fork River Management Plan.” Documentcloud.Org, 2018, www.
documentcloud.org/documents/4568271-Upper-Roaring-Fork-River-Management-Plan.html. Accessed 27 Aug.
2019.
55
References
80
81
Appendix A: City of Aspen Riparian Area Rules and Regulations
City of Aspen Land Use Code: Title 8, Building and Building Regulations, Chapter 8.20
International Building Code, Section 1612.3. Establishment of Flood Hazard Areas
To establish flood hazard areas , the applicable governing authority shall adopt a flood hazard map and supporting
data. The flood hazard map shall include, at a minimum, areas of special flood hazard as identified by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in an engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study for City of Aspen,”
dated June 4, 1987, as amended or revised with the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and related supporting data along with any revisions thereto. The adopted
flood hazard map and supporting data are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be part of this section.
City of Aspen Land Use Code: Title 26, Chapter 26.435 Development in Environmental-
ly Sensitive Areas (ESA). §26.435.040. Stream Margin Review
A. Applicability. The provisions of the stream margin review shall apply to all development within one hundred
(100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams and
to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain.
B. Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following types of development within the
stream margin review area:
1. Construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for irrigation, drainage,
flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and specifications are submitted
to the City engineer demonstrating that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage
channels during peak flows and the Community Development Director determines the proposed structure
complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards.
2. Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be reasonably
accommodated outside of the “no development area” prescribed by this Section including, but not limited
to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and fire suppression systems provided the Community
Development Director determines the development complies, to the extent practical, with the stream
margin review standards.
3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided the following
standards are met:
a) The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing
structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations by
more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin exemptions are cumulative. Once
a development reaches these totals, a stream margin review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission is required; and
b) The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required
pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
c) The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction
will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development;
d) The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has been
57
Appendix A: City of Aspen Riparian Area Rules and Regulations
82
designated through a prior review; and
e) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground
coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan.
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring
Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will
not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated
by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which
shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation
techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development; and
2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring Fork River Greenway
Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas
of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman’s
easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be
granted via a recorded “Fisherman’s Easement;” and
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a
specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said
envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to
Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or
other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage
shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot
tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of
a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer
and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not
diminished; and
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100- year flood
plain; and
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of
slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This
is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees,
shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native
riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100- year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be
determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at
the City Engineering Department; and
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height
58
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
83
delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height
shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for
height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as
shown in Figure “A”; and City of Aspen Land Use Code
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down
the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all
development applications; and
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
D. Appeal of Director’s determination. An appeal of a determination in regards to a stream margin application or
in regards to the top of slope determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as
a special review pursuant to Section E, below. In this case, the Community Development Director’s finding shall be
forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed.
E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of
the Stream Margin Map’s top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with
common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a
public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3
Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin
review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the
following review criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination
in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the
Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community
Development Director had based the finding of denial.
F. Building permit submittal requirements. Prior to receiving a building permit for a property within the stream
margin review area, the following must be submitted:
1. The applicant shall record a site improvement plat with topography prepared by a Colorado licensed
professional surveyor showing the building envelope determined by the Community Development
Director based on the Stream Margin Review Map located in the Community Development Department.
2. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted
showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level.
3. The building envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building
permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of certificates of occupancy.
(Ord. No. 45-2001, § 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 13; Ord. No. 3-2012, §9)
Editor’s note—Ord. No. 45-2001, § 2, repealed former § 26.435.040, pertaining to Stream Margin Review and Ord.
No. 45-2001, § 3, enacted a new § 26.435.040 as herein set out. Former § 26.435.040 was derived from Ord. No. 47-
1999, § 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 13.
59
Appendix A: City of Aspen Riparian Area Rules and Regulations
84
Senstive Lands Protection
Principal Objective Additional EPA Guidance Municipal Code
Section Code Provision
Ensure that sediment is not tracked onto public
streets or washed into storm drains. Not reviewed
Immediately cover and stabilize exposed soils
and soil stockpiles.Not reviewed
Stabilize and cover soil stockpiles at the end of
each workday.Not reviewed
Stabilize the entire site using a heavy mulch layer
(or another method that does not require
germination to control erosion) at the close of
the construction season.
Not reviewed
Ensure that potential pollutant sources are
located away from steep slopes, water bodies,
and sensitive areas.
URMP 6.5.1 Storage
of Materias
It is prohibited to store hazardous or floatable/movable materials in the floodplain. These materials have
the potential to create public health, environmental or safety risks. For example, materials stored in the
floodplain may become dislodged and roll and/or float downstream to cause culvert or bridge blockages
and resulting overtopping of roadways which can create
hazards for vehicles and pedestrians. Materials stored in the floodplain may also cause
diversion of flood waters out of the floodplain where damage is possible or may cause
undesirable erosion or sedimentation in the floodplain. Storage of some materials in the
floodplain and floodway may be permitted based on approval by the Floodplain Administrator.
Do not allow cement and concrete to be mixed
onsite. Insist that it be stored away from water
bodies and storm drains and discharged only into
the sanitary sewer.
Not reviewed
Require perimeter and wind erosion controls to
be installed to retain sediment on site.Not reviewed
Examine all aspects of an individual site,
including soil types, slopes, and location of
environmentally sensitive features suchs as
wetlands, forests, and meadows should be to
indentify areas that should be preserved or
restored.
Title 26: 26.435
Development in
Environmentally
Sensitive Area,
25.435.040 Stream
Margin Review
The Stream Margin Review Process process seeks to prevent property loss by flood while ensuring natural
and unimpeded flow of watercourse. Priority is placed on low impact uses such as recreation paths, but
does not categorically prohibit higher impact uses, dependent on successful review.
Establish restrictions that leave wetlands,
significant wildlife habitats, and woodlands
undeveloped.
Title 26: 26.435
Development in
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
The Stream Margin Review Process process seeks to prevent property loss by flood while ensuring natural
and unimpeded flow of watercourse. Priority is placed on low impact uses such as recreation paths, but
does not categorically prohibit higher impact uses, dependent on successful review.
Leave well‐drained soils undeveloped so that
they can be used to treat wastewater.
No applicable
language found
Prohibit development within the 100‐year flood
plain and establish an additional 50 – 100 foot
setback.
URMP 6.3.1, Title 26:
26.435 Development
in Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Developments in 100 yr plain require a Floodplain Development permit (sets criteria, but is not an
unconditional prohibition on development). Developments in this zone are also likely to require a Stream
Margin Review process. The SMR prrocess seeks to prevent property loss by flood while ensuring natural
and unimpeded flow of watercourse. Priority is placed on low impact uses such as recreation paths, but
does not categorically prohibit higher impact uses, dependent on successful review.
Buffer unconfined aquifers with vegetation and
conserve them as open space.
No applicable
language found
No person should be granted a site development
permit for land‐disturbing activity that would
require the uncovering of 10,000 or more square
feet without the approval of an Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan.
No applicable
langauge found
Confirm that the Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (ESC) uses topographic and vicinity maps URMP
The Urban Runoff Management Plan addresses many of these concerns, although exact specifics were not
anlayzed for 1:1 attainment of these recommendations. Among other requirements, the URMP specifies
developers to create and obtain approval from the city of the following: Landscape and Grading Permits,
Building Permit, Grading and Drainage Plan/Report; Construction Management Plan, Excavation
Stabilization Plan, floodplain requirements, and mudflow analysis.
Confirm that the ESC includes a site development
plan and construction schedule, including
stripping and clearing, rough grading;
construction of utilities, infrastructure, and
buidlings; and final grading and landscaping.
Sequencing should identify the expected date
when clearing will begin, the estimated duration
of exposure of cleared areas, areas of clearing,
intallation of temporary erosion and sediment
control measures, and the establishment of
permanent vegetation.
URMP
The Urban Runoff Management Plan addresses many of these concerns, although exact specifics were not
anlayzed for 1:1 attainment of these recommendations. Among other requirements, the URMP specifies
developers to create and obtain approval from the city of the following: Landscape and Grading Permits,
Building Permit, Grading and Drainage Plan/Report; Construction Management Plan, Excavation
Stabilization Plan, floodplain requirements, and mudflow analysis.
Confirm that the ESC contains drawings
illustrating the control plan. URMP
The Urban Runoff Management Plan addresses many of these concerns, although exact specifics were not
anlayzed for 1:1 attainment of these recommendations. Among other requirements, the URMP specifies
developers to create and obtain approval from the city of the following: Landscape and Grading Permits,
Building Permit, Grading and Drainage Plan/Report; Construction Management Plan, Excavation
Stabilization Plan, floodplain requirements, and mudflow analysis.
Confirm that the ESC provides design calculations
for control structures. URMP
The Urban Runoff Management Plan addresses many of these concerns, although exact specifics were not
anlayzed for 1:1 attainment of these recommendations. Among other requirements, the URMP specifies
developers to create and obtain approval from the city of the following: Landscape and Grading Permits,
Building Permit, Grading and Drainage Plan/Report; Construction Management Plan, Excavation
Stabilization Plan, floodplain requirements, and mudflow analysis.
Confirm that the ESC contains a vegetation plan
detailing seeding mixtures and rates, types of
sod, method of seedbed preparation, expected
seeding dates, type and rate of lime and fertilizer
application, and kind/quality of mulching for
both temporary and permanent vegetative
control measures.
No applicable
langauge found
Confirm that the ESC includes a natural resources
map identifying soils, forest cover, and protected
resources.
No applicable
langauge found
Require the scale of the map submitted with the
ESC to be equal to, or greater than, 1" = 100 feet
No applicable
langauge found
Protect areas that provide
important water quality
benefits or are particularly
susceptible to erosion and
sediment loss.
Incorporate appropriate pollution
prevention practices into site
development and use.
Establish site plan review and
conditional approval processes to
ensure the preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas
and areas necessary for
maintaining natural hydrology.
60
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
85
Senstive Lands Protection
Principal Objective Additional EPA Guidance Municipal Code
Section Code Provision
Require ESC applicants to file a faithful
performance bond, letter of credit, or other
improvement security to cover all costs of
improvements, landscaping, maintenance of
improvements, and engineering and inspection
costs to cover the cost of failure or repair of
improvements installed on the site. (Amount and
time frame to be determined by agency).
Not reviewed
See that the ESC plan includes provisions for
maintenance of control facilities, including
easements and estimates of the cost of
maintenance.
Not reviewed
Require a certified contractor to be on site on all
days when construction or grading activity takes
place.
Not reviewed
Conduct a post‐construction review to ensure
compliance with original ESC and Stormwater
management plans
Not reviewed
Town regulations do not
generally reflect or include
EPA or NWCCOG guidance
Town regulations partially include
or reflect or include EPA or
NWCCOG guidance
Town regulations reflect or include EPA or
NWCCOG guidance
Develop and implement inspection
and maintenance procedures to
ensure that landscapes are
maintained to avoid water quality
impacts.
61
Appendix A: City of Aspen Riparian Area Rules and Regulations
86
Aquatic Ecosystems Protection
Principal Objective Additional EPA Guidance Municipal Code Section Code Provision
Manage vegetated buffers,
including wetlands and floodplains,
in a manner that enhances and
maximizes the value of the
resource(s).
Design vegetated buffers that
consist of a forested strip of land
extending along both sides of a
stream and its adjacent wetlands,
floodplains, or slopes.
Title 26: 26.435 Development
in Environmentally Sensitive
Area, 25.435.040 Stream
Margin Review
Stream Margin Review required for all development within 100 feet of the high water line of
Roaring Fork River and tributaries, and to all development with the Special Flood Hazard Area.
SMR includes a variety of criteria. Relevant items include the specification that "3. There is no
vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically
defined building envelope." "8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation
planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the
high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian
vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside
of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications."
Begin the forest buffer at the edge
of the stream bank of the active
channel.
Title 26: 26.435 Development
in Environmentally Sensitive
Area, 25.435.040 Stream
Margin Review
Stream Margin Review required for all development within 100 feet of the high water line of
Roaring Fork River and tributaries, and to all development with the Special Flood Hazard Area.
SMR includes a variety of criteria. Relevant items include the specification that "3. There is no
vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically
defined building envelope." "8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation
planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the
high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian
vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside
of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications."
Require that vegetated buffers have
a base width of at least 100 feet. No applicable langauge found
Require that vegetated buffers
encompass the entire 100‐year
floodplain and a zone with a
minimum width of 25 feet beyond
the edge of the floodplain.
Title 26: 26.435 Development
in Environmentally Sensitive
Area, 25.435.040 Stream
Margin Review
Development in the 100 year floodplain requires a Floodplain Development Permit. Stream Margin
Review required for all development within 100 feet of the high water line of Roaring Fork River
and tributaries, and to all development with the Special Flood Hazard Area. SMR includes a variety
of criteria. Relevant items include the specification that "3. There is no vegetation removed or
damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building
envelope." "8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking
place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank
stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated
building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the
City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications."
In third‐order and higher streams,
add 25 feet to the required base
width of the vegetated buffer.
No applicable langauge found
Adjust the vegetated buffer width if
steep slopes are within close
proximity to the stream and/or
drain into the stream system.
Title 26: 26.435 Development
in Environmentally Sensitive
Area, 25.435.040 Stream
Margin Review
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the
top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most
restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New
plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope
on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape
plan will be submitted with all development applications.
When wetland or critical areas
extend beyond the edge of the
required buffer width, adjust the
buffer to include the extent of the
wetlands plus a 25‐foot zone
extending beyond the wetland
edge.
No applicable langauge found
Limit development within 25 feet of
the watercourse to footpaths,
utility right of ways, flood control
structures, and roadway crossings.
URMP 6.4.2. Permitted Uses
Permitted uses in the floodplain are considered carefully by the Floodplain Administrator so they do
not create barriers to flood waters such as fences, walls, berms or other obstructions may create.
Based on careful review, possible allowable uses may include; golf courses, bike paths, parks, open
spaces, nature areas, greenspace, public stormwater management facilities, and other similar
uses. If these uses include cut and fill they will be addressed from the standpoint of their impact on
the floodplain.
Restrict development within 75 feet
of the watercourse to biking and
hiking paths, stormwater
management facilities, roadway
crossings, and recreational uses.
URMP 6.4.2. Permitted Uses
Permitted uses in the floodplain are considered carefully by the Floodplain Administrator so they do
not create barriers to flood waters such as fences, walls, berms or other obstructions may create.
Based on careful review, possible allowable uses may include; golf courses, bike paths, parks, open
spaces, nature areas, greenspace, public stormwater management facilities, and other similar
uses. If these uses include cut and fill they will be addressed from the standpoint of their impact on
the floodplain.
Prohibit installation of septic
systems, permanent structures and
impervious covers within 100 feet
of the watercourse.
URMP 6.4.3. Uses Not
Permitted
Parking lots and sport courts with fences or netting are not permitted uses in Special Flood Hazard
Areas
Bury utility crossings at least 3 feet
below channels invert elevation. No applicable language found
Use ponds located within a buffer
for runoff control only.No applicable language found
Store hazardous substances at least
150 feet from any stream or
waterbody.
URMP 6.5.1 Storage of
Materias
It is prohibited to store hazardous or floatable/movable materials in the floodplain. These
materials have the potential to create public health, environmental or safety risks. For example,
materials stored in the floodplain may become dislodged and roll and/or float downstream to
cause culvert or bridge blockages and resulting overtopping of roadways which can create hazards
for vehicles and pedestrians. Materials stored in the floodplain may also cause diversion of flood
waters out of the floodplain where damage is possible or may cause undesirable erosion or
sedimentation in the floodplain. Storage of some materials in the floodplain and floodway may be
permitted based on approval by the Floodplain Administrator.
Locate any aboveground or
underground petroleum storage
facilities at least 150 feet from any
stream or water body.
URMP 6.5.1 Storage of
Materias
It is prohibited to store hazardous or floatable/movable materials in the floodplain. These
materials have the potential to create public health, environmental or safety risks. For example,
materials stored in the floodplain may become dislodged and roll and/or float downstream to
cause culvert or bridge blockages and resulting overtopping of roadways which can create hazards
for vehicles and pedestrians. Materials stored in the floodplain may also cause diversion of flood
waters out of the floodplain where damage is possible or may cause undesirable erosion or
sedimentation in the floodplain. Storage of some materials in the floodplain and floodway may be
permitted based on approval by the Floodplain Administrator.
Preserve natural systems including in‐
stream habitat, riparian areas, and
wetlands
Adjust the width of the vegetated
buffer to include contiguous
sensitive areas, such as steep slopes
or erodible soils, where
development or disturbance may
adversely affect water quality,
streams, wetlands, or other
waterbodies.
Expand buffer widths to
incorporate variations in stream
order, percent slope, the 100‐year
floodplain, and wetlands or critical
areas.
Develop setback and buffer
ordinances that restrict vegetation
and soil disturbance, and reduce
the potential for contamination.
62
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
87
Aquatic Ecosystems Protection
Principal Objective Additional EPA Guidance Municipal Code Section Code Provision
Limit tree clearing within 75 feet of
stream or water body.
Title 13. Health and Quality of
Environment. 13.20. Tree
Removal Permits. 13.20.020
Removal of trees; permit
required; valuation.
Removal of woody shrub vegetation (Gambel oak Red maple, Serviceberry, Chokecherry) 3” or
more or conifer 4” or more, deciduous trees 6” or more require approval. Manager of Parks and
Recreation may deny removal permits if retention of trees necessary to ‘minimize flood or landslide
hazards’ or ‘prevent excess water runoff or otherwise protect the watershed.
Clearly mark buffer boundaries on
local planning maps. No applicable language found
Town regulations do not generally reflect
or include EPA or NWCCOG guidance
Town regulations partially include
or reflect or include EPA or
NWCCOG guidance
Town regulations reflect or include EPA
or NWCCOG guidance
63
Appendix A: City of Aspen Riparian Area Rules and Regulations
88
Natural Drainage and Vegetation
Principal Objective Additional EPA Guidance Municipal Code Section Code Provision
Protect and retain existing
vegetation to decrease
concentrated flows, maintain site
hydrology, and soil erosion.
Protect natural vegetation with
fencing, tree armoring and retaining
walls, or tree wells.
Title 26: 26.435 Development in
Environmentally Sensitive Area, 25.435.040
Stream Margin Review, C3
Stream Margin Review required for all development within 100 feet of the high water line of Roaring Fork River and tributaries,
and to all development with the Special Flood Hazard Area. SMR includes a variety of criteria. Relevant items include the
specification that "3.There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a
specifically defined building envelope."
Use natural hydrology as a design
element, and avoid alteration,
modification, or destruction of
natural features.
Prohibit the clearing and grading of
forests and wetlands except when
in compliance with all erosion and
sediment control ordinances.
URMP 8.2 Water Quality Low Impact Design
Requirements, Step 4.
Step 4: Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. (This is not an enforceable code provision,
but rather a 'strongly‐recommended' design consideration of the city for developers.
Design sites to preserve vegetated
or natural buffers adjacent to
receiving waters.
Restrict drainage by ditching,
underdrains, or other systems
within 75 feet of the stream.
Title 26: 26.435 Development in
Environmentally Sensitive Area, 25.435.040
Stream Margin Review
Stream Margin Review required for all development within 100 feet of the high water line of Roaring Fork River and tributaries,
and to all development with the Special Flood Hazard Area. SMR includes a variety of criteria. Relevant items include the
specification that "3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a
specifically defined building envelope." "8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking
place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive.
This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers
and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved
by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications."
Reforest areas within the same
watershed in proportion to the
acreage cleared of trees.
No applicable langauge found
Town regulations do not generally
reflect or include EPA or NWCCOG
guidance
Town regulations partially include or
reflect or include EPA or NWCCOG
guidance
Town regulations reflect or include
EPA or NWCCOG guidance
Preserve natural drainage features
and vegetation to the extent
possible.
64
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
89
Appendix B: City of Aspen Stormwater Treatment Requirements
City of Aspen Municipal Code: TITLE28. Stormwater and Mudflow
65
APPENDIX B: CITY OF ASPEN STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
TITLE 28. STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW
Chapter 28.01
Table of Contents
TITLE 28. STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW .............................................................. 1
Chapter 28.01 ...................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
Sec. 28.01.010 Introduction ........................................................................................... 2
Sec. 28.01.020 Purpose .................................................................................................. 3
Sec. 28.01.030 Applicability .......................................................................................... 3
Sec.28.01.040 Compatibility with Other Permit and Code Requirements ....................... 4
Chapter 28.02 ...................................................................................................................... 4
STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW DESIGN MANUAL ............................................... 4
Sec. 28.02.010. Adoption of Urban Runoff Management Plan. ..................................... 4
Sec. 28.02.020. Use of Urban Runoff Management Plan ............................................... 4
Sec. 28.02.030. Applicability. ......................................................................................... 5
Chapter 28.03 ...................................................................................................................... 6
Stormwater Fees.................................................................................................................. 6
Sec. 28.03.010. Definitions. ................................................................................................ 6
Sec. 28.03.020. Fee-in-Lieu of Detention. .......................................................................... 6
90
66
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Sec. 28.01.010 Introduction
It is hereby determined that:
Construction and development activities, and their associated changes to land cover, alter the
hydrologic response of local watersheds and increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes, which
in turn increase flooding, stream channel erosion, and sediment transport and deposition;
Construction and development activities also contribute to increased nonpoint source
pollution and degradation of receiving waters;
The impacts of development-related stormwater runoff quantity and quality can adversely
affect public safety, public and private property, drinking water supplies, recreation, fish
and other aquatic life, property values and other uses of lands and waters;
These adverse impacts can be controlled and minimized through the regulation of
stormwater runoff quantity and quality from new development and redevelopment, by the
use of both structural facilities as well as nonstructural measures;
Localities in the State of Colorado are required to comply with a number of both State
and Federal laws, regulations and permits which require a locality to address the impacts
of stormwater runoff quality and nonpoint source pollution these include the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal Water Quality Act, and the Colorado State
Water Quality Standards;
Therefore, the City of Aspen establishes this set of stormwater management policies to
provide reasonable guidance for the regulation of stormwater runoff for the purpose of
protecting local water resources from degradation. It is determined that the regulation of
stormwater runoff discharges from construction and development activities and other
construction activities in order to control and minimize increases in stormwater runoff
rates and volumes, soil erosion, stream channel erosion, and nonpoint source pollution
associated with stormwater runoff is in the public interest and will prevent threats to
public health and safety.
91
67
APPENDIX B: CITY OF ASPEN STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 28.01.020 Purpose
The purpose of this Title is to protect, maintain and enhance the health, safety, and
welfare of the watersheds and public residing in watersheds within this jurisdiction by
establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects
mudflow and of increased effects of post-development stormwater runoff and nonpoint
source pollution associated with new development and redevelopment. It has been
determined that proper management of stormwater runoff and mudflow will minimize
damage to public and private property and infrastructure, safeguard the public health,
safety, environment and general welfare of the public, and protect water and aquatic
resources.
This Title seeks to meet that purpose through the following objectives:
(1) Minimize increases in stormwater runoff from any development in order to reduce
flooding, erosion, non-point source pollution and increases in stream temperature, and
maintain the integrity of stream channels and aquatic habitats;
(2) Minimize increases in nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from
development which would otherwise degrade local water quality;
(3) Minimize the total annual volume of surface water runoff which flows from any specific
site during and following development to not exceed the pre-development hydrologic
regime to the maximum extent practicable; and
(4) Reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution,
wherever possible, through stormwater management controls and to ensure that these
management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to public safety.
(5) Minimize the impact of a mudflow event to the maximum extent practicable.
Sec. 28.01.030 Applicability
This Title shall be applicable to all construction or development activity, including but
not limited to subdivision, building permit, or site plan applications, unless eligible for an
exemption or granted a waiver by the City of Aspen. The Title also applies to
construction or development activities that are smaller than the minimum applicability
criteria if such activities are part of a larger common plan of development that meets the
following applicability criteria, even though multiple separate and distinct construction or
development activities may take place at different times on different schedules. In
addition, all plans must also be reviewed by City staff to ensure that stormwater
management measures and controls will be maintained during and after development of
the site.
92
68
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN
Sec.28.01.040 Compatibility with Other Permit and Code Requirements
This Title is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any other municipal code,
rule or regulation, stature, or other provision of law. The requirements of this Title should
be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this Title imposes
restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule or regulation, or
other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose higher
protective standards for human health or the environment shall be considered to take
precedence.
Chapter 28.02
STORMWATER AND MUDFLOW DESIGN MANUAL
Sec. 28.02.010. Adoption of Urban Runoff Management Plan.
Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted
and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those regulations contained in the Urban
Runoff Management Plan (Manual), as may be amended from time to time by the City Engineer.
At least one (1) copy of the aforementioned Manual shall be available for public inspection at the
Community Development Department and Engineering Department.
Sec. 28.02.020. Use of Urban Runoff Management Plan
The City of Aspen shall use the policies, criteria and information including specifications
and standards in the latest edition of the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) for
the proper implementation of the requirements of this Title. The Manual may be updated
and expanded periodically, based on improvements in science, engineering, monitoring,
and local maintenance experience.
The Manual shall include a list of acceptable stormwater treatment practices, including
the specific design criteria for each stormwater practice. The Manual also includes
criteria for managing mudflows. The Manual may be updated and expanded from time to
time, at the discretion of the local review authority, based on improvements in
engineering, science, monitoring and local maintenance experience. Stormwater
treatment practices that are designed and constructed in accordance with these design and
sizing criteria shall be presumed to meet the minimum water quality performance
standards.
93
69
APPENDIX B: CITY OF ASPEN STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 28.02.030. Applicability.
The Urban Runoff Management Plan, as adopted pursuant to Section 28.02.010, shall
apply to all construction, development or redevelopment activity within the City;
provided, however, that the City Engineer may waive one (1) or more specific provisions
of the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Requests for waivers and any waivers granted by
the City Engineers shall be in writing.
94
70
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN
Chapter 28.03
Stormwater Fees
Sec. 28.03.010. Definitions.
For the purposes of this Chapter, certain words or phrases are defined as follows:
(a) Development. The proposed development creates at least one-thousand (1000)
square feet of new impervious area.
(b) Redevelopment. The proposed development disturbs at least one-thousand (1000)
square feet of the existing impervious area.
Sec. 28.03.020. Fee-in-Lieu of Detention.
(a) A stormwater fee-in-lieu of detention shall be established which shall be applied
and available as an alternative to the construction of on-site detention as required by Sec.
28.02.010 to all properties within the boundaries of the City of Aspen at the time of
development or redevelopment of the property. The basis of this fee is set forth in
Section 2.12.140.
(b) A developer will not have the option to pay a fee-in-lieu of constructing a
stormwater detention facility if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, undetained runoff
from the development may materially adversely exacerbate an existing problem or may
adversely impact a downstream property.
(Ord. No. 15-2011 §4)
95
City of Aspen Municipal Code: Title 2. Administration. Sec. 2.12.140. Stormwater Fees
Fee-in-Lieu of Detention Fee (per cubic foot of detention req.) $78.78
(a) The fee is based on 100 percent of the estimated cost of constructing a detention facility on-site. The City
Engineer at his/her sole discretion may require a certified cost estimate for construction of detention meeting the
standards contained in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) established in Sec 28.02.010 and may accept
at his/her sole discretion this amount to be paid in-lieu-of detention.
(b) Required detention storage shall be calculated at the rate of 6.20 cubic feet per 100 square feet of impervious
area. The City Engineer at his/her sole discretion may require a certified storage volume estimate for construction
of detention meeting the standards contained in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) established in
Sec 28.02.010 and may accept at his/her sole discretion this amount to be used for detention volume storage
requirements.
(Ord. No. 40-2008; Ord. No. 27-2009§11; Ord. No. 29-2010§11; Ord. No. 15-2011§2; Ord. No. 29- 2012; Ord. No. 48-
2013; Ord. No. 36-2014; Ord. No. 43-2015; Ord. No 36-2016; Ord. No 30-2017; Ord. No 40-2018)
71
APPENDIX B: CITY OF ASPEN STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
96
Urban Stormwater Management Plan (Manual) 2014
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management PlanChapter 1–Policy and Permit Requirements1-3Rev 11/2014Table 1.1 General Requirements for Minor and Major ProjectsProject Type*Area added OR disturbedProject ClassificationGeneral RequirementsDisturbing less than 200 sq ft <200 square feet--------No requirementsLandscaping or grading only, andNo hardscape, and no change to drainage pattern200–1000square feet---------No requirementsLandscaping or grading onlythat might include hardscape or change in grade or drainage pattern, small additions, small scrape and replace200–1000square feetMinor•WQCVor drain to green spacefor the impervious (hardscape)area•CMPRefinishing a driveway only (retaining ordecreasing impervious area square footage)Limited to the exact footprint of the existing drivewayMinor•CMP if greater than 1000 square feet•WQCV or drain to green spacefor the impervious (hardscape)areaInterior work only< 50% demolishedMinorCMP if greater than 400 square feet of workInterior work only, Pre-project lot coverage of 0-50%> 75% demolished(< 75% is still a minor)Major•CMP•WQCV for the entire area•Conveyance of major flows•Detention to the historic undevelopedrateor FIL for the entire area, unless discharging directly to the City’s stormwater system depicted in Figure 1.1.•Requires Professional Engineer72
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN
97
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management PlanChapter 1–Policy and Permit Requirements1-4Rev 11/2014Notes: 1Special Circumstances: Anywork, regardless of amount or size, performed on historic properties, in environmentally sensitive areas, geologic hazard areas, in jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional floodplains, or work that impacts treesmay be required to submit information for permit review and may be required to provide amore detailed drainage analysis and designthan suggested in the table above.2The de minimisthreshold for minor projects applies only to a single addition on a given piece of property. If cumulative additions on a property over a three-year period after the CO is issued increase the impervious area by more than 1000 square feet, “major” projectrequirements and evaluations will apply to all impervious areas that are in addition to the “baseline” imperviousness determined from the 2008 aerial photography. 3Pre-project lot coverage is determined by dividing the total hardscape footprint on the lot (house, driveway, patios, sidewalks, etc.) by the total lot area. Interior demolition is measured by the square footage of the room renovated/modified divided by the total square footage of the structure.Interior work only, Pre-project lot coverage of 50-100%> 50% demolishedMajor•CMP•WQCV for the entire area•Conveyance of major flows•Detention to the historic undevelopedrateor FIL for the entire area, unless discharging directly to the City’s stormwater system depicted in Figure 1.1.•Requires Professional EngineerLandscaping, grading, installing ordisturbing hardscapes, additions to structures, etc.> 1000 square feet and < 25% of the entire siteMajor•CMP•WQCV for the new impervious area•Conveyance of major flows•Detention to the historic undevelopedrateor FIL for the disturbed or added area, unless discharging directly to the City’s stormwater system depicted in Figure 1.1.•Requires Professional EngineerLandscaping, grading, installing or disturbing hardscapes, additions to structures, scrape and replace, interior remodel combined with exterior work, etc.> 1000 square feet and > 25% of the entire siteMajor •CMP•WQCV for the entire area•Conveyance of major flows•Detention to the historic undevelopedrateor FIL for the entire area, unless discharging directly to the City’s stormwater system depicted in Figure 1.1.•Requires Professional Engineer73
APPENDIX B: CITY OF ASPEN STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
98
ASSESSMENT AREA DELINEATION
Individual Assessment Areas (AAs) within the project bounds were delineated by segmenting the existing riparian
corridor into polygons that shared similar dimensions, roughly 100 meters, along their outside edge farthest from
the Roaring Fork . The existing riparian area was first hand digitized in a Geographic Information System (GIS) by
cross-referencing vegetation communities evident in six-inch resolution aerial photos, digital elevation models
derived from Pitkin County LiDAR images, and flood modeling inundation boundaries generated by the City of
Aspen’s hydraulic model for delineating floodways. The riparian polygon was then split into river-right and river-
left segments by clipping it to the bounds of the Roaring Fork River. The outside edges of these -right and -left
segments were dynamically segmented into 100m lengths. Lines were extended from the start and end of each
line, back to the edge of the Roaring Fork River. These lines were oriented roughly perpendicular to the river bank
and formed the upstream and downstream bounds of each AA. Each AA was given a unique identification code
that indicated the adjacent water body, the approximate river mile stationing as defined by the Colorado Water
Conservation Board’s Source Water Route Framework, and whether the AA fell on the right or left side of the river
when looking downstream.
DATA ANALYSIS
As discussed in the body of the report, the project team preformed Level 1 and Level 2 EIA assessments on riparian
zones delineated within the planning area. A modified version of the EIA protocol was used to evaluate conditions
in each AA. Notably, an assessment of wildlife and habitat values of each AA was included as an additional
protocol. The assessment specifically considered the Major Ecological Factors and Metrics presented in the table
below. The discussion presented below focuses on areas where the protocol employed for this project deviates
from the protocols spelled out in the EIA Field Manual (citation). A score was developed for each metric and these
scores were combined for each AA to communicate an aggregated condition. Results were presented in both maps
and tabular format. A stressor checklist accompanied the EIA results for several metrics. These checklists should
help stakeholders identify the most pressing stressors faced by riparian areas in the City.
EIA EVALUATION CRITERIA
Rank FactoR MajoR Ecological FactoR MEtRic
Landscape Context (L)Landscape L1. Contiguous Natural Land Cover
L2. Land Use Index
Buffer B1. Perimeter with Natural Buffer
B2. Width of Natural Buffer
B3. Condition of Natural Buffer
Condition (C)Vegetation V1. Native Plant Species Cover
V2. Invasive Nonnative Plant Species Cover
V3. Native Plant Species Composition
V4. Vegetation Structure
V5. Regeneration of Native Woody Species
V6. Coarse and Fine Woody Debris
Hydrology H1. Water Source
H2. Hydroperiod
H3. Hydrologic Connectivity
Physiochemistry S1. Soil Condition
S2. Surface Water Turbidity/Pollutants
Size (S)Size Z1. Comparative Size
Z2. Change in Size
Appendix C: Ecological Integrity Assessment Protocols and Methodologies
74
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
99
Appendix C: Ecological Integrity Assessment Protocols and Methodologies LANDSCAPE
A Level 1 assessment of landscape quality was performed using aerial imagery and other digital data sets in a
GIS. Although the EIA method calls for evaluating landscape quality within a 500-meter radius of each AA, this
approach was deemed inappropriate due to the high number of adjacent AAs in the planning area. Instead, we
delineated local watersheds (‘drainage wings’) expected to contribute flow to each AA. We then clipped these
drainage wings to within 500-meters of the AA boundaries. Drainage area delineations were carried out in a GIS
using 2016 LiDAR imagery published by Pitkin County. Two landscape metrics were assessed to determine the
overall quality of the landscape contributing to the riparian AAs. Landscape quality metrics included Contiguous
Natural Land Cover (L1) and Land Use Index (L2).
L1. CONTIGUOUS NATURAL LAND COVER
Contiguous natural land cover area was manually digitized in a GIS using 1-meter resolution National Agricultural
Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery collected in 2015. The area of continuous natural land cover adjacent each AA
was then divided by the total area of the drainage wing contributing flow to that AA. A letter grade was assigned
based on the relative percentage of contiguous natural versus developed land cover adjacent to each AA. AAs
embedded in >90% natural landscape received an ‘A’ ranking, while AAs embedded in <20% received a ‘D’ ranking.
L2. LAND USE INDEX
Land use mappings across the study area were derived from 2016 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) imagery.
Land use classifications were recoded based the scoring protocol outlined in the EIA method (Table 9, Lemly et
al., 2016) and clipped to each AA’s drainage wing. A letter grade was assigned based on the intensity of human-
dominated land uses within the contributing watersheds of the AAs. AAs with a score > 9.5 received an ‘A’ ranking,
while AAs scoring less than 4.5 received a ‘D’ ranking.
BUFFER
Buffer metrics assess the overall condition and area of the natural buffer immediately surrounding each AA.
Natural buffers are vegetated areas surrounding riparian areas that are free from intensive management or land
use alteration. EIA Buffer metrics include Perimeter with a Natural Buffer (B1) and Width of Natural Buffer (B2).
B1. PERIMETER WITH A NATURAL BUFFER
A letter grade was assigned based on the percent of each AA that is immediately surrounded by natural land cover.
Natural land cover area was delineated from 2015 NAIP imagery. The length of each AA perimeter surrounded by
natural land cover was divided by the total AA perimeter to produce a relative measure of perimeter with a natural
buffer. AA perimeters surrounded by 100% natural land cover received an A-grade while AAs with >25% natural
buffer received a D-grade. Assessment results for riparian buffers tended to reflect the scores for local landscape
condition. Vegetation communities adjacent to riparian zones are highly fragmented and exist in a largely
modified condition.
B2. WIDTH OF NATURAL BUFFER
This metric quantifies the width of the natural area surrounding each AA. The EIA method calls for drawing lines
in every direction from the centroid of the AA and measuring the width of the natural land cover. However, this
approach assumes geometrically consistent AAs. Because our AAs were irregularly shaped and were contiguous,
we drew lines outward from the centroid of each AA perpendicular to the river centerline and measured the width
of the natural buffer surrounding each AA. AAs surrounded by at least 100 meters of natural land cover received
a A-grade while AAs with <25 meters of natural buffer width received a D-grade. The width of contiguous ‘natural’
vegetated buffers is constrained by roads, trails, lawns, and structures. Scores for the condition of buffer areas ten
to decrease with increasing proximity to the urban core.
VEGETATION
A Level 2.5 EIA Assessment was used to evaluate the vegetation ecological integrity of 41 Assessment Areas (AA)
along the Roaring Fork River within the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The field work was conducted
by Rea Orthner of Peak Ecological Services LLC and one field assistant on August 20 and September 18, 2019.
75
Appendix C: Ecological Integrity Assessment Protocols and Methodologies
100
These AAs were determined by using the five (5) broad-scale AAs as initially provided by DHM and then breaking
those down into finer-scale units based on similar vegetation composition and structure. At each AA, metrices V1
through V6 were rated according to the Field Manual. In addition, a Stressor Checklist was evaluated for each AA.
As per established protocol, each stressor was designated with a severity and scope rating, indicating the intensity
of the stressor and percent of the AA or landscape that it affects. Stressor checklists from a single site can help
managers evaluate which stressors they can manage for (and potentially improve wetland condition) and which
are beyond their control. A sample EIA Vegetation Metric Scorecard that was used in the assessment is attached
to this memo and each vegetation metric is explained below. After field reconnaissance, the data forms were
digitized into GIS showing the rank for each of the six vegetation metrics, photo numbers, and general notes. In
addition, we averaged the six individual vegetation scores into a composite vegetation score. See the attached
Excel spreadsheet for the composite score calculations.
VEGETATION METRICS
V1. Native Plant Species Cover – A letter grade was assigned based on the percent relative cover of native species
with an A-grade having >99% of native species and D having <60% relative cover of native species.
V2. Invasive Nonnative Species Cover – A letter grade was assigned based on the percent absolute cover of
invasive non-natives with A having no non-native invasive plants and E having an abundance of noxious weeds
(>30% cover).
V3. Native Plant Species Composition – A letter grade was assigned for this metric depending on whether the
native plant species composition is within expected natural conditions (A grade) down to native plant species
composition with severely disturbed conditions (D grade).
V4. Vegetation Structure. Is the Analysis Area is characterized by a complex array of nested or interspersed patches
(letter grade A) or is the AA is characterized by one dominant zone and several expected structural patches or
vertical strata are missing (letter grade D).
V5. Regeneration of Native Woody Species. For this metric a letter grade of A indicates - All age classes of native
woody species present. Native tree saplings /seedlings and shrubs common to the type present in expected
amounts and diversity. While a letter grade of D would indicate native woody species predominantly consist of
decadent or dying individuals.
V6. Coarse and Fine Woody Debris. Is the AA characterized by moderate amount of coarse and fine woody debris,
relative to expected conditions (letter grade A) ? Or does the AA lacks woody debris, even though inputs are
available (letter grade D)?
HYDROLOGY
Hydrology metrics evaluate the degree to which alteration of source water quality or periodicity of inundation
impacts riparian area vitality. Healthy riparian areas are, generally, well-connected to high-quality water sources.
EIA Hydrology metrics include Water Source (H1), Hydroperiod (H2), and Hydrological Connectivity.
H1. WATER SOURCE
Source water to the Roaring Fork River within the City of Aspen tends to be of high quality. The river is the primary
water source for riparian zones in the planning area. Episodic inputs of urban drainage sheet flow are expected
to impact riparian zones throughout the City during rainfall events and snowmelt runoff. The City’s stormwater
system also collects and treats large quantities of stormwater before it is discharged into riparian areas and the
river. However, numerous small and untreated stormwater outfalls continue to discharge stormwater to riparian
zones in some areas. Scores for this metric were assigned subjectively. The Water Source metric was scored at a
‘B’ ranking due to expected inputs of urban runoff. In cases where stormwater appears to discharge into riparian
areas, a ‘C’ ranking was assigned.
76
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
101
H2. HYDROPERIOD
The Hydroperiod of overbanking flows from the Roaring Fork River that inundate riparian zones is altered by the
Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion System (IPTDS) and several in-basin surface water diversion. The
operation of the IPTDS alters the magnitude of floods—and the corresponding flood inundation extents—that
occur every 5-10 years. The reduction in 5-10 year flood magnitudes is expected to reduce the extent of riparian
vegetation over the long term. Additional discussion of flow modification on the Roaring Fork River can be found
in the Roaring Fork Management Plan (citation). The impact to local peak flows resulted in the assignment of a ‘C’
ranking for the Hydroperiod metric throughout the planning area.
H3. HYDROLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY
Hydrological connectivity between the Roaring Fork River and adjacent riparian areas may be reduced by channel
and streambank alteration, levees, dikes, and other infrastructure in localized areas. The Roaring Fork River is
moderately entrenched through glacial deposits through much of the City of Aspen. Therefore, the river corridor
tends not to exhibit large native floodplains. Field visits and aerial photographs were reviewed for evidence of
channel and streambank alterations that might decrease hydrological connectivity. The degree to which structural
modifications alter the timing and frequency of overbank flows in riparian areas appears low to moderate
throughout the City of Aspen. Scores for this metric were assigned subjectively. Initially, all AAs were assigned
an ‘A’ ranking for Hydrological Connectivity. AAs adjacent to or containing bridge crossings were assigned a ‘B’
ranking. Those AAs where rip-rap or other streamside infrastructure appear to connectivity were assigned a ‘C’
ranking.
PHYSIOCHEMISTRY
Recent observations of degraded aquatic macroinvertebrate community conditions resulted in placement
of the Roaring Fork River through the City of Aspen on the list of Impaired Waterways under the Clean Water
Act. The geographic alignment of water quality impacts and urban land uses suggests that degradation of
macroinvertebrate communities may be related to pollutants sourced from urban activities. Riparian areas
typically act as water quality buffers, filtering out a wide variety of pollutants before water makes its way to the
river. Historical degradation of riparian areas may, thus, be a partial control on water quality conditions in the
Roaring Fork. To metrics were evaluated to characterize Physiochemistry: the condition of Soils (S1), and the
presense of Pollutants (S2).
S1. SOILS
Physiochemical metrics assess the integrity of the soil or predominant substrate along with water quality within
the wetland, both in terms of turbidity and pollutants and in terms of algal growth. Soils play a key role in overall
ecological integrity. Many of the biogeochemical processes integral to wetland functioning take place within the
soil. Disturbance to the soil surface can disrupt these processes, hindering plant growth, slowing or increasing
decomposition rates, and altering hydrologic flow paths.
As part of the existing conditions analysis, DHM Design Ecological Services staff conducted field data collection for
soil resources throughout the corridor. Utilizing the EIA rating method, visual observations were made within the
identified assessment areas to evaluate and assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural
soil or substrate. The rating rank, score and state (qualitative assessment quantifiers) are described included below:
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT QUANTIFIERS - SOILS
Rank ScoRE StatE
Excellent (A)4 No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare. No
pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
77
Appendix C: Ecological Integrity Assessment Protocols and Methodologies
102
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT QUANTIFIERS - SOILS
Rank ScoRE StatE
Good (B)3 Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction,
or sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal.
The depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence
of altering hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the
disturbance is removed.
Fair (C)2 Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The
site could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and
moderate recovery times.
Poor (D)1 Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site
and have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs
or machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times
Using a handheld gps unit, GIS data points were collected in all areas with a fair and poor rating and Photographic
documentation and additional notes were also recorded. Areas where soils were intact and adequately included
adequate vegetation were noted and rated accordingly. Additionally, GIS data points were collected for all
observed discharge locations, or locations where potential sedimentation or liquid discharges could occur. These
included drainages, ditch returns, exposed piping, trails (established and social) or areas significantly void of
vegetation where sever erosion was taking place.
Common sources of disturbance included: fill or sediment dumping (natural and unnatural); human recreation,
either foot traffic of motorized vehicles and developed areas where impermeable surfaces may exist which can
alter the riparian hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation.
S2. POLLUTANTS
Unfortunately, the resolution of water quality on the Roaring Fork River does not support identification of
specific locations or land use activities that drive the observed macroinvertebrate degradation signal. Only sparse
qualitative data is available to indicate the presence of trash or other pollutants in riparian zones. Scores for
the Pollutants metric were assigned subjectively. All AAs within the planning area initially received a ‘C’ ranking
for pollutants due to expected urban runoff inputs. Those AAs receiving water from stormwater outfalls were
downgraded to a ‘D’ ranking.
SIZE
The size of riparian areas throughout the river corridor is directly related to their functionality as wildlife habitat,
aesthetic components of the landscape, and important water quality buffer zones. The current and historical size
of AAs in the planning area were evaluated by reviewing aerial imagery for the City of Aspen from 1951 and 2015.
The EIA Size metrics assessed include Comparative Size (Z1) and Change in Size (Z2).
Z1. COMPARATIVE SIZE
Each AA was assigned a ranking for relative size based on a ranked value list of acreages. In this manner, a ranking
of ‘D’ was assigned to the smallest AAs in the planning area and a ranking of ‘A’ was assigned to the largest AAs.
AAs of intermediate size received intermediate rankings. Low scores do not characterize any degree of impact,
only a small relative size.
Z2. CHANGE IN SIZE
The existing size of each AA was then compared to an approximated areal extent of the native riparian zone
78
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
103
in that location. The actual native riparian extent through the City of Aspen cannot be known due to the long
history of land use change in the area and the lack of a long-term photographic record of the entire river corridor.
The approximated natural riparian extent was determined through combination of historical aerial imagery
and hydraulic modeling results. These extents were compared directly to the digitized bounds of existing
riparian areas. Outcomes indicate the degree to which historical land use activities have encroached on riparian
vegetation. The Roaring Fork River is entrenched along many sections of the river corridor through the City of
Aspen. Historical and existing riparian areas are largely restricted to steep streambanks very close to the river.
Therefore, many areas received an ‘A’ ranking for this metric. The largest encroachments on riparian areas occur
in flat, low-lying areas where overbanking flows supported broad riparian forests. Many of these areas are now
occupied by lawns, gardens and homes. Scoring for this metric followed the recommended EIA protocol. It is
important to note that this metric is sensitive to the dimensions of riparian corridor at any given location. A
5’ reduction in riparian width for an AA that is currently 10’ wide will score much lower than a 20’ reduction in
riparian width for an AA that is currently 100’ wide. It follows, then, that digitization errors will affect scores for
small AAs more significantly than for large AAs.
WILDLIFE
In order to prepare for field surveys, CWS reviewed available background documents and previous studies
and conducted a desktop GIS evaluation of the Assessment Areas (AAs) using the 2018 Pitkin County
orthophotographs. A CWS biologist then conducted transects within most of the AAs following the procedures of
the USDA Forest Service Terrestrial Visual Encounter Survey (TVES) protocol1 on September 24 and October 3, 2019.
AAs absent of effective wildlife habitat due to residential or commercial development paralleling the river were
not surveyed. All wildlife or wildlife sign detected along the transect including beds, pellets, nests, fur or feathers,
burrows, dens, latrines, prey remains, vegetation browse, food caches, and markings on the ground or on tree
bark, and birds identified by both direct observation and indirectly via song and call was used to assess wildlife
value and use. Wildlife habitat type, quality, and extent was documented for each AA surveyed. AAs that provided
connectivity between effective upland habitat beyond the AA and the riparian corridor were noted as well.
Given that the plant communities within the AAs comprise the existing wildlife habitat, CWS used the plant
community descriptions and GIS mapping produced by Peak Ecological to provide the resulting wildlife habitat
data. CWS described the wildlife habitat for each AA, the species detected (or suspected to occur based on habitat
affinity) within that AA, and noted important features of the AA and the potential for habitat improvement or
restoration. This information was added to the attribute tables of the GIS shapefiles created by Peak Ecological.
Georeferenced photos of characteristic habitat were taken within most AAs and added to the GIS attribute tables
for reference.
1 Manley, P. N., B. V. Horne, J. K. Roth, W. J. Zielinski, M. M. McKenzie, T. J. Weller, F. W. Weckerly, and C. Vojta. 2006. Multiple species inventory
and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-73. . Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 204 p., Washington, DC.
79
Appendix C: Ecological Integrity Assessment Protocols and Methodologies
104
105
81
Appendix D: Riparian Conditional Assessment Results
LANDSCAPE
RESULTS
The evaluation of land use and land cover characteristics in the local drainage areas associated with each
AA showed, unsurprisingly, a high fraction of impervious cover and extensive residential and commercial
development. There are few areas within the City of Aspen where contiguous natural land cover extends any
measurable distance from the riparian zone. Scores for landscape metrics are low throughout the planning area
but tend to decrease with increasing proximity to the urban core.
WILDLIFE
While many of the AAs are significantly compromised by residential, commercial, and/or infrastructure
development, a few are important to wildlife. Some of these are valuable because they contain relatively intact
plant communities which provide effective habitat, others are notable due to their adjacency to important habitat
or conservation lands and provide access to the riparian corridor and the Roaring Fork River, and some provide
both effective habitat, are adjacent to conservation lands, and provide wildlife access to the corridor and the river.
ASSESSMENT AREAS WITH NOTABLE WILDLIFE VALUE
AA_ID PeAk ID WIlDlIfe VAlue
-1-R1 Meadow/old hayfield or pasture; Adjacent to mule deer/elk transition habitat, black
bear fall concentration habitat; Restoration opportunity; River access
1 1-R3 Effective narrowleaf cottonwood-blue spruce riparian habitat; Adjacent to mule deer/
elk transition habitat, black bear fall concentration habitat; River access
-1-R6 Effective narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat; Good water source; Adjacent to mule
deer/elk transition habitat, black bear fall concentration habitat
-2-L1 Very good candidate for wildlife habitat restoration to benefit many species including
deer, bears, migratory birds
2 2-L2 Effective narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat; High structural and species diversity;
Tent trail reduces effectiveness
5 5-1LC Currently used by elk, deer, moose, riparian & wetland birds, diverse small mammals;
Adjacent to Stillwater Ranch OS & Richmond Ridge; Excellent restoration candidate to
benefit many species
-5-L2 Stillwater Ranch OS; Currently used by elk, deer, moose, riparian & wetland birds,
diverse small mammals; Adjacent to WRNF (Richmond Ridge); Adjacent to mule deer/
elk transition habitat, black bear fall concentration habitat; Provides connectivity
between the river and mule deer /elk summer range & elk winter range; Excellent
restoration candidate to benefit many species
5 5-L3 Relatively wide spruce dominated with aspen & narrowleaf cottonwood regeneration;
Used by elk & mule deer with good structural diversity at east end
5 5-R2 Disturbed but recovering; Connectivity to Stillwater Ranch OS; Heavy deer use; Good
potential restoration site to benefit all riparian species plus elk, deer, moose
VEGETATION
Of the 41 AAs analyzed 12% received an overall vegetation health letter grade of A, 44% received a B, 32% received
a C rating, and 12% received a D rating. Those AAs which received an A rating exhibited a relatively healthy and
diverse riparian structure typically dominated by an overstory of narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)
and blue spruce (Picea pungens) with native shrubs such as redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), twinberry
honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), thinleaf alder (Alnus incana subsp. tenuifolia), river birch (Betula occidentalis),
Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) and several species of willows (Salix
spp). The herbaceous component of these areas was comprised of native upland and wetland species such as
bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus), water sedge (Carex aquatilis),
beaked sedge (C. utriculata), fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus subsp. ater), fowl
106
82
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
bluegrass (Poa palustris), largeleaf avens (Geum macrophyllum), false Solomon seal (Maianthemum stellatum, M.
amplexicaule), bog orchids (Platanthera aquilonis, P. huronensis), meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri), field horsetail
(Equisetum arvense), souringrush (Equisetum hyemale) and roundleaf wintergreen (Pyrola rotundifolia). However,
the vegetation composition is by no means pristine as all of the AAs supported some non-native naturalized
species, the most common being redtop (Agrostis gigantea) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). In
addition, noxious weeds were frequently encountered, the most abundant being ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum
vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and plumeless thistle (Carduus
acanthoides). In general, those AAs with lower scores showed little to no riparian shrub component or the shrub
layer appeared to have been replaced by non-native pasture grasses such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis),
timothy (Phleum pratense), and orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata); bluegrass lawns; or other landscaping. The
most significantly degraded sites also lacked a mature overstory of narrowleaf cottonwood or willows and instead
were dominated by non-native pasture grasses and weeds. Finally, some of the AAs received lower scores due to
the relatively narrow condition of the riparian zone due to existing commercial and residential development and/
or recreational trails.
COMPOSITE VEGETATION GRADES FOR 41 AAS
letter GrADe Number of AAs GrAPh
A-5
B+2
B 8
B-8
C+5
C 6
C-2
D+4
D 1
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
AAs
41
82 107
2019 COLORADO WETLAND ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT (EIA) – VEGETATION
LOCATION AND GENERAL INFORMATION
AA ID: _____________________
Date: ______________________ Surveyors:___________________________ ______________________________________________________
Access Comments :
108
VEGETATION COMPOSITION METRICS
V1. NATIVE PLANT SPECIES COVER (RELATIVE) V2. INVASIVE NONNATIVE PLANT SPECIES COVER (ABSOLUTE)
Select the statement that best describes the relative cover of native
plant species within the AA.
Select the statement that best describes the absolute cover of invasive
nonnative plant species within the AA. Use list provided in the manual.
AA contains >99% relative cover of native plant species. A Invasive nonnative species are absent from all strata. A
AA contains 95–99% relative cover of native plant species. B Invasive species present, but sporadic (<4% absolute cover). B
AA contains 85–95% relative cover of native plant species. C Noxious weeds somewhat abundant (4–10% cover). C
AA contains 60–85% relative cover of native plant species. C- Noxious weeds abundant (10–30% cover). C-
AA contains <60% relative cover of native plant species. D Noxious weed very abundant (>30% cover). D
V3. NATIVE PLANT SPECIES COMPOSITION
Select the statement that best describes the native plant species composition (species abundance and diversity) within the AA. Look for native
species diagnostic of the system vs. native increasers that may thrive in human disturbance.
Native plant species composition with expected natural conditions:
i)Typical range of native diagnostic species present, AND
ii)Native species sensitive to anthropogenic degradation are present, AND
iii)Native species indicative of anthropogenic disturbance (i.e., increasers, weedy or ruderal species) absent to minor.
A
Native plant species composition with minor disturbed conditions:
i)Some native diagnostic species absent or substantially reduced in abundance, OR
ii)Native species indicative of anthropogenic disturbance are present with low cover.
B
Native plant species composition with moderately disturbed conditions:
i)Many native diagnostic species absent or substantially reduced in abundance, OR
ii)Native species indicative of anthropogenic disturbance are present with moderate cover.
C
Native plant species composition with severely disturbed conditions:
i)Most or all native diagnostic species absent, a few remain in low cover, OR
ii)Native species indicative of anthropogenic disturbance are present with high cover.
D
VEGETATION STRUCTURE, REGENERATION & WOODY DEBRIS METRICS
V4. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL)
Select the statement below that best describes the overall vertical and horizontal structure within the A A .
AA ID#_______________________
109
AA_IDPeak_IDPri_ObsSec_ObsAA_NotesPhotosV1V2V3V4V5V6v1v2v3v4v5v6AverageAverage Letter GradeRestoration Area?11-R3Rea OrthnerHigh quality NLC-BS, Well developed flood plain. Diverse native shrubs & native herbaceous component. Some Phalaris & Red top present along river. Pockets of wetlands present. Some nox weeds-Canada thistle/Ox-eye daisyRO 1101 (interior)BBAAAA3344443.67A-11-L2Reba MitchellNLC, Spruce. Native riparian understory & mowed, cleared lawns. Riparian understory varies along private plots.RM, 5650 upriverCBBCBB2332332.67B-11-R1Rea OrthnerReba MitchellNLC with good diversity of native shrubs, Herbaceous component pasture grasses, smooth brome mainly. Some nox weeds-canada thistle (sprayed). Add'l riparian corridor N of bike path included, excluding Aspen standRO 1423 looking downriverCBBBAA2333443.17B-11-R5ARea OrthnerNLC forest, scattered BS. Downstream, N of powerline good structural diversity, willows, hineysuckle, dogwood, river birch, currant & dense scouring rush, beaked sedge.RO 1428-1430BC-AAAA31.544443.42B+22-L5Rea OrthnerNarrow NLC riparian corridor on steep bank. Native shrubs & herbaceous layer above river. Social trail aboveRO 1444BBBBBA3333343.17B22-L4Rea OrthnerNLC some BS. Diverse healthy native shrubs & herbaceous layers. Several social trails. Some canada thistle, tansy. Recommendation-elimate social trailsRO 1440 looking upstream, 1441 social trail, 1442 canada thistle in wetlandBBAAAA3344443.67A-22-R3BReba MitchellNLC dominate, some regen. Native shrubs & herbaceous layer present. WP 1376 fenced area & pvc pipes outside AA. Wetland area within, pasture grasses & canada thistle. AA becomes narrow/steep. Phalaris along river. Good for nox weed managementRM 5660 downriver-wetland area, 5662 view downriver, but upriver in AA-phalaris in viewC-C-BCBB1.51.532332.33C+22-R1Reba MitchellDecadent NLC & Aspens, Native Riparian shrubs present, willow sapling along river bank. Native herbaceous component present with pasture grasses throughoutRM 5651 upriver, 5654 downriverBBBBBB3333333.00B22-R2Reba MitchellDense overstory of decadent NLC. Aspen along trail & BS along river bank. Native riparian shrubs & herbaceous layer present but reduced due to dense overstory. Pasture grasses and some nox canada thistle along trail. Swales/drainage within AA.RM 5655 BS, 5656 Aspen, 5657 Swales, 5658 canopy layersBBAAAA3344443.67A-11-R4Rea OrthnerSteep narrow bank above river. Sporatic cover of NLC & riparian shrubs. Low plant diverstiyRO 1102 upstream, 1103 point dischargeCBBBBB2333332.83B-11-L1Rea OrthnerReba MitchellNarrow NLC-Blue Spruce riparian corridor adjacent to homes. Scattered patches of riparian shrubs, but lackin gin areas due to homeowner landscaping.RO1424, looking downstream and acrossCBBCBB2332332.67B-22-L3Rea OrthnerNarrow NLC riparian corridor with good diverstiy of native shrubs & herbaceous layer, also BS. Seasonal or dog restrictions? Fishing trampling, some ox-eye daisyRO 1436 looking NW, 1437 upstream, 1438 downstream from wp1483, 1439 trampling at wp 1484BBAAAA3344443.67A-02-L1Rea OrthnerReba MitchellOpen meadow lacking cover of NLC & riparian shrubs. Dominated by smooth brome, field horsetail, some NLC regen 4-10' tall. Recommend plantings of riparian trees & shrubs. Surrounded by NLC along Castle CreekRO 1104 looking NW, 1105 regen of NLC, 1106 overview interiorC-BDDDNA1.53111NULL1.50D+yes22-L2Rea OrthnerReba MitchellNLC riparian forest with good diversity of native shrubs & herbaceous layer. High quality paulustrine emergent wetland. Threatened by lg population of canada thistle. Recommedation-control nox weeds.RO 1107-1108 wetland, 1109 Canada thistle, 1435 trampling by fishingBC-BAAA31.534443.25B110
33-L1Reba MitchellNLC, few BS, native shrubs along river. Pasture grasses throughout. Canada thistle along path, culvert under path is AA. Wp 1377, wetland areas. Phalaris present, clearing at bridge to riverRM 5663 upstream from bridge, 5664 downstream from bridge, 5665 clearing pathCCAAAA2244443.33B+33-L2Reba MitchellDown river section narrow riparian area. NLC & some native shrubs. Phalaris and pasture grasses throughout. Up river section willows, NLC, some Pine. Native shrubs and pasuture grasses. Phalaris present. Narrow/steep by park, nox weed (Tansy's).RM 5666 buidling along roadway, 5667 upriver, 5668 upriver sectionCBBCCC2332222.33C+33-L3Rea OrthnerTerrace above river NLC & BS, trail bisects AA, South is Newburry Park-Populas, poa mowed understory, (V5 D). North trail NLC/Aspen forest willow and other native shrubs. Pasture grasses and lg patch toad flaxRO 1455 park, 1456 riparian corridor on river, 1457 bench areaC-BCDAD1.5321412.08C33-L4Reba MitchellSmall riparian corridor along private residential area. NLC domiate, some native shrubs. Lawns/landscaping up to river bank in areas. Sparce understory & low reveg of native species.RM 5669 up riverDBCDCD1321211.67C-33-R3Rea OrthnerNLC riparian islands with riparian shrubs & pasture grasses. Nox weeds-toadflax, canada thistle. Recomendations-reduce social trails on upstream island, no trails on island downstream of bridgeRO 1458, 1459, 1460 downstream of bridgeCBCAAA2324443.17B33-R1BRea OrthnerReba MitchellNLC/BS riparian area. Recent restoration work, ditch/pond present. Improve pond by native riparian shrub plantings. Visitor's center lawn/benches, art reduces witdth of riparian area.RO 1100 pondCBBBBC2333322.67B-44-R1Rea OrthnerNarrow NLC corridor with diverse native shrubs (downstream carex wetland not in AA). Pasture grasses, lacking canopy of mature NLC in places. Wp1495 Anderson Park-opportunity for restoration ph1464-1465RO 1461-wp1494, wetland, 1462 below cooper, 1463 above cooper, 1464-1465 Anderson ParkCBCBAB2323432.83B-44-L1AReba MitchellNLC dominate & BS. Some native shrubs present, willow & non native ornamentals. Highly manicured lawns. Access to site low due to private property.RM 5670 upriver E Hopkins, 5671-5672 on Riverside AveDBCDDD1321111.50D+55-L3Rea OrthnerReba MitchellBS riparian woodland, Aspen/NLC/pine. Understory dominated by Red top, some Phalaris. Some native shrubs & herbaceous layer with timothy & orchard grass. Nox weeds-Ox-eye daisyRO 1488 salt lick, 1489CCCCAB2222432.50C+05-L2Rea OrthnerOpen pasture dominated by Red top, timothy, dandelion, red clover, smooth brome patches. Canada thistle, scentless chamomile, toad flax, phalaris, Baltic rush. Willows in low lying areas & carex. Wetland. Historical aerial previous forested riparianRO 1484 east, 1485 northDC-DDDNA11.5111NULL1.10Dyes55-R1Rea OrthnerIrrigation ditch on river right. Narrow band of mixed Aspen/NLC with dense native shrubs. Some gaps in canopy of NLC without much regen. Understory pasture grasses. Nox weeds-tansy, canada thistle, hounds tongueRO 1466 river rt, 1467 river left, 1468 irrigation ditch, 1471 down from wp1498, 1472 up from wp1498CCCCBB2222332.33C+55-R2Rea Orthnerwp1499 restoration outside of AA. ph1473-1475 weedy disturbed, some NLC regen on edge. Some BS, willow wetland shrubland. Some Redtop, Canada thistle, browsing by elkRO 1476 looking upstream, 1477 bench, 1478 interior, 1479 pathBBAAAA3344443.67A-55-R3Rea OrthnerWet meadow, scattered willows. Phalaris dominate, area of beaked sedge. Lack of structural diverstiy, would expect more willows. NLC line irrigation ditch aboveRO 1482 looking downstream, 1483 overview from ditchC-CDCDC1.5212121.58D+???111
55-R4Reba MitchellDominate NLC some BS, native riparian shrubs. Herbaceouse layer of native veg patchy with pasture grasses. Willow along bank, head gates on both sides of upriver bank. Private land along river less managed lawns as those downriver.RM 5677 Stillwater Ln down river across site, 5677 down river end along private propertiesCBBBBB2333332.83B-55-R5Reba MitchellSome NLC, BS, Aspen (all ages), Willow. Large % of lawn and non native grasses up to river bank. Little to no riparian native heraceous layer due to lawns. Potentially riparian restoration area.RM 5675 down river, 5676 up riverC-BCCCNA1.53222NULL2.10C55-L4Rea OrthnerReba MitchellNarrow riparian corridor of pine/spruce with native shrubs. Understory of pasture grasses, phalaris & scattered ox-eye daisy.RO 1112C-CCBBB1.5223332.42C+55-L5Rea OrthnerReba MitchellRiparian bank lacking good cover of trees & shrubs. Area bisected by trail. Riparian veg on North side of trail only.RO 1113 looking downstreamC-BCCBC1.5322322.25C01-R2Rea OrthnerLow lying pasture next to sm stand NLC, Potentially good restoration area. Dominated by smooth brome, intermediate wheat grasses, mullein & plumeless thiste present (sprayed). Some native shrubs and 6' tall NLC regen on east side & AspensRO 1421-1422DBDDDNA13111NULL1.40D+yes33-R2Rea OrthnerNarrow NLC riparian corridor in Spring st neighborhood. Bank armored with lg boulders, landscaping up to river edge in many areas, native shrubs present but low densityRO 1451 downstream, 1452-1453 upstream, 1454 downstream view of lawn wp1491C-BCCBC1.5322322.25C01-R6Rea OrthnerNLC riparian area on steep slope N Rio Grande trail. Small wetland present with flow of water culverted under RG trail. NLC with native shrubs, Red top common. Not originally included in AA'sRO 1425-1427CBCCAB2322432.67B-11-R5BRea OrthnerS (upstream) of powerline, sturctural diversity is lower, NLC & Aspen with pasture grasses, lacks native shrub component. Canada thistle/ox-eye daisy, toadflax are common in interior, also plumeless thistle/cyno officRO 1431-1432C-C-CCBB1.51.522332.17Cyes22-R3AReba MitchellNarrow steep sloped AA. Mixed forest decadent NLC, Pine, BS, Oak, Juniper. All stages of Aspen. Native shrub & herbaceous layer on upper slope not included in AARM 5659 downriverBBBBAB3333433.17B33-R1ARea OrthnerReba MitchellNarrow NLC riparian forest, healthy native shrubs & herbaceous layer. Trail bisects portions of AA. Nox weeds bindweed, tansy, mullein & canada thistleRO 1446 upstream at wp1448, 1447 downstream, 1449 upstream at wp 1489CBBBAA2333443.17B44-L1BReba MitchellAfter Wheeler trail access off Ute Ave private property along riparian area ends. More diversed native shrubs & herbaceous layer present, Wp 1379. Pasture grasses present, nox weeds-ox-eye daisy, tansy along trail. wp 1378 head gate/irrigaiton ditchRM 5673BBABBB3343333.17B05-L1ARea OrthnerNarrow NLC riparian, some Aspen with native shrubs, pasture grasses. Herbaceous layer has redtop, smooth brome.RO 1469 looking downstreamC-BCCCC1.5322222.08C55-L1BRea OrthnerNLC riparian forest on steep slope. Good cover of riparian shrubs. Pasture grasses & horsetail understoryRO 1470 looking upstreamCBBAAB2334433.17B55-L1CRea OrthnerNarrow riparian corridor dominated by willows, some alder. Herbaceous layer non native phalaris, red top, smooth bromeRO 1486 downstream, 1487 upstreamC-DCDCB1.5121231.75C-112
NotesEIA Numeric RankGRADINGMin. Value NeededCOUNTSA12%A497–100%4.33 or 4.00A‐5B44%B3A 93–96% 4B+2C32%C2A−90–92% 3.67B8D12%C‐1.5B+ 87–89% 3.33B‐8100%D1B 83–86% 3C+5B−80–82% 2.67C6C+ 77–79% 2.33C‐2C 73–76% 2D+4C- 70–72% 1.67D1D+ 67–69% 1.3341D 63–66% 1D- 60–62% 0.67F 0–59%0Composite Vegetation Grades for 41 AAsA‐B+BB‐C+CC‐D+D113
L C S L1 L2 B1 B2 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 H1 H2 H3 S1 S2 Z1 Z2 L1 L2 B1 B2 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 H1 H2 H3 S1 S2 Z1 Z2 L C S
C+C-B-A-CADDCB BCB BB CACCB A 43 BABDCBBBAABCAACBC C+B+B-B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 43.05 BAADCBBBAABCAACBD B-B+C+B+
C+D B-A-DDDDCBBCBBBCACCBA 43.1 BAADBBAAAABCAACCA B-B+B+B+
C+C-B-B-DCCDCBBCBBBCACCCB 43.2 DACCBBAAAABCAACAA C+B+A+B+
C+C-B-B-CCCDCBBCBBBCACCBC 43.25 DAACBBAAAABCAACAD B-B+B-B+
C+D B-A+DDDDCBBCBBBCACCAA 43.3 AAACBBAAAABCAACAC B+B+B+B+
C+C-B-A-CCDCCBB CBB BCA CCBA 43.35 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-C+B-A-CCBDCBBCBBBCACCBA 43.4 BCADBBAAAABCACCBD B-B+C+B+
B-C+B-C+DDADCBBCBBBCAACBD 43.45 DCADBBAAAABCAACBD C+B+C+B+
B-C+B-C+DCADCBBCBBBCAACBD 43.5 CACDBBAAAABCACCBA C-B+A-B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 43.55 DDCCB AAAABCACCBA C-B+A-B-
B-B-B-C-CDBA CBB CBB BCA ACCD43.6 DDACB AAAABCAACAA C+B+A+B+
B+A-B-B+DAAACBBCBBBCAACCA 43.65 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B+A+B+B-ABAAB BAAABCAACAD 43.7 DDADBBBBBBBCAACBD C+B+C+B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 43.75 DDBDBBBBBBBCAACBA C-B+A-B-
B+B-B+C+AAADBBAAAABCAACBD 43.8 DDACBBBBBBBCAACAB C+B+A-B-
B+B-B+C+BCADBBAAAABCACCBD 43.85 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-C+B+A+BCBDBBAAAABCACCAA 43.9 AAADBBAAAABCAACAB B-B+A-B+
B+B-B+A+BAADBBAAAABCACCAA 43.95 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B+B-B+C+DCACBBAAAABCACCBD 44 BAADBBAAAABCAACBD B-B+C+B+
NULL NULL NULL NULL 44.05 CCADBBAAAABCACCBD C+B+C+B-
B-C+B+C+DCADBBAAAABCACCBD 44.1 CCADBBAAAABCACCBA C+B+A-B-
B+C+B+C+DCADBBAAAABCAACBD 44.15 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-D B+A+DDCDBBAAAABCAACAA 44.17 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-D B+A+DDCDBBBBBABCAACAA 44.2 DAADBBBBBABCACCBC B-B-B-B-
B-C+B-A+DCADBBBBBABCACCAA 44.25 CBAD BCBBBCAACBD B-B-C+B-
B-C+B-A-DBADBBBBBABCACCBA 44.3 DDACBBBBBABCAACBD C+B+C+B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 44.35 DDADBBBBBABCAACBA C+B+A-B-
B-C+B+B-CDADBBBBBABCAACAD 44.4 DCADBBBABBBCABCBD C+B+C+B-
B+B+B+C+AAACBBBBABBCAACBD 44.5 DCADBBCBCCBCACCBD C+B-C+C+
B+B+B+B-ABACBBBAAABCAACAD 44.55 BBAD BCCCCB CACCA D B-C+B-B-
B+C+B+B+CDADBBAAAABCAACAC 44.6 CCBD BCCCCB CACCA D C+C+B-C+
B-C+B+A-CCADBBAAAACCAADAB 44.62 NULL NULL NULL NULL
NULL NULL NULL NULL 44.65 BACD BCBBBBCABCAA C+B-A+B-
B-C+B+A-DCADBBBAAACCAADAB 44.68 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B+B-B+A-BBADBBBAAABCAACAB 44.7 CBDDCBBBAABCACCAA D B-A+B-
B-C+B+A-DDADCCA AA AB CACCA B 44.75 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-C+B+C+DDADCCA AA ACCA ADB D 44.8 DDADCCA AA AB CACCB A C+B+A-B-
B-C-B+C+CDBDCCAAAABCAACBD 44.85 DCADCCAAAABCACCBA C+B+A-B-
B-C-B-C+DCBDCCAAAABCBCCBD 44.9 CDBDCCAAAABCAACBD C-B+C+B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 44.95 DBCDCCA AA ACCB CDBD C-B-C+C+
B-C-B-C+DDBDCCA AA ACCA CDBD 45 BCCDCBBBBCBCAACAA C-B-A+B-
C+C-C+C+DDBDCB BCCCCCA CDBD 45.05 NULL NULL NULL NULL
C+C-C+C+DCCDCBB CCCCCACDB D 45.1 DDDDCBB BB CBCA CCBA D B-A-C+
C-D C+C-DCDDCBB CCCCCADDCD 45.15 DDCDCBB BB CBCA CCBA D B-A-C+
B-C-B-C+DDBDCCA AA ACCA CDBD45.2 ADB D BCCB CBCA CCBA C+B-A-C+
C+C+C+A-BDB DCBB CCCCCACDA B 45.25 BCCD BCDA DBCA CCCA C-C+B+C+
C+D C+A+CDDD BCDA DBCA CCAA45.3 DDAD BCCB CBCA CCBA C+B-A-C+
NULL NULL NULL NULL 45.35 DDCDCBCA AA BCA CCBC D B-B-C+
C+D C+B+CDDD BCDA DBCA CCCA45.4 CCCDCBCA AA BCA CCAA C-B-A+B-
C-D C-B-DDDDDBCDCDCCB ADB C 45.45 NULL NULL NULL NULL
C+D B-C+DDDDBB CCCCBCA CCBD45.5 DCBDCB CAA ACCB ADB A C-B-A-B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 45.55 D A DD BCCB CBCA CCCA D B-B+C+
C-D C+A-DDCD BCCCCCCB BDB A 45.6 DDBDCB CBA BB CACCCA C-B-B+C+
C-D C+B+DDDDDBCDDDB CACCCA 45.65 DDBDCB CBA BCCA CDCD C-B-C-C+
C+C+C+B+ADB DDBCDDDB CACCCA45.7 DDBDCB CBA BB CACCB D C-B-C+C+
B-B-B-C+ADADCBCBABBCACCBD 45.75 NULL NULL NULL NULL
C+C+C+C-BDA DCBCB AB CCCCDCD45.8 DDBDCB CBA BB CBCCB A C-B-A-C+
NULL NULL NULL NULL 45.85 DDDDCBCB AB CCBDDB A D C+A-C+
C+B-C-C-ADA DDBCDDDB CCCCCD45.9 CCBDCB CBA BB CACCCA C+B-B+B-
C+B-C+B+ADA DDBCDDDB CACCCA 45.95 CDADCB CBA BB CAA CBA C+B-A-B-
C+B-C+C-ADA DDBCDDDB CAA CCD 46 DDADCBCBABBCAACBA C+B-A-B-
B-B-B+C-DDABBBABBBBCAACCD 46.05 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-C+B-B-CCBDCB CBA BB CACCCB46.1 DDBDCB CBA BB CAA CCA C-B-B+B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 46.15 DABDCBCBABBCAACCA C+B-B+B-
C+C+C+B+CDADDB CDDDBCA CCCA46.2 CDADCCCCB BB CAA CCA C+B-B+C+
B-B+B-A-CBA BCCCCB BB CACCB A 46.25 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B+B-B+B+BAADCBBAABBCAACCA 46.3 CDACCCCCBBBCAACBA B-B-A-B-
B-B+B-C-CBA BCCCCB BB CACCCD46.4 CCAA CCCCBB BCA ACA C B+B-B+B-
B+A-B+C-CAAABBAAAABCAACCD 46.42 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-B+B-C-CCAA CCCCBB BCA ACCD 46.48 NULL NULL NULL NULL
C+A-C-C-C A DDDAAD BCA ACCD 46.5 NULL NULL NULL NULL
B-B-B-B-BACBCCCCABBCAACAD 46.6 BBBBCCCCABBCAACAC B+B-B+B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 46.65 CCCD CDCDCBCA ACB A C-C+A-C+
B-B+B-B-BBACCCCCABBCAACAD 46.7 BBBBCCCCABBCAACBD B+B-C+B-
NULL NULL NULL NULL 46.75 BBBBCCCCABBCAACCD B+B-C-B-
B-C+B-A+AB BDCCCCA BB CADCA A 46.8 DDADCCCCA BB CADCCD C+B-C-C+
C+C+C+B+DCADCCCCA BB CBDCCA 46.85 DDACCB BB BB BCB DCBC C+B-B-B-
C+C-B-A-DCBD CCBBBBCAACBA 46.9 DDBDCBBBBBBCBACCD C-B-C-C+
B-C+B-B+DDACCB BB BB BCA DCCA 47 DDBC BCCC BCAACBA C+B-A-C+
B-B-B-A-BAAD BCCB CBCA CCBA 47.05 DDAC BCCC BCAACBA C+B-A-B-
Ecological Integrity Assessment Results for Riparian Areas in the City of Aspen
<--LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK -->
OVERALL
RANK
FACTOR METRIC METRIC FACTOR OVERALL
RANK
114
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaOverall Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D115
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaOverall Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D116
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaOverall Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D117
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaOverall Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-DRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaOverall Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D118
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaLandscape Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D119
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaLandscape Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-DRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaLandscape Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D120
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaLandscape Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D121
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaLandscape Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-DRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaLandscape Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D122
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaCondition Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D123
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaCondition Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-DRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaCondition Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D124
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaCondition Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D125
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaCondition Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-DRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaCondition Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D126
RoadsWaterbodiesPitCo Open SpacePitCo Open Space EasementsCity of AspenRiver StationsStormwater OutfallStormwater ConveyanceProperty Ownership and Assessment Area (AA) Map127
RoadsWaterbodiesPitCo Open SpacePitCo Open Space EasementsCity of AspenRiver StationsStormwater OutfallStormwater ConveyanceProperty Ownership and Assessment Area (AA) MapRoadsWaterbodiesPitCo Open SpacePitCo Open Space EasementsCity of AspenRiver StationsStormwater OutfallStormwater ConveyanceProperty Ownership and Assessment Area (AA) Map128
RoadsWaterbodiesPitCo Open SpacePitCo Open Space EasementsCity of AspenRiver StationsStormwater OutfallStormwater ConveyanceProperty Ownership and Assessment Area (AA) Map129
RoadsWaterbodiesPitCo Open SpacePitCo Open Space EasementsCity of AspenRiver StationsStormwater OutfallStormwater ConveyanceProperty Ownership and Assessment Area (AA) MapRoadsWaterbodiesPitCo Open SpacePitCo Open Space EasementsCity of AspenRiver StationsStormwater OutfallStormwater ConveyanceProperty Ownership and Assessment Area (AA) Map130
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaSize Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D131
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaSize Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-DRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaSize Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D132
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaSize Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D133
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaSize Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-DRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaSize Factor RankingsA+A-B+B-C+C-D134
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB1 Metric RankingsABCD135
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB1 Metric RankingsABCD136
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB1 Metric RankingsABCD137
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB1 Metric RankingsABCD138
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB2 Metric RankingsABCD139
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB2 Metric RankingsABCD140
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB2 Metric RankingsABCD141
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaB2 Metric RankingsABCD142
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH1 Metric RankingsABCD143
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH1 Metric RankingsABCD144
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH1 Metric RankingsABCD145
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH1 Metric RankingsABCD146
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH2 Metric RankingsABCD147
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH2 Metric RankingsABCD148
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH2 Metric RankingsABCD149
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH2 Metric RankingsABCD150
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH3 Metric RankingsABCD151
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH3 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH3 Metric RankingsABCD152
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH3 Metric RankingsABCD153
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH3 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaH3 Metric RankingsABCD154
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL1 Metric RankingsABCD155
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL1 Metric RankingsABCD156
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL1 Metric RankingsABCD157
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL1 Metric RankingsABCD158
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL2 Metric RankingsABCD159
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL2 Metric RankingsABCD160
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL2 Metric RankingsABCD161
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaL2 Metric RankingsABCD162
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS1 Metric RankingsABCD163
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS1 Metric RankingsABCD164
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS1 Metric RankingsABCD165
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS1 Metric RankingsABCD166
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS2 Metric RankingsABCD167
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS2 Metric RankingsABCD168
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS2 Metric RankingsABCD169
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaS2 Metric RankingsABCD170
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV1 Metric RankingsABCD171
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV1 Metric RankingsABCD172
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV1 Metric RankingsABCD173
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV1 Metric RankingsABCD174
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV2 Metric RankingsABCD175
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV2 Metric RankingsABCD176
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV2 Metric RankingsABCD177
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV2 Metric RankingsABCD178
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV3 Metric RankingsABCD179
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV3 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV3 Metric RankingsABCD180
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV3 Metric RankingsABCD181
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV3 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV3 Metric RankingsABCD182
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV4 Metric RankingsABCD183
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV4 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV4 Metric RankingsABCD184
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV4 Metric RankingsABCD185
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV4 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV4 Metric RankingsABCD186
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV5 Metric RankingsABCD187
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV5 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV5 Metric RankingsABCD188
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV5 Metric RankingsABCD189
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV5 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV5 Metric RankingsABCD190
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV6 Metric RankingsABCD191
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV6 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV6 Metric RankingsABCD192
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV6 Metric RankingsABCD193
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV6 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaV6 Metric RankingsABCD194
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ1 Metric RankingsABCD195
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ1 Metric RankingsABCD196
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ1 Metric RankingsABCD197
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ1 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ1 Metric RankingsABCD198
207
Appendix E: review Previous riparian area studies
Figure A.1 Segment 3 context map with Habitat Quality Categories. Excerpt from the Catalog
Of Stream and Riparian Habitat Quality for the Roaring Fork River and Tributaries, Central Colorado: :
Roaring Fork River, Segment 3: Tagert Beaver Ponds to the Slaughter House Bridge, Aspen (2007)
199
200
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ2 Metric RankingsABCD201
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ2 Metric RankingsABCD202
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ2 Metric RankingsABCD203
River StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ2 Metric RankingsABCDRiver StationsRoadsWaterbodiesAssessment AreaZ2 Metric RankingsABCD204
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 178
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA_AspenClub1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Outside of original aa's. located below the Aspen Club. Social use along the river causing soil disturbances with moderate erosion and soil compaction. Low vegetation cover.
205
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 179
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA1L1 Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonthan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes:Soil disturbances throughout associated with development within the riparian area leading to homeowner access to river and lackof riparian vegetation in some areas. Degree of soil erosion and compaction and vegetation cover varies by lot.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 178
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA_AspenClub1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Outside of original aa's. located below the Aspen Club. Social use along the river causing soil disturbances with moderate erosion and soil compaction. Low vegetation cover.
206
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 180
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA1R2 Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonthan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes:aa has steep banks from the bike path down to the river with bare soils and high erosion potential. There are also two drainages in the area causing incising and soil disturbances with sediment deposition in the river associtiated with these drainages
207
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 181
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA2L1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil compaction and erosion in the area is associated with the social trails and foot traffic close to the river. There is also a drainage down a steep slope with incising and erosion/soil disturbances made more noticeable by a change in vegetation structure.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 180
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA1R2 Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonthan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes:aa has steep banks from the bike path down to the river with bare soils and high erosion potential. There are also two drainages in the area causing incising and soil disturbances with sediment deposition in the river associtiated with these drainages
208
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 182
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA2L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Significant erosion occurring along the trail with additional social foot trail to the river with extended soil disturbances leading to bare soils and compaction.
209
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 183
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA2L3Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Long, steep slopes with two areas of soil disturbances and erosion. Both about 15ft cross section of disturbance down a long slope. Unclear where the disturbance is coming from.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 182
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA2L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Significant erosion occurring along the trail with additional social foot trail to the river with extended soil disturbances leading to bare soils and compaction.
210
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 184
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA2R1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil compaction and erosion in the area is associated with the social trails and foot traffic close to the river.
211
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 185
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3L1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Two track down to river used to place large boulders along river edge. Slight rutting from tires, soil compaction and moderate vegetation cover.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 184
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA2R1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil compaction and erosion in the area is associated with the social trails and foot traffic close to the river.
212
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 186
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Paved bike trail and Newbury Park occupy the assessment area, high foot/bike traffic and some compacted soils.
213
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 187
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: DObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Area by John Denver Sanctuary, not technically in Riparian aa's, but Highly disturbed area with high soil compaction and bare soils right along the river. Heavy foot traffic associated with park setting in middle of town.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 186
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Paved bike trail and Newbury Park occupy the assessment area, high foot/bike traffic and some compacted soils.
214
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 188
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3R1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Two track down to river used to place large boulders along river edge. Slight rutting from tires, soil compaction and moderate vegetation cover.
215
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 189
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3R2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil disturbances throughout associated with development within the riparian area leading to homeowner access to river and lack of riparian vegetation in some areas. Degree of soil erosion, compaction, and vegetation cover varies by lot. Many of the yards extend right up to the river with large rocks and boulders in place for erosion control.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 188
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3R1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Two track down to river used to place large boulders along river edge. Slight rutting from tires, soil compaction and moderate vegetation cover.
216
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 190
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3R3Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Moderate to high soil disturbance in the area due to high pedestrian access from park. Low grade and minimal erosion, but high soil compaction in areas of heavy foot use and low vegetation cover.
217
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 191
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA4L1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: highly developed area with condos and houses close to the river, and lawns going up to river bank.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 190
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA3R3Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Moderate to high soil disturbance in the area due to high pedestrian access from park. Low grade and minimal erosion, but high soil compaction in areas of heavy foot use and low vegetation cover.
218
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 192
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA4L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil disturbances throughout associated with development within the riparian area leading to homeowner access to river and lack of riparian vegetation in some areas. Degree of soil erosion and compaction and vegetation cover varies by lot.
219
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 193
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA4R1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: DObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Various areas of high disturbance associated with development of house, and irrigation ditch head gate and access to river along a steep bank with high erosion by the bridge.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 192
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA4L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil disturbances throughout associated with development within the riparian area leading to homeowner access to river and lack of riparian vegetation in some areas. Degree of soil erosion and compaction and vegetation cover varies by lot.
220
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 194
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA4R2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil disturbance in the area from access to the river from the Cooper Street bridge and Anderson Park, moderate soil compaction and erosion with various vegetation cover.
221
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 195
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA5L1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: DObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Highly disturbed soils along river by large head gate structure, dirt road above steep bank to access the head gate structure, high soil compaction along the road and erosion on the bank
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 194
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA4R2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Soil disturbance in the area from access to the river from the Cooper Street bridge and Anderson Park, moderate soil compaction and erosion with various vegetation cover.
222
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 196
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA5L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Gravel path runs close to the river with social foot trails to the river casuing disturbance with moderate erosion compaction. Gravel path runs close to the river with social foot trails to the river casuing disturbance with moderate erosion compaction.
223
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 197
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA5R1Date: 9/13/2019Rating: DObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Highly disturbed soils along river by large head gate structure, Steep slopes with low vegetation and development within aa.
Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) for Colorado Wetlands Field Manual, Version 2.1 Page 196
Metric S1: Substrate / Soil Disturbance
Definition and Background: This metric assess the degree to which human impacts have disturbed the natural soil or substrate. Common sources of disturbance include: fill or sediment dumping; human recreation, either foot traffic of motorized vehicles; and cows that can cause unnatural hummocks (pugging), which in turn can alter the wetland hydrology and disrupt soil process like organic accumulation. A lack of soil horizons can indicate the substrate was filled or tilled when it is not otherwise obvious. It is important to rate this metric according to wetland type. For example, bare patches may be a sign of unnatural disturbance in many wetlands. Playas, however, should have bare ground with compact soils. In playas, extra sediment on top of the naturally compacted soil can be an indicator of undesirable disturbance. Because it can be difficult to assess the degree of compaction in playas as they fill and close with water, best professional judgment will be needed.
Metric Level: Level 2 (rapid assessment).
Metric Application: Use for all wetlands. Specific guidance provided by wetland type.
Measurement Protocol: Select the statement on the form that best describes the substrate or soil disturbance within the AA, in the context of the wetland ecosystem.
Metric Rating: Assign the metric rating and associated score based on the thresholds in Table 32.
Table 32. Rating for Soil / Substrate Disturbance
Rank Score State
Excellent (A) 4
No soil disturbance within AA. Little bare soil OR bare soil areas are limited to naturally
caused disturbances such as flood deposition or game trails OR soil is naturally bare (e.g.,
playas). No pugging, soil compaction, or sedimentation.
Good (B) 3
Minimal soil disturbance within AA. Some amount of bare soil, pugging, compaction, or
sedimentation present due to human causes, but the extent and impact are minimal. The
depth of disturbance is limited to only a few inches and does not show evidence of altering
hydrology. Any disturbance is likely to recover within a few years after the disturbance is
removed.
Fair (C) 2
Moderate soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas due to human causes are common
and will be slow to recover. There may be pugging due to livestock resulting in several
inches of soil disturbance. ORVs or other machinery may have left some shallow ruts.
Sedimentation may be filling the wetland. Damage is obvious, but not excessive. The site
could recover to potential with the removal of degrading human influences and moderate
recovery times.
Poor (D) 1
Substantial soil disturbance within AA. Bare soil areas substantially degrade the site and
have led to altered hydrology or other long-lasting impacts. Deep ruts from ORVs or
machinery may be present, or livestock pugging and/or trails are widespread.
Sedimentation may have severely impacted the hydrology. The site will not recover
without active restoration and/or long recovery times.
Metric References: Metric and thresholds adapted from Rocchio (2006a-g) and Faber-Langendoen et al. (2008; 2012).
Site ID - AA5L2Date: 9/13/2019Rating: CObserver: Jonathan Rose (DHM Design)
Notes: Gravel path runs close to the river with social foot trails to the river casuing disturbance with moderate erosion compaction. Gravel path runs close to the river with social foot trails to the river casuing disturbance with moderate erosion compaction.
224
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INTERVENTIONS WITHIN RIPARIAN AREAS
RepoRt InteRventIon LocatIons wIthIn aRaap notes
Upper Roaring
Fork River
Management
Plan (2017)*
»Comprehensive water management to
address altered stream flows and associated
consequences.
»Management of river health conditions on
the Roaring Fork River between Difficult
Creek and Castle Creek with a focus on:
›Riparian/wetland vegetation health
›Aquatic macroinvertebrates
›Native fisheries »Optimization of the Twin Lakes Exchange
»Joint Operation of City of Aspen Municipal
Supply and Salvation Ditch
»Dry-Year Municipal Raw Water Supply
Reductions
»Maroon Creek Municipal Water Right CWCB
Dedication
»Dry-Year Water Leasing with the Salvation
Ditch Company
»Hunter Creek Cutthroat Trout Management
»Hallam Lake Cutthroat Trout Introduction
»North Star Preserve Wetland Drain Removal
»Jointly plan and convene a facilitated
workshop for City and County water
managers, planners, and relevant land
managers to
›Discuss their interests and needs with
respect to the Roaring Fork
›Highlight points of shared interest as well
as potential conflict, and work to develop
approaches to each
›Identify strategies going forward to
share information, coordinate river
management efforts, and undertake joint
planning and communications where
useful. »Engage diverse stakeholders to
›Inform future water development
planning and approval processes
›Develop or align local water and land use
policies
›Improve management of existing water
infrastructure
›Inform strategic exercise, dedication, or
acquisition of water rights
›Engage with local and regional
organizations or individuals involved in
water management decision-making.
»The Roaring Fork River between
Difficult Creek and Castle Creek
Appendix E: Review of Previous Riparian Area Studies
199
Appendix E: review Previous riparian area studies
225
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INTERVENTIONS WITHIN RIPARIAN AREAS
RepoRt InteRventIon LocatIons wIthIn aRaap notes
Municipal Water
Efficiency Plan:
City of Aspen,
Colorado (2015)
»Foundational Activities
›Automatic Meter Reading Installation and
Operation
›Enhanced Water Loss Control
›Conservation-Oriented Rates »Targeted Technical Assistance and
Incentives, and Natural Replacement of
Fixtures and Appliances
›Fixtures, Appliances, and Incentives
›Outdoor Water Efficiency
›Slow the Flow
›Info and education, Farmer’s Market,
xeriscape seminars, Efficient Parks, etc.
›Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial
Water Efficiency »Ordinances and Regulations
›Regulatory Measures
›Water Reclaim and Recycling, Raw Water
Irrigation
›Waste of Water Ordinance Update
›Update landscape development
regulations for new construction to
place emphasis on water efficiency in
residential development »Educational Activities
›Public information, customer outreach
and education
›Community outreach event participation
›Utility billing inserts
This report
focuses on water
saving measures
and compares
conservation
measures against
the alternatives of
creating storage
and infrastructure
water projects.
Although most of
these interventions
do not occur
directly within the
riparian corridor,
water conservation
is an important
element of ensuring
better riparian
health, ecosystem
resilience, and water
quality and quantity
in the long term.
Rio Grande Trail
Management
Plan (2015)
Monitor user-created river access trails and
assess for impacts resulting in erosion
Weed management through an integrative
approach including; mechanical removal
through mowing or pulling, chemical spot
treatment, and biological agent
Viewshed protection of riparian areas
The Rio Grande Trail
through Aspen is
the most heavily
used portion of trail
in Pitkin County.
Large portions of
the trail is within
the riparian area of
the Roaring Fork
River resulting in
higher recreational
pressure on the
ecosystem here.
200
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
226
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INTERVENTIONS WITHIN RIPARIAN AREAS
RepoRt InteRventIon LocatIons wIthIn aRaap notes
Urban Runoff
Management
Plan (2014)
Removal of sediment »Runoff Reduction: Techniques that decrease
runoff volume and reduce the Water
Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) requiring
treatment.
»WQCV Treatment: BMPs that treat the
required volume of storm runoff.
»Flood Detention: Methods for attenuating
peak runoff from larger storm events on site.
»Implementation Details: Additional details
for specific portions of a site.
City of Aspen floodplain policy1
For effective
stormwater
management
and to address
several scales of
runoff in Aspen, a
combination of on-
site, sub-regional
and regional
facilities will be
implemented.
See appenix __ for
a table describing
Development Types
and Applicable
BMPs (page 8-14)
Upper Roaring
Fork River
Aquatic Life
Use Assessment
(2013)
Improve aquatic life health »Creative solutions for improving instream
flows and Address Stream Impairments
›Continue current efforts towards
supplementals flows and local
stakeholder agreements to augment
instream flows
›Develop more permanent ‘drought year
protocols’ between area stakeholders that
may be implemented when specific low-
flow or stream temperature criteria occur
Enhance habitat, »Continued improvement to stormwater
controls and targeted stormwater
assessments
›Engage appropriate area stakeholders for
planning and design of targeted water
quality studies for stormwater runoff,
organic and other constituents.
›Pro-actively engage water quality
control divisions in causal investigation
and any eventual total maximum daily
load procedure to keep process locally
directed
›Model city runoff sources by location
and volume (rather than percent area) for
accurate estimates of stormwater runoff
loads and locations. »Rehabilitation of physically degraded
reaches and channel and habitat
enhancement
›Detailed assessment of available
locations and project feasibility for
geomorphic and habitat enhancement
project in the town reach
Continued Biomonitoring
1 See appendix ___ for Chapter 6 - Floodplains of the manual for a comprehensive overview of COA floodplain development policy and
goals.
201
Appendix E: review Previous riparian area studies
227
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INTERVENTIONS WITHIN RIPARIAN AREAS
RepoRt InteRventIon LocatIons wIthIn aRaap notes
Northwest
Colorado
Council of
Governments
2012 208
Regional
Water Quality
Management
Plan: Roaring
Fork Watershed
Plan (2012)
Public education »Promote programs that concern non-point
source water quality impacts and methods
for minimizing those impacts through Best
Management Practices aimed at the general
public
Consistent enforcement of local regulations
Water quality monitoring
This wide ranging
plan looks at the
larger watersheds,
the Colorado and
North Platte River
Basins. The section
covered here only
focuses of the
Roaring Fork.
202
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
228
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INTERVENTIONS WITHIN RIPARIAN AREAS
RepoRt InteRventIon LocatIons wIthIn aRaap notes
Roaring Fork
Watershed Plan
(2012)2
Plan and Implement Key Riparian and
Instream Protection and Restoration Projects »Maintain/increase the extent and continuity
of native riparian plant communities so
that riparian and aquatic systems are
functionally connected
»Maintain or increase the population size
and distribution of all riparian-dependent
wildlife species, particularly indicator
species.
»Maintain or increase the population size,
range, and purity of all existing Colorado
River cutthroat trout populations.
»Assess the current condition of wild,
naturally reproducing fish communities;
undertake actions to improve existing
communities, and monitor their
effectiveness.
»Assess key amphibian populations (boreal
toads, chorus frogs, tiger salamanders,
and Northern leopard frogs); undertake
actions to restore or increase key
amphibian populations and assess their
effectiveness.
Minimize the impact of development and
other activities in riparian and instream areas. »Address the impacts of development and
other activities on riparian and instream
areas
»Provide Adequate Stream Setbacks
Throughout the Watershed
Develop and implement a riparian and
instream monitoring program
Increase education/outreach programs on the
importance of riparian and instream areas
Eradicate/control invasive species in riparian
and instream areas »Create an invasive species task force for the
watershed to coordinate efforts to control
riparian weeds, reestablish native species,
and provide education about invasive
species
»Prevent Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS),
such as the New Zealand mud snail, Didymo
algae, quagga and zebra mussels, and rusty
crayfish, from establishing in the watershed.
Northstar area of the Roaring Fork
River
2 See appendix __ for a full excerpt of recommendations within riparian areas (page 57-69)
203
Appendix E: review Previous riparian area studies
229
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INTERVENTIONS WITHIN RIPARIAN AREAS
RepoRt InteRventIon LocatIons wIthIn aRaap notes
Catalog Of
Stream and
Riparian
Habitat Quality
for the Roaring
Fork River and
Tributaries,
Central
Colorado: :
Roaring Fork
River, Segment
3: Tagert Beaver
Ponds to the
Slaughter
House Bridge,
Aspen (2007)
Active mitigation »Restoration of riparian habitat within the
city limits
»Construction of sediment traps as part of
the storm drain system
»Creation of constructed wetlands to remove
storm water pollutants
Revegetation of disturbed stream banks is an
essential and effective strategy in restoring
stream functions including energy abatement,
sediment trapping, and water storage and
cleansing, and wildlife habitat.
Encourage beaver activity and discourage the
dismantling of their dams. In the arid west
beaver activity results in water conservation
and the creation of wildlife habitat for fish,
birds, amphibians and mammals.
For new development, establish and enforce a
minimum riparian setback of 50 meters where
native riparian vegetation is dominant and
human activities are at a minimum.
Strongly discourage bank armoring with
boulders or riprap. Instead encourage the use
of riparian vegetation for bank stabilization;
use of current stabilization strategies such
as willow waddles is both more effective at
stabilization and dissipates flood water energy
rather than increasing it in the downstream
direction.
Actively encourage existing development,
with substandard riparian vegetation, to
restore the riparian zone; tax incentives could
be an effective motivator.
Design trails so as to guide users away from
riparian zones with directed access to the
stream at designated points.
Livestock should be fenced out of the riparian
zone. Fencing should be designed to create
designated access points to the stream where
livestock may obtain water.
Location RF3 – 12: N 39 10.614/W
106 47.782; 39 10.834/106 48.157.
Location RF3-13: N39 10.834/W106
48.157; N39 10.873/W106 48.487.
Location RF3-14: N39 10.873/W 106
48.487; N39 11.109/W106 48.728
Location RF3-15:
N39 11.109/W 106 48.728; N39
11.789/W106 49.252.
Location RF3-16: N 39 11.789/W 106
49.252; N 39 11.969/W 106 49.328.
Location RF3-17: N39 11.969/W106
49.328; N39 12.285/W106 49.975.
Location RF3-18: N39 12.285/W106
49.975; N39 12.648/W106 50.408.
See following
section for specific
management
recommendations
by location.
Roaring Fork
Watershed
Water Quality
Report (2006)
Stream Watch List Segments: »Roaring Fork at Mill Street Bridge
(Aspen) listed for suspended
solids
»Roaring Fork at Slaughterhouse
Bridge (Aspen) listed for
aluminum levels
The Roaring
Fork River
Greenway Plan
SUMMARY OF INTERVENTIONS AND ACTIONS:
204
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
230
Catalog Of Stream and Riparian Habitat Quality for the Roaring Fork River and Tribu-
taries, Central Colorado: : Roaring Fork River, Segment 3: Tagert Beaver Ponds to the
Slaughter House Bridge, Aspen (2007)
Location RF3 – 12: N 39 10.614/W 106 47.782; 39 10.834/106 48.157.
»Channel heterogeneity should be enhanced to increase bank stability and decrease floodwater velocity.
›Install large woody debris such as logs and root wads ›Revegetate stream banks with native woody plant species.
»Riparian zone width should be increased on the left bank
›Moving the recreational trail out of the riparian zone.
»Proximity of the highway to the stream precludes increasing the width of the riparian zone on most of
the right bank. Thus on the right bank, because of downcutting and consequent drying soils riparian
vegetation on the right bank should be supplemented with upland species.
»A high percentage of this reach is infested with noxious weeds indicating that the habitat is in decline.
›Eradicate weeds.
»Numerous non-point source pollutants degrade water quality along this reach especially since there is
little filtering capacity by the degraded riparian zone. Fertilizers, pesticides and road runoff threaten water
quality and should be controlled.
›Develop and implement regulations regarding fertilizer and pesticide use. ›Provide incentives that encourage private landowners to revegetate with native plant species. ›Install curbing or sediment ponds to prevent road runoff from directly entering the stream.
Location RF3-13: N39 10.834/W106 48.157; N39 10.873/W106 48.487.
»Restore ecologically sustainable flows.
»On undeveloped parcels, maintain a minimum undisturbed riparian zone width of at least 50 m where
native riparian vegetation structural and species diversity is intact.
»On developed parcels, revegetate the riparian zone with native species that have a high stability rating.
»On pastures, increase the fencing setback from the stream to 50 m. Currently fences are 1 to 2 meters from
the stream, which allows livestock to trample and browse riparian vegetation. Revegetate with willows
that are native to the local habitat.
»Decrease sediment and organic pollutant inputs from lawns, pastures, and roadway.
Location RF3-14: N39 10.873/W 106 48.487; N39 11.109/W106 48.728
»Restore ecologically sustainable instream flows.
»Buffer nonpoint source pollutants such as lawn runoff and sedimentation before they enter the stream by
restoring the riparian vegetative zone.
»Reduce erosion by revegetating stream banks with native riparian vegetation.
»Increase instream stability and habitat structural heterogeneity by installing instream large woody debris.
»Protect natural, unaltered areas of this reach with riparian setbacks of at least 50 meters where no
development or vegetation removal is permitted.
Location RF3-15: N39 11.109/W 106 48.728; N39 11.789/W106 49.252.
»Dissipate stream energy and increase structural heterogeneity.
›Revegetate banks with native riparian woody plant species.
205
Appendix E: review Previous riparian area studies
231
›Install structural features, such as large boulders and large woody debris, which reduce water
velocity and enhance structural heterogeneity.
»Establish and enforce 50m riparian zone setback
›Prohibit development and vegetation removal within 50 meters of the stream
»Reestablish habitat characteristics that would maintain river corridor connectivity for wildlife migrations.
For example, the banks of the stream that run through John Denver City Park have been armored with
boulders. This is an ideal site for a riparian restoration.
»Create a mitigation wetland at Jenny Adair Park to treat storm/road runoff (presently being planned by the
City of Aspen).
»Funnel road runoff into culverts and then into ponding basins where pollutants can be removed
Location RF3-16: N 39 11.789/W 106 49.252; N 39 11.969/W 106 49.328.
»Enforce a 50 meter riparian zone setback for all development.
»Revegetate riparian zone with native woody species along the right bank.
»Increase instream and riparian physical habitat heterogeneity by installing large boulders, large woody
debris instream and willow waddles along banks.
»Eradicate noxious weeds.
Location RF3-17: N39 11.969/W106 49.328; N39 12.285/W106 49.975.
»Close the dirt trail on the southwest side of the stream to conserve and protect this riparian habitat for
wildlife.
»Identify and “harden” a few, appropriate, stream access spur trails on the right bank. Eliminate the
numerous other social trails that result in vegetation destruction and wildlife disturbance.
»Install educational signage on the right bank regarding the importance of riparian vegetation and the
negative trampling-induced impacts of social trails.
»Eradicate noxious weeds.
Location RF3-18: N39 12.285/W106 49.975; N39 12.648/W106 50.408.
»Stabilize stream banks:
›Revegetate stream banks with native cottonwood, blue spruce, willows, birch and alder. ›Increase structural complexity of stream banks. ›Prohibit the removal of native trees and shrubs within 50 meters of stream banks.
»Increase stream stability by slowing stream flow:
›Increase instream habitat heterogeneity. ›Enable overbanking flows. ›Increase bank roughness.
»Weed management:
›Eradicate noxious weeds. ›Encourage the use of natives and discourage the use of introduced ornamentals.
»Close and revegetate social trails on the right bank to minimize wildlife disturbance and prevent further
destruction of riparian vegetation.
206
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
232
208
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
233
209209
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results
and Summary Presentation
234
210210
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedback
Policy
Policy actions are those regulatory actions, which the City would enact to enforce, limit, plan
development and use within the riparian area, as well as preserve, protect and plan for critical areas
within the corridor.
Examples of these types of actions are changes to enforcement of streambank setback regulations
and creation of planning documents such as a sediment management plan.
The three subcategories of these policy actions are:
· Preservation
· Enforcement
· Planning
Policy 1:
More-explicitly institutionalize water quality projection as a goal/objective in city code
segments pertaining to riparian lands uses and protections. (Report page number:
38)
* 1. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Policy 1
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
235
211211
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
* 2. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Policy 1.
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
3. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Policy 1?
Policy 2:
Strengthen riparian buffer protections on existing undeveloped locations with
functional condition vegetation (Report page number: 38)
* 4. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Policy 2
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 5. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Policy 2
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
6. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Policy 2
236
212212
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
7. Are there any additional policy recommendations that you have?
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedback
Program
Programs are actions that the city would undertake to incentivize best practices within riparian areas
and educate the public about riparian areas. Programs have the potential to catalyze public action and
help the City promote a more robust, connected and healthy riparian area. Program actions fall into
two broad categories:
· Incentives
· Education
Program 1:
Educating property owners on how to maintain naturalized riparian buffers. Highlight
importance of a zoned approach to landscaping and structure development near
riparian areas. (Report page number: 38)
* 1. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 1
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political,
financial, or legal constraints.
237
213213
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
* 2. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 1
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
3. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Program 1
Program 2:
Incentivizing restoration, enhancement, or mitigation opportunities. (Report page
number: 39)
* 4. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 2
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 5. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 2
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
6. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Program 2
238
214214
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Program 3:
Fee – In – Lieu. At sites where improvements still remain practically infeasible due to
topography, parcel size, etc., provide opportunities for in-basin mitigation via fee-in-
lieu or other mechanisms to support off-site work that still provides water quality
benefits directly to the Roaring Fork River system.(Report page number: 39)
* 7. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 3
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 8. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 3
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
9. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Program 3
10. Are there any additional program recommendations that you have?
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedback
Project
239
215215
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Projects include the “shovel in the dirt” variety action items. These projects fall into five categories
based on: ecosystem context, level of degradation, adjacent land uses, and locations of storm water
outfalls and treatment infrastructure.
These proposed projects locations are mapped in the report.
These project types are:
Preservation (i.e. conservation easements, acquisition)
Enhancement (limited restoration activities such as seeding and planting in areas that are of good
quality)
Creation (installing riparian communities where they have been eliminated or would be expected to
occur. Especially those locations where these installations would have measurable impacts to city
goals)
Restoration (repairing degraded areas with ecological based projects including interventions such as
planting, seeding, erosion control, bank stabilization etc.)
Stormwater Control and Treatment
Project 1:
Public and private restoration partnerships; in order to create a larger and more
robust riparian buffer and connect high value habitat and ecosystem services, the
City should consider targeted property easements and partnerships that further the
goal of connectivity of the riparian area through Aspen. (Report page number: 40)
* 1. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 1
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 2. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 1
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
240
216216
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
3. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 1
Project 2: Mill Parcel Restoration
Restore the native vegetation community along the floodplain bench on the northwest
side of Mill Street.
Control invasive species along the streambanks on the southern side of the road
crossing.
Enhance the habitat and water quality of the pond near the ACRA.
Modify site topography and plant various native wetland species to improve the
habitat characteristics of the pond’s vegetated fringe.
Enhance the internal forest’s diversity in age class and structure.
Maintain the parcel’s water rights and fisheries use.
(Report page number: 41)
241
217217
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
* 4. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 2
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 5. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 2
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
6. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 2?
242
218218
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Project 3: Jenny Adair - Stormwater Control
Facility
Further improve the water quality of stormwater exiting the Jenny Adair stormwater
control facility.
Adaptively manage the evolving system to continue the high quality of water
treatment.
Examine the flow routing and ponded water depths within the facility.
Riparian vegetation restoration through planting various wetland shrubs, forbs, and
sedges.
To improve hydrological connectivity with the Roaring Fork River through structural
modification of site topography.
(Report page number: 42)
243
219219
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
* 7. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 3
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 8. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 3
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
9. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 3
Project 4: John Denver Park - Kayak Channel and
Armored Bank Restoration
Improve natural channel processes and encourage establishment of streamside
vegetation.
(Report page number: 43)
244
220220
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
* 10. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 4
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 11. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 4
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
12. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 4
245
221221
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Project 5: Newberry Park Enhancement
Remove old bridge pier from streambed to support natural sediment transport
dynamics and promote healthy channel function.
Increase vegetation diversity though targeted vegetation management.
Tie natural hydrology into bank to extend the riparian corridor.
(Report page number: 44)
* 13. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 5
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
246
222222
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
* 14. Rate the feasibility of implantation of Project 5
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
15. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 5
Project 6: Herron Park Enhancement
Implement riparian restoration and management strategies that conform to the
principles of the “3-Zone Buffer System”.
Restrict the number and use of social trails.
Install educational and interpretive facilities targeted at daily users and adjacent
property owners.
(Report page number: 45)
247
223223
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
* 16. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 6
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 17. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 6
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
18. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 6
248
224224
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Project 7: Garrish Park Restoration and Mine
Drainage
Improve water quality in mine drainage before it enters the Roaring Fork River
Implement riparian restoration and management strategies that conform to the
principles of the “3-Zone Buffer System”.
Restrict the number and use of social trails.
Install educational and interpretive facilities targeted at daily users and adjacent
property owners.
Increase floodplain connectivity and riparian habitat.
(Report page number: 46)
* 19. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 7
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
249
225225
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
* 20. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 7
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
21. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 7
Project 8: Anderson Park and Land Trust Parcel
Implement a riparian enhancement strategy targeted at:
· Native woody riparian area age diversity
· Native woody riparian species diversity
· Improved habitat in narrow band
(Report page number: 47)
250
226226
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
* 22. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 8
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 23. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 8
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
24. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 8
251
227227
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Project 9: Aspen Club Hydrologic Enhancements
Create a side channel on the left bank to increase diversity of river morphology.
Narrow artificially large channel to reconnect floodplain and encourage overbank flow
onto riparian benches.
Private/public partnership opportunity.
Improve wheeler ditch diversion to promote/enhance vegetation of a mid-channel
bar.
(Report page number: 48)
* 25. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 9
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
252
228228
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
* 26. Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 9
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
27. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 9
Project 10: John Denver Park -
Vegetation Management & Cattail Control
Maintain and enhance vegetation community diversity in the John Denver Park
Stormwater Facility.
Mitigate water eutrophication through adaptive management practices.
(Report page number: 49)
253
229229
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
* 28. Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 10
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City
of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
* 29. Rate the feasibility of of implementation of Project 10
Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to
meet little to no resistance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land
ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial,
or legal constraints.
30. Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on ? Project 10
254
230230
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
31. Are there any additional project recommendations that you have?
255
231231
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
1 / 25
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
Q1 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Policy 1
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q2 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Policy 1.
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
256
232232
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
2 / 25
33.33%2
50.00%3
16.67%1
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
Feasibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Q3 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Policy 1?
Answered: 5 Sk ipped: 1
#RESPONSES DATE
1 This would probably require a s ignificant amount of public educ ation/outreac h.5/11/2021 4:26 PM
2 I'm assuming that this is s upposed to read "water quality protection" not "water quality
projec tion"? In terms of effec tiv eness it s eems that to some degree the development ship has
s ailed within the riparian in t he City of Aspen, but if we think in terms of redev elopment
projec ts I t hink there is potential benefits to more ex plicitly including water quality as a goal. I
think the effec ts would be relatively localized bec aus e my understanding is they wouldn't come
into effec t unles s s ignific ant redevelopment is proposed on a parcel.
5/11/2021 12:33 PM
3 Despite my rating of low effec tivenes s and diffic ult feasibi lity, I s till t hink there is s ome v alue
in codify ing the goal and lay ing expectations f or t he future.
5/11/2021 8:02 AM
4 From a Community Development perspectiv e, making this change to the Land Use Code (LUC)
is relativ ely feas ible and the depart ment is open to mak ing this change t o reflec t
organizational/c ommunity values toward wat er. It 's worth noting that there is a very s pecific
proc es s as sociated with amending the LUC and this process would have to be managed by
someone from Water/Engineering and the Long Range Planner in Community Development.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
5 The current top of slope and 15 foot s etbac k is not a s trong manner to protec t the riparian
z one. The language is not strong enough to require robus t riparian plantings and the
requirement is oft en s kirted. The stream margin code should be updated t o c reate better
riparian buffers .
5/10/2021 9:25 AM
Q4 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Policy 2
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
257
233233
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
3 / 25
16.67%1
66.67%4
16.67%1
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q5 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Policy 2
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
258
234234
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
4 / 25
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
Feasibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Q6 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Policy 2?
Answered: 4 Sk ipped: 2
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I think it makes good sens e t o work towards protecting undev eloped areas- although many
areas hav e already been impacted. Glenwood Springs rec ently worked to increas e riparian
protections and had some s ignificant push back, unfortunately (although the meas ures did
ultimately pas s ).
5/11/2021 4:26 PM
2 I see t wo m ajor limitations to this policy. Firs t there are a very limited number of parcels within
the c ity limits that aren't c urrent ly developed and have dev elopment potential (i.e. aren't
already owned by the c ity or county, or in other way s protected, or hav e terrain that prec ludes
development). Second while city code can direc t development wit hin the riparian my
understanding (as a total non-lawy er lay pers on) is that if we were to implement polices that in
effec t prec ludes dev elopment on the parcel it would c onst itute a taking and the city would be
respons ible for the cost of ext inguishing that development right. While guided development on
these parc els would be better than nothing it would still be development, there would s till be; a
signific ant increase in impervious s urfaces in the riparian, a lawn which would be fertilized, a
driveway and s idewalk s that would be salted, and human pres ence in the riparian c utting off
s ignificant wildlife acc es s.
5/11/2021 12:33 PM
3 will f ace res ist ance, but st ring policy s hould be able to withs tand s oc ial press ure for
dev elopment
5/11/2021 8:02 AM
4 From a Community Development perspec tiv e, t he s hort answer is t hat the department would
support ex ploring t his policy. Howev er, in reality, t his could be difficult to implement. This
policy could potentially reduc e dev elopment rights or alter the development rights of a property
depending on its spec ifics. Reduc tions in development rights, partic ularly those that would
reduce building size allowanc es, would anger the community. Furthermore, any c hanges t o the
ex isting dev elopment s tandards may have unintended c onsequenc es on other development
restric tions/other sections of the LUC and thos e would need to be c arefully cons idered before
purs uing this policy. If there is political support for this policy, then c hanges to the code to
strengthen riparian buffer changes could be explored with the Long Range Planner managing or
c o-managing the proces s with s omeone from Engineering or another relevant department . Per
the ex ac t language for this policy, maintaining the exis ting protections can cert ianly be done.
But st rengthening protec tions would require a signific iant proc ess and political support as
mentioned above (not an impos s ible proc es s, but it's worth noting the potential diffic ult y of the
endeavor).
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
Q7 Are there any additional policy recommendations that you have?
Answered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
259
235235
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
5 / 25
1 While s ome of the program recommendations inc orporate ideas on how to reduce c hemical
runoff into t he riparian areas and the river, it may be worth formulating a polic y t hat would
require a ban or limit on thes e c hemicals (fertiliz ers, pesticides, etc.). A mandate on this item
seems lik e it would be more powerful than educational/optional effort. Apologies if t his has
already been c onsidered and I'm missing s ome c ontex t on this!
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
16.67%1
66.67%4
16.67%1
Q8 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 1
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions will be moderately dif ficult to implement given the presenc e of some local s oc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
Effectiv eness Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given signif icant loc al social, land ownership,
polit ical, financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Q9 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 1
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
260
236236
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
6 / 25
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: These actions c an be implement ed relatively eas ily as they present few cons traints and/or are lik ely
to meet little to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al social,
land ownership, politic al, financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: These actions will be diffic ult to implement giv en s ignificant local s ocial, land ownership, polit ical,
financ ial, or legal cons traints.
Q10 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Program 1?
Answered: 5 Sk ipped: 1
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I think its quite feasible to think an educ ation campaign like this can happen. Whether people
will listen/respond is a more dif ficult question.
5/11/2021 4:31 PM
2 Aspen homeowners are very c hallenging to reach, they often aren't pres ent and when they are
there are many lay ers of people that of ten insulate them from educ ation efforts .
5/11/2021 12:43 PM
3 Can ac hieve educ ation, harder to measure whet her that education trans lates to on the ground
decis ions and or ac tion
5/11/2021 8:07 AM
4 In the Climate Ac tion Office, we'v e run a water conservation program for homeowners, HOAs ,
bus ines s es , et c. f or the past f ew years with the goal of reducing wat er cons umption through
irrigat ion practices . While the endeav or is wort hwhile given the amount of water we k now these
properties are using for irrigation, the amount of effort that goes into this optional/educ ational
program is s ubst antial. Priv ate ent ities are hard to reac h and require a lot of st aff time to
engage with. The voluntary nat ure of this program would necessitate that signif icant res ourc es
be devoted to the program in order to s ee an impact at s c ale.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
5 Educ ation will be hard given t he majorit y of these properties value the views and look of their
property.
5/10/2021 9:33 AM
Q11 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 2
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
261
237237
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
7 / 25
50.00%3
33.33%2
16.67%1
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q12 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 2
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
262
238238
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
8 / 25
16.67%1
83.33%5
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
F easibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
f inanc ial, or legal cons traints .
Q13 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Program 2?
Answered: 5 Sk ipped: 1
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I really like this idea...5/11/2021 4:31 PM
2 I think s ome sort of incentiv e s tructure has a lot of potent ial. The challenge is going to be
finding incent ives t hat ac tually matter thos e t hat will be redev eloping parc els along the Roaring
Fork. Most of these individuals are relatively pric e insensitive to t he scale of financ ial
inc entives the c ity would be able to prov ide. I think the k ey to succes s here will be t hink ing
c reativ ely about incentiv es that c an be off ered during development that will be attrac tiv e
enough for homeowners to tak e mitigation s teps they wouldn't otherwis e do.
5/11/2021 12:43 PM
3 I would guess that money and s ocial pres s ure can be more effec tive incentives than mere
education in Aspen.
5/11/2021 8:07 AM
4 This program would be laudable, but as referenced in the text of the rat ionale, the ability to
make changes on these degraded lands is difficult and very expensive. Thus, I 'm not sure of
how effec tive the program would be. Furthermore, the text of the recommendat ion makes it
sound optional for property owners during redev elopment - is t hat the c ase? If this would be
optional, then it c ould be difficult to garner a high lev el of participation. If it is not optional, then
this program would have to be cons idered further with Communit y Development.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
5 People want more FAR. inc entiviz ing bigger hous es for robust riparian zones may work.5/10/2021 9:33 AM
Q14 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 3
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
263
239239
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
9 / 25
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q15 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 3
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
264
240240
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
10 / 25
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
Feasibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Q16 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Program 3?
Answered: 4 Sk ipped: 2
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Seems like it c ould hav e potential and follows the precedent set by programs like CORE 5/11/2021 4:31 PM
2 This seems relativ ely straight forward. I t look s lik e the second paragraph under the Fee-I n-Lieu
belongs in the prev ious inc entive sect ion.
5/11/2021 12:43 PM
3 This Program, when c onsidered in tandem wit h Program #2, is slightly confus ing. Pers onally,
I've only ev er seen a Fee-in-Lieu option applied to required policies (if there are v oluntary,
s uc essf ul models of this, I 'd be happy to learn more). If Program #2 is optional (as I'm reading
it to be), and so is the Fee-in-Lieu option of Program #3, then I think partic ipat ion would be
extremely low. It's unlikely that privat e properties will c ontributre funds if they don't hav e to.
Ov erall, I could us e s ome clarification on this Program and Program #2 on my points abov e as
well as s ome administ rativ e questions. Is this program sugges ting that the LUC is the right
plac e to house this program? If so, who would be adminis tering t his ? How would funds be
collec ted? A lot of proc es s questions come up. Furt her discussion with Community
Development would be needed if this does inv olv e the LUC in any way.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
4 People with riv erfront property in as pen have the financ ial means t o pay a f ee in lieu. They
want to do the right thing but not in their back y ard. I think a fee in lieu wit h projects elsewhere
in the waters hed will be effec tiv e.
5/10/2021 9:33 AM
Q17 Are there any additional program recommendations that you have?
Answered: 2 Sk ipped: 4
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Pilot project turning a wealthy landowners private riv erfront property into a better func tioning
riparian area to learn actual cost s, implementation c hallenges and demons trate how it can still
be aesthetically pleas ing t o the landowner (I think this is a barrier to much riparian
enhancement still...how can we help mak e a functioning riparian sexy for traditional green
grass lov ing landowners!?)
5/11/2021 8:07 AM
2 Overall, Community Development is very ready to support water quality eff orts for the Roaring
Fork, but will need t o iron out the details of these items if they do inv olve the c ode before any
implementation begins .
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
Q18 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 1
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
265
241241
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
11 / 25
83.33%5
16.67%1
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q19 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 1
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
266
242242
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
12 / 25
0.00%0
100.00%6
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presenc e of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
F easibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
f inanc ial, or legal cons traints .
Q20 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 1?
Answered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I think this makes a ton of s ense, muc h of the degraded land along t he RF is private so public
private part ners hips to addres s that are nec es s ary.
5/11/2021 12:54 PM
33.33%2
50.00%3
16.67%1
Q21 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 2
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q22 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 2
267
243243
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
13 / 25
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: These actions c an be implement ed relatively eas ily as they present few cons traints and/or are lik ely
to meet little to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al social,
land ownership, politic al, financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: These actions will be diffic ult to implement giv en s ignificant local s ocial, land ownership, polit ical,
financ ial, or legal cons traints.
Q23 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 2?
Answered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Seems like a project with a lot of direct benefits that c ould als o s erve as an educational asset
and demonstrat ion projec t as well.
5/11/2021 4:35 PM
Q24 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 3
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
268
244244
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
14 / 25
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q25 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 3
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
269
245245
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
15 / 25
83.33%5
16.67%1
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
F easibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
f inanc ial, or legal cons traints .
Q26 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 3?
Answered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no respons es .
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
Q27 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 4
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q28 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 4
270
246246
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
16 / 25
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: These actions c an be implement ed relatively eas ily as they present few cons traints and/or are lik ely
to meet little to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al social,
land ownership, politic al, financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: These actions will be diffic ult to implement giv en s ignificant local s ocial, land ownership, polit ical,
financ ial, or legal cons traints.
Q29 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 4?
Answered: 2 Sk ipped: 4
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Seems like a project with a lot of direct benefits that c ould als o s erve as an educational asset
and demonstrat ion projec t as well.
5/11/2021 4:35 PM
2 Gett ing some communit y input on this project could be useful before committing to it. Sinc e
it's maybe a more heav ily traffick ed area than Projec ts 2 & 3, there may be some s tronger
communtiy feelings around what should or shouldn't happen here.
5/10/2021 9:49 PM
Q30 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 5
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
271
247247
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
17 / 25
16.67%1
83.33%5
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q31 Rate the feasibility of implantation of Project 5
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
272
248248
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
18 / 25
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
F easibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
f inanc ial, or legal cons traints .
Q32 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 5?
Answered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no respons es .
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
Q33 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 6
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q34 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 6
273
249249
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
19 / 25
33.33%2
66.67%4
0.00%0
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: These actions c an be implement ed relatively eas ily as they present few cons traints and/or are lik ely
to meet little to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al social,
land ownership, politic al, financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: These actions will be diffic ult to implement giv en s ignificant local s ocial, land ownership, polit ical,
financ ial, or legal cons traints.
Q35 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 6?
Answered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Since Herron Park is heavily vis ited, signific ant changes to the landscape/ac es s may be hard
for s ome c ommunity members to s tomac h. The efforts c ertainly seem worthwhile, but s hould
be planned c arefully. Additionally, if this team is not already aware, there are fis hing
eas ements that are held by Pitk in County f or signific ant portions of the river and these may
inhibit the plan to limit public acess to t he river in s ome loc ations. For this projec t and any
others that plan t o limit acess , this c ould be somet hing t o c onsider (I'm not totally aware of all
of the details on this). Apologies if I'm jus t repeating something you're already aware of.
5/10/2021 9:49 PM
Q36 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 7
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
274
250250
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
20 / 25
16.67%1
83.33%5
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q37 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 7
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
275
251251
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
21 / 25
50.00%3
50.00%3
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
F easibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
f inanc ial, or legal cons traints .
Q38 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 7?
Answered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no respons es .
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
Q39 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 8
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q40 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 8
276
252252
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
22 / 25
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: These actions c an be implement ed relatively eas ily as they present few cons traints and/or are lik ely
to meet little to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al social,
land ownership, politic al, financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: These actions will be diffic ult to implement giv en s ignificant local s ocial, land ownership, polit ical,
financ ial, or legal cons traints.
Q41 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 8?
Answered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no respons es .
Q42 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 9
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
277
253253
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
23 / 25
16.67%1
66.67%4
16.67%1
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q43 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 9
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
278
254254
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
24 / 25
50.00%3
50.00%3
0.00%0
TOTAL 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e ac tions c an be implemented relatively easily as they present few cons traints and/or are likely
to meet lit tle to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome local soc ial,
land ownership, politic al, financial, or legal c onstraints .
F easibility Level 3: These act ions will be dif ficult to implement given significant loc al s ocial, land ownership, politic al,
f inanc ial, or legal cons traints .
Q44 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 9?
Answered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no respons es .
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
Q45 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 10
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effect iveness
Level 1 : The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effec tivenes s Lev el 1: Thes e ac tions lik ely hav e a signific ant and widespread effec t on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of As pen.
Effec tiv eness Level 2: Thes e ac tions lik ely have a strong or localized effec t on the integrity of riparian areas through
the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Level 3: These act ions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas
through the City of Aspen.
Q46 Rate the feasibility of of implementation of Project 10
279
255255
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
25 / 25
33.33%2
50.00%3
16.67%1
Answered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1 : The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: These actions c an be implement ed relatively eas ily as they present few cons traints and/or are lik ely
to meet little to no res istance within the community.
Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al social,
land ownership, politic al, financ ial, or legal c ons traints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: These actions will be diffic ult to implement giv en s ignificant local s ocial, land ownership, polit ical,
financ ial, or legal cons traints.
Q47 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 10?
Answered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 If you find an effectiv e and f easible long term cattail management strategy pleas e let me know.5/11/2021 12:54 PM
Q48 Are there any additional project recommendations that you have?
Answered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Currently there are a number of cons tructed wetlands around the c it y for s tormwater f iltration
(Jenny Adair, John Denver, and Mill Street off the top of my head). All of these wetlands hav e
management plans for how the filtered pollutants will be addressed in the future. Runof f from
the Wes t End goes int o the bac k wetlands of Hallam Lak e (t his is Adam from ACES). Without
some periodic mitigation and management ev entually thes e wetlands will s top ef fec tiv ely
filt ering pollutants and change from a sink to a s ourc e of pollutants to the Roaring Fork . ACES
would be interested in s ome sort of c ollaborative plan/project t o manage these.
5/11/2021 12:54 PM
280
256256
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
RAAP Meeting 2 notes: 5/12/2021
Project 1 – highest priority (lowest score) – public private partnerships:
City reaches out to develop relationship with private property owner to work on improving the
riparian area in that area – everyone agrees that this is the meaning
Project 5 – Newberry park
No feedback
Project 4 – john Denver improvements, kayak channel and armored bank
Relatively high feasibility, mixed effectiveness
Project 7 – garish park
No feedback
Program 2 – incentivize restoration
Finding incentives that actually matter
Matt – clients do ask about offsetting fees (remp), from the beginning of the projects, size is
important, other programs that get a similar effect – aspen modern program, more leeway but
within a set of rules
Stephen – could be applied to properties not on the river, buy into a program at the time of
redevelopment
Seth – how are these areas monitored to ensure they aren’t gotten rid of in the future/new
owner/new landscaper, etc.? Do landscaper companies help educate the owners if they want to
mow down riparian areas?
April – landscapers will do what the payer wants, we see this happen, we want to be
cautious to not create administrative work for ourselves, it’d be a onetime fee that would be
used/saved for improvements on city property
Matt – salesforce could flag the property that shows this “program” is associated with
this property so that if a permit is pulled again the flag pops up to inform city of this… the
education needs to start with the LA and the City, not the landscaper necessarily, up to the
individuals guiding the redevelopers to make choices that protect the riparian areas
Liza – sounds like conservation easement work, could be a way to handle the admin side,
if this is a one time buy in, we won’t get the long term benefits which is what should be included
in the goal of the program
Allie – this may become a 2-pronged recommendation
Adam – taking money and doing projects on city land is simpler, this is one of the few options
that could impact private land, even if there is more admin work, could we use this to get good
281
257257
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
work on the private land, otherwise city parcels will have great work and be surrounded by
degraded land
Project 8 – Anderson park
Seth – I’d love to hear about the effectiveness is low and why others think it is lower:
Adam – the project ends up being an island surrounded by development so it wouldn’t have
broader impacts, limited in scope
April – (Q) How effective can you be in riparian restoration if you can only touch one side of the river?
Stephen – it is absolutely productive to even impact one side of the river. It might change how
you score the project in terms of productivity but it is still important, from wildlife and WQ POV it may be
more important to restore a property like this but from a capital budget side, there may be cultural
reasons to not score it so high
Seth – useful to think about riparian area downstream and upstream from parcel, not just across
the river, at least as important to think about up and downstream.
Project 9 – aspen club
Allie – (Q) why are feasibility results so split?
Stephen – opportunity on this project with the redevelopment of aspen club proper (insider
scoop)
Mike – immediately adjacent to Ute cemetery/park, however across the river is lawn/turf, another
example,
Seth – recognizing that as things redevelopment the trend is that there is more encroachment not less
encroachment. Greatest impact would be policy and program that focus on development and how it
impacts the river. Degrading one side as you restore the other side, its better to prevent the degrading
from the beginning
April – helpful to explain in terms of effort and money expended by the city to balance/not even make
gains for the health of the river if we continue to let development encroach on the river
Seth – shifting the burden of the impact from the developer to the city, is the city okay with that?
Allie – we will prioritize and rank these, but we will need action in all three categories, the report will
need to explain this
Policy 1 – institutionalize WQ protection
Adam – I could see this as a way to provide education, helps the conversation with clients,
Seth – initial thinking: need to explicitly say that riparian area protect helps with WQ and may lead to
different outcomes, helps to focus the intent of the code (not for aesthetics, its for WQ) ingrain this
philosophy in the code,
RAAP Meeting 2 notes: 5/12/2021
Project 1 – highest priority (lowest score) – public private partnerships:
City reaches out to develop relationship with private property owner to work on improving the
riparian area in that area – everyone agrees that this is the meaning
Project 5 – Newberry park
No feedback
Project 4 – john Denver improvements, kayak channel and armored bank
Relatively high feasibility, mixed effectiveness
Project 7 – garish park
No feedback
Program 2 – incentivize restoration
Finding incentives that actually matter
Matt – clients do ask about offsetting fees (remp), from the beginning of the projects, size is
important, other programs that get a similar effect – aspen modern program, more leeway but
within a set of rules
Stephen – could be applied to properties not on the river, buy into a program at the time of
redevelopment
Seth – how are these areas monitored to ensure they aren’t gotten rid of in the future/new
owner/new landscaper, etc.? Do landscaper companies help educate the owners if they want to
mow down riparian areas?
April – landscapers will do what the payer wants, we see this happen, we want to be
cautious to not create administrative work for ourselves, it’d be a onetime fee that would be
used/saved for improvements on city property
Matt – salesforce could flag the property that shows this “program” is associated with
this property so that if a permit is pulled again the flag pops up to inform city of this… the
education needs to start with the LA and the City, not the landscaper necessarily, up to the
individuals guiding the redevelopers to make choices that protect the riparian areas
Liza – sounds like conservation easement work, could be a way to handle the admin side,
if this is a one time buy in, we won’t get the long term benefits which is what should be included
in the goal of the program
Allie – this may become a 2-pronged recommendation
Adam – taking money and doing projects on city land is simpler, this is one of the few options
that could impact private land, even if there is more admin work, could we use this to get good
282
258258
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
April – stream margin setback – built around a view plain from the river not on health of the river, we
intend to use this to say that this area shouldn’t’ be developed to help the river not just for views
Seamus – making the code more explicitly prioritize WQ should be easy, the next step of changing the
standards would be more complex, comment from Comdev – supportive to getting wq in the code but
it’d take significant work to update the code
Project 6 – Herron Park
Allie – eliminating social access trails to the river – we need to be cautious of how we present this, we
mean subtly showing public how to access the river not preventing it entirely,
Liza – spot on, this question isn’t going anywhere, how do we manage public access to the river…
conservation easement, rivers are more popular so we need to discuss this in more depth,
Allie – how do we plan for the increased recreational use; how do we design for this…
Policy 2 – strengthen riparian buffer protections – mix of responses
Seamus – presenting this to council: if council can stomach this impact on development rights politically
then great the code can be easily updated but is there political will?
Adam – requires political capital and would limit the number of parcels this would impact
April – I see this as restrictions to redevelopment, to restore riparian area as necessary, this would be the
biggest way to impact private property riparian area, I don’t see this as takings while that will be the
opposition, but we would allow the development with these protections in place, regulation + policy
+partnership
Adam – (Q) how does this differ from the WQ code policy?
April – this is the standard is the “how we achieve the goal” of the code being updated to clearly
state WQ is the goal
Program 3 – FIL
April – how I envision a FIL program working: there are properties the redevelop in the riparian area that
have to remove + restore a non-compliant structure, relying on restoration, in there with equipment,
balance – do we want them to remove a structure or have more flexibility – what would be better…..
different than incentive – that can be bought into any time, FIL would be at redevelopment when you are
required to come into compliance with code
Adam – (Q) how much discretion from code is staff given? Does it need to be explicitly spelled out?
April – it’d need to be explained and spelled out
Adam – one concern, the unintended consequences, how much is the fee how does it change
with time, will everyone want to do this?
Seamus – keep in mind when moving forward – administrative side, staff time and effort, at some point
everything will be developed and the $ will stop coming in.
283
259259
Appendix F: Stakeholder Survey, Survey Results and Meeting Notes
PJ – would each redevelopment require them to buy into FIL or is it a one-time thing? What if they want
to pull out the structure but we’d rather them pay the FIL; do we get to override based on protection of
the riparian area?
Project – jenny Adair
Adam – biased, this parcel does a lot of work so the effectiveness may be underestimated, water gets
hot, there is a lot of opportunity to improve the parcel that is doing a lot of work for the river.
Project 10 – john Denver vegetation management
No feedback
Program 1 – education for private property owners
No feedback
Project 2 – Mill parcel - lowest priority (highest score)
Additional recommendations:
1. Yosemite falls – aces doesn’t have an O&M plan for their pond to remove sediments, they’d
be open to partnering on this
Liza – would like to retake the survey, maybe they help us rank them within the subgroup categories, i.e.
public private partnerships is a big umbrella, many of these fall under that category.
Adam – put the stormwater projects up higher on the list
Liza – opposite of Adam, protect first rather than try to restore
TEAM WRAP UP:
1. The whole suite of things needs to progress together
2. Explain benefits and tradeoffs in the report
a. Nature of the benefits are different to riparian area than WQ
b. Acute vs long-term issues
3. These should be presented in their subcategories, they aren’t mutually exclusive
4. Organization of the chapter: the outreach approach and what the feedback was
5. 2 ways to organize the recommendations:
a. Here are your top three, don’t do the others
b. Here is a matrix for decisions – not trying to get to top 5 that matter and others don’t
matter, ideally, we’d do all of these, the order is up to you based on this information
6. If City has any specific verbiage to include, let them know:
a. There are acute geographic locations and issues to address but it is imperative to
protect existing because restoration takes so much effort and time and money
284
260260
Aspen Riparian Area Assessment and Plan
Schedule:
Early July presentation to Council
- Draft will be finished by the end of May based on budget
- City will review early/mid-June
- Seth is gone: 7/10-7/end of month ish
- April will schedule a work session early July or early August with Council
285
286
CCONTENTS
1. REVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS
2. Q & A
3. NEXT STEPS
287
ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVENESS
• Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a significant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
• Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
• Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION
• Feasibility Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few constraints and/or are likely to meet little to no resistance within the
community.
• Feasibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of some local social, land ownership, political, financial, or legal
constraints.
• Feasibility Level 3: These actions will be difficult to implement given significant local social, land ownership, political, financial, or legal constraints.
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
SURVEY PROCESS
3 TIER PROCESS
288
PROJECT 1: Public and private restoration partnerships; in order to create a larger and
more robust riparian buffer and connect high value habitat and ecosystem services, the
City should consider targeted property easements and partnerships that further the goal
of connectivity of the riparian area through Aspen.
PROJECT 5: Newberry Park Enhancement
PROJECT 4: John Denver Park - Kayak Channel and Armored Bank Restoration
PROJECT 7: Garrish Park Restoration and Mine Drainage
PROGRAM 2: Incentivize restoration, enhancement, or mitigation opportunities.
PROJECT 8: Anderson Park and Land Trust Parcel
PROJECT 9: Aspen Club Hydrologic Enhancements
POLICY 1: More-explicitly institutionalize water quality projection as a goal/objective in
city code segments pertaining to riparian lands uses and protections.
PROJECT 6: Herron Park Enhancement
POLICY 2: Strengthen riparian buffer protections on existing undeveloped locations with
functional condition vegetation
PROGRAM 3: Fee – In – Lieu. At sites where improvements still remain practically infeasible
due to topography, parcel size, etc., provide opportunities for in-basin mitigation via
fee-in-lieu or other mechanisms to support off-site work that still provides water quality
benefits directly to the Roaring Fork River system.
PROJECT 3: Jenny Adair - Stormwater Control Facility
PROJECT 10: John Denver Park - Vegetation Management & Cattail Control
PROGRAM 1: Educating property owners on how to maintain naturalized riparian buffers.
Highlight importance of a zoned approach to landscaping and structure development
near riparian areas.
PROJECT 2: Mill Parcel Restoration
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 20207111211101312121312 12111312131288911891110121213111314191920202121212323242424242527PROJECT 1 PROJECT 5 PROJECT 4 PROJECT 7 PROGRAM 2 PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 POLICY 1 PROJECT 6 POLICY 2 PROGRAM 3 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 10 PROGRAM 1 PROJECT 2
DRAFT PRIORITIZATION
Effectiveness Feasibility Combined score
289
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 40
PROJECT 1:
Public and Private Restoration PartnershipsAspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
18 / 48
83.33%5
16.67%1
0.00%0
Q18 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 1
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
19 / 48
0.00%0
100.00%6
0.00%0
Q19 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 1
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
20 / 48
Q20 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 1?
Ans wered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I think this makes a ton of s ens e, muc h of t he degraded land along the RF is private so public priv ate partnerships to addres s that are nec ess ary.5/11/2021 12:54 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
290
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 44
PROJECT 5: Newberry Park
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
• Increased vegetation diversity
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: C+
• LANDSCAPE: D
• CONDITION: C+
• SIZE: A+
OBJECTIVES:
Remove old bridge pier from streambed to support natural sediment transport dynamics and promote
healthy channel function.
Increase vegetation diversity though targeted vegetation management.
Tie natural hydrology into bank to extend the riparian corridor.
291
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
30 / 48
16.67%1
83.33%5
0.00%0
Q30 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 5
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
31 / 48
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
Q31 Rate the feasibility of implantation of Project 5
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
32 / 48
Q32 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 5?
Ans wered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no res pons es .
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
292
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 43
PROJECT 4: John Denver Park - Kayak Channel and Armored Bank
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Temperature improvements
• Riparian and wetland function
• Habitat creation
• Recreation opportunities
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: C-
• LANDSCAPE: D
• CONDITION: C+
• SIZE: C-
OBJECTIVES:
To improve natural channel processes and encourage establishment of streamside vegetation.
293
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
27 / 48
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
Q27 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 4
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
28 / 48
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
Q28 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 4
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
29 / 48
Q29 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 4?
Ans wered: 2 Sk ipped: 4
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Seems lik e a project with a lot of direct benefits that c ould als o s erve as an educational as set and demonstrat ion projec t as well.5/11/2021 4:35 PM
2 Get ting some community input on this project c ould be us eful before c ommitting t o it. Since it's may be a more heavily traffick ed area than Projects 2 & 3,
there may be s ome s tronger communtiy feelings around what s hould or s houldn't happen here.
5/10/2021 9:49 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
294
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 46
PROJECT 7: Garrish Park - Park Restoration and Mine Drainage
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Water temperature
improvements
• Streambank soil de-
compaction.
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: C+
• LANDSCAPE: C-
• CONDITION: B-
• SIZE: B+
OBJECTIVES:
To improve water quality in mine drainage before it enters the Roaring Fork River
To implement riparian restoration and management strategies that conform to the principles of
the “3-Zone Buffer System”.
Restrict the number and use of social trails.
Install educational and interpretive facilities targeted at daily users and adjacent property owners.
Increase floodplain connectivity and riparian habitat.
295
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
36 / 48
16.67%1
83.33%5
0.00%0
Q36 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 7
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
37 / 48
50.00%3
50.00%3
0.00%0
Q37 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 7
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
38 / 48
Q38 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 7?
Ans wered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no res pons es .
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
296
PROGRAMS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 39
RECOMMENDATION 2:
Incentivize restoration,
enhancement,
or mitigation
opportunities.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
11 / 48
50.00%3
33.33%2
16.67%1
Q11 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 2
Ans wered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectiveness
Level 1 : The...
Effect iveness
Level 2: The...
Effect iveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Ef fec tivenes s Level 1: Thes e ac tions likely hav e a significant and wides pread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of As pen.
Effectivenes s Level 2: Thes e actions likely have a strong or localiz ed effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiv eness Lev el 3: These actions lik ely have a moderate or spatially limited effect on t he integrity of riparian areas through the City of As pen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
12 / 48
16.67%1
83.33%5
0.00%0
Q12 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 2
Ans wered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
F easibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
Feasibil ity
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feasibility Lev el 1: These ac tions can be implemented relativ ely easily as they pres ent few c onstraints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resis tanc e within the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: Thes e actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the pres ence of some local soc ial, land owners hip, political, financial, or legal cons traints.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be difficult to implement given significant local soc ial, land owners hip, political, financial, or legal cons traints.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
13 / 48
Q13 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Program 2?
Ans wered: 5 Skipped: 1
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I really lik e this idea...5/11/2021 4:31 PM
2 I t hink s ome s ort of incent iv e st ructure has a lot of potential. The challenge is going t o be finding incent iv es t hat ac tually matter thos e that will be redev eloping
parcels along the Roaring Fork . Most of thes e individuals are relativ ely price ins ensit iv e to t he scale of f inancial incentives the c ity would be able t o prov ide. I
think the k ey t o suc c ess here will be t hinking creatively about incent iv es t hat can be offered during development that will be att ractiv e enough for homeowners
to take mitigation s teps t hey wouldn't otherwise do.
5/11/2021 12:43 PM
3 I would guess that money and soc ial pres sure c an be more effec tive inc entiv es than mere educ ation in As pen.5/11/2021 8:07 AM
4 This program would be laudable, but as referenced in the text of the rationale, the ability to mak e changes on thes e degraded lands is diffic ult and very
ex pens ive. Thus, I 'm not sure of how effec tive t he program would be. Furthermore, the tex t of t he rec ommendation mak es it s ound optional for property owners
during redev elopment - is that the c ase? If this would be optional, then it could be diffic ult to garner a high level of participation. If it is not optional, then this
program would hav e to be cons idered further with Community Development.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
5 People want more FAR. incentivizing bigger houses f or robust riparian z ones may work.5/10/2021 9:33 AM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
297
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 47
PROJECT 8: Anderson Park & Land Trust Parcel
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Water temperature
improvements
• Streambank soil de-compaction.
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
•
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: C+
• LANDSCAPE: D
• CONDITION: C+
• SIZE: A-
OBJECTIVES:
To implement a riparian enhancement strategy targeted at:
• Native woody riparian area age diversity
• Native woody riparian species diversity
• Improved habitat in narrow band
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
298
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
39 / 48
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
Q39 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 8
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
40 / 48
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
Q40 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 8
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
41 / 48
Q41 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 8?
Ans wered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no res pons es .
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
299
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 48
PROJECT 9: Aspen Club
OBJECTIVES:
To create a side channel on the left bank to increase diversity of river morphology.
Narrow artificially large channel to reconnect floodplain and encourage overbank flow onto
riparian benches.
Create a private/public partnership opportunity.
Improve wheeler ditch diversion to promote/enhance vegetation of a mid-channel bar.
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: C+
• LANDSCAPE: C+
• CONDITION: C+
• SIZE: B+
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Improved channel function
• Water quality improvement
• Water temperature
improvement
• Habitat connectivity
• Wetland creation
• Improved aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
• Partnership opportunity
300
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
42 / 48
16.67%1
66.67%4
16.67%1
Q42 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 9
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
43 / 48
50.00%3
50.00%3
0.00%0
Q43 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 9
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
44 / 48
Q44 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 9?
Ans wered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no res pons es .
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
301
POLICY - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 38
RECOMMENDATION 1:
More-explicitly institutionalize water quality
projection as a goal/objective in city code
segments pertaining to riparian lands uses
and protections.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
1 / 48
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
Q1 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Policy 1
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectiveness
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiv eness Lev el 1: These ac tions lik ely hav e a s ignific ant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effec tivenes s Level 2: These actions likely have a s t rong or loc aliz ed effec t on the integrit y of riparian areas through the Cit y of As pen.
Eff ec tivenes s Level 3: Thes e actions likely have a moderate or s patially limited effect on t he int egrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
2 / 48
33.33%2
50.00%3
16.67%1
Q2 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Policy 1.
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibil ity
Level 1 : The...
Feasibil ity
Level 2: The...
Feasibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e actions c an be implemented relativ ely eas ily as they present few c ons traint s and/or are lik ely to meet little to no res istance within the c ommunity.
Feasibility Lev el 2: Thes e ac tions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al s ocial, land owners hip, polit ical, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: Thes e ac t ions will be diff icult to implement giv en s ignif icant local soc ial, land ownership, politic al, f inancial, or legal c ons t raints.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
3 / 48
Q 3 Do you have any additional comments or thought s on Policy 1?
Answered: 5 S kipped: 1
#RESPONSES DATE
1 This would probably require a s ignificant amount of public educ at ion/out reac h.5/11/2021 4:26 PM
2 I 'm as suming t hat t his is s uppos ed to read "wat er qualit y prot ec tion" not "water quality projec tion"? In terms of effec tiv enes s it s eems that to s ome degree the
development s hip has s ailed within t he riparian in t he Cit y of As pen, but if we think in terms of redev elopment project s I think there is potential benef it s t o
more ex plic itly including wat er qualit y as a goal. I think t he eff ec ts would be relat iv ely loc alized bec aus e my unders tanding is t hey wouldn't c ome into effec t
unles s s ignificant redev elopment is propos ed on a parc el.
5/11/2021 12:33 PM
3 Des pit e my rat ing of low ef fec t iv eness and diff ic ult feasi bility, I s till think t here is s ome value in c odify ing t he goal and laying ex pec t at ions for the future.5/11/2021 8:02 AM
4 From a Community Dev elopment pers pectiv e, mak ing this change t o t he Land Use Code (LUC) is relatively feasible and the department is open to mak ing this
change t o ref lec t organiz ational/c ommunit y v alues t oward water. It's worth noting t hat t here is a v ery s pec if ic proc ess as s ociated with amending the LUC and
t his proc ess would hav e t o be managed by s omeone from Wat er/Engineering and t he Long Range P lanner in Community Dev elopment.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
5 The c urrent top of s lope and 15 f oot setbac k is not a s trong manner t o protec t t he riparian z one. The language is not st rong enough to require robus t riparian
plantings and the requirement is of ten sk irted. The s tream margin c ode s hould be updat ed to c reate bet ter riparian buffers .
5/10/2021 9:25 AMASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
302
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 45
PROJECT 6: Herron Park
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Water temperature improvements
• Streambank soil de-compaction.
• Improved channel function
• More desirable aesthetics
• Greening infrastructure
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: B-
• LANDSCAPE: C-
• CONDITION: B-
• SIZE: A+
OBJECTIVES:
To implement riparian restoration and management strategies that conform to the principles
of the “3-Zone Buffer System”.
Restrict the number and use of social trails.
Install educational and interpretive facilities targeted at daily users and adjacent property
owners.
303
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
33 / 48
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
Q33 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 6
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
34 / 48
33.33%2
66.67%4
0.00%0
Q34 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 6
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
35 / 48
Q35 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 6?
Ans wered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Since Herron Park is heavily vis ited, significant changes to the lands cape/aces s may be hard for some c ommunity members to stomach. The efforts cert ainly
seem worthwhile, but should be planned carefully. Additionally, if this t eam is not already aware, there are fishing eas ements t hat are held by Pit kin County for
signific ant port ions of the riv er and thes e may inhibit the plan to limit public ac es s to the river in some locat ions . For this project and any others t hat plan to
limit acess, t his could be s omething to consider (I 'm not t otally aware of all of the details on this). Apologies if I'm jus t repeat ing something you're already
aware of.
5/10/2021 9:49 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
304
POLICY - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 38
RECOMMENDATION 2:
Strengthen riparian buffer protections on
existing undeveloped locations with high
functional condition vegetation.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
4 / 48
16.67%1
66.67%4
16.67%1
Q4 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Policy 2
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectiveness
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiv eness Lev el 1: These ac tions lik ely hav e a s ignific ant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effec tivenes s Level 2: These actions likely have a s t rong or loc aliz ed effec t on the integrit y of riparian areas through the Cit y of As pen.
Eff ec tivenes s Level 3: Thes e actions likely have a moderate or s patially limited effect on t he int egrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
5 / 48
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
Q5 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Policy 2
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibil ity
Level 1 : The...
Feasibil ity
Level 2: The...
Feasibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e actions c an be implemented relativ ely eas ily as they present few c ons traint s and/or are lik ely to meet little to no res istance within the c ommunity.
Feasibility Lev el 2: Thes e ac tions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al s ocial, land owners hip, polit ical, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: Thes e ac t ions will be diff icult to implement giv en s ignif icant local soc ial, land ownership, politic al, f inancial, or legal c ons t raints.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
6 / 48
Q6 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Policy 2?
Ans wered: 4 Sk ipped: 2
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I t hink it mak es good s ens e to work towards protec ting undeveloped areas - although many areas have already been impac ted. Glenwood Springs rec ently
work ed to inc reas e riparian protections and had s ome signific ant push back , unfortunately (although the meas ures did ultimately pas s ).
5/11/2021 4:26 PM
2 I s ee two major limit ations to this polic y. First there are a very limit ed number of parcels within the c ity limits that aren't current ly developed and hav e
dev elopment pot ent ial (i.e. aren't already owned by the city or c ount y, or in other ways prot ec ted, or hav e terrain that prec ludes dev elopment). S ec ond while
c ity c ode c an direct dev elopment within the riparian my understanding (as a total non-lawyer lay person) is t hat if we were t o implement polic es that in effec t
prec ludes dev elopment on the parc el it would c onstitut e a tak ing and the c ity would be respons ible for the cost of extinguishing that development right. While
guided dev elopment on thes e parcels would be better than not hing it would s t ill be dev elopment, there would s till be; a s ignif icant increase in imperv ious
surfac es in the riparian, a lawn whic h would be fertiliz ed, a driv eway and s idewalk s that would be salted, and human pres ence in the riparian cutt ing of f
signific ant wildlife acces s .
5/11/2021 12:33 PM
3 will face res istance, but string policy should be able t o withstand s ocial pres s ure for dev elopment 5/11/2021 8:02 AM
4 From a Community Development perspectiv e, t he s hort answer is that the department would s upport exploring t hi s polic y. Howev er, in realit y, this c ould be
diff icult to implement. This policy could potentially reduc e dev elopment right s or alter the development rights of a propert y depending on its specif ics.
Reduc t ions in development right s , partic ularly thos e that would reduce building s ize allowanc es, would anger the c ommunit y. Furt hermore, any changes to t he
exis t ing development standards may hav e unintend ed cons equences on other dev elopment restrictions /other s ec t ions of the LUC and those would need to be
carefully c ons idered before pursuing t his policy. If there is polit ical s upport f or t his policy, then changes to t he c ode to s t rengthen riparian buffer changes c ould
be explored with t he Long Range Planner managing or c o-managing the process wit h s omeone from Engineering or another relev ant departm ent. Per the exact
language for this polic y, maintaining the ex is ting protections c an certianly be done. But strengt hening prot ec tions would require a signific iant proc es s and
political s upport as mentioned above (not an impos s ible proc es s , but it's wort h noting the potential diffic ulty of the endeav or).
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
305
PROGRAMS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 39
RECOMMENDATION 3:
Fee – In – Lieu
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
14 / 48
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
Q14 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 3
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectiveness
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiv eness Lev el 1: These ac tions lik ely hav e a s ignific ant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effec tivenes s Level 2: These actions likely have a s t rong or loc aliz ed effec t on the integrit y of riparian areas through the Cit y of As pen.
Eff ec tivenes s Level 3: Thes e actions likely have a moderate or s patially limited effect on t he int egrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
15 / 48
33.33%2
33.33%2
33.33%2
Q15 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 3
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibil ity
Level 1 : The...
Feasibil ity
Level 2: The...
Feasibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e actions c an be implemented relativ ely eas ily as they present few c ons traint s and/or are lik ely to meet little to no res istance within the c ommunity.
Feasibility Lev el 2: Thes e ac tions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al s ocial, land owners hip, polit ical, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: Thes e ac t ions will be diff icult to implement giv en s ignif icant local soc ial, land ownership, politic al, f inancial, or legal c ons t raints.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
16 / 48
Q16 Do you have any addit ional comments or thoughts on Program 3?
Answered: 4 S kipped: 2
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Seems lik e it c ould hav e pot ent ial and f ollows the prec edent s et by programs like CORE 5/11/2021 4:31 PM
2 This s eems relativ ely s traight f orward. I t look s like the s econd paragraph under t he Fee-I n-Lieu belongs in the previous inc ent iv e s ection.5/11/2021 12:43 PM
3 This Program, when cons idered in t andem wi th Program #2, is s lightly c onfus ing. Pers onally, I 've only ev er s een a Fee-in-Lieu option applied to required
polic ies (if t here are v oluntary, s uc es sf ul models of this , I'd be happy to learn more). If Program #2 is optional (as I'm reading it t o be), and s o is t he Fee-in-Lieu
option of Program #3, t hen I t hink part icipat ion would be ext remely low. It's unlik ely t hat priv ate propert ies will c ontribut re funds if t hey don't have to. Ov erall, I
could us e s ome clarif ic ation on this Program and Program #2 on my points abov e as well as s ome adminis trativ e ques tions . I s t his program s uggest ing that
t he LUC is the right place t o hous e t his program? I f s o, who would be adminis tering t his ? How would f unds be c ollec ted? A lot of proces s ques tions come up.
Further dis c ussion with Community Dev elopment wou ld be needed if this does inv olv e the LUC in any way.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
4 People wit h riverfront property in aspen have the financ ial means t o pay a fee in lieu. They want to do t he right thing but not in their bac k y ard. I t hink a fee in
lieu with projec ts elsewhere in t he waters hed will be effec tiv e.
5/10/2021 9:33 AM
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
306
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 42
PROJECT 3: Jenny Adair - Stormwater Control Facility
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
OBJECTIVES:
To further improve the water quality of stormwater exiting the Jenny Adair stormwater control facility.
Adaptively manage the evolving system to continue the high quality of water treatment.
Examine the flow routing and ponded water depths within the facility.
Riparian vegetation restoration through planting various wetland shrubs, forbs, and sedges.
To improve hydrological connectivity with the Roaring Fork River through structural modification of site
topography
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• WQ improvement
• Water temperature improvments
• Wildlife habitat connectivity
• Fragmentation reduction
• Wetland creation
• Infrastructure improvement
greening.
• More desirable aesthetic
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: B-
• LANDSCAPE: C+
• CONDITION: B+
• SIZE: C+
307
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
24 / 48
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
Q24 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 3
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
25 / 48
83.33%5
16.67%1
0.00%0
Q25 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 3
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
26 / 48
Q26 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 3?
Ans wered: 0 Sk ipped: 6
#RESPONSES DATE
There are no res pons es .
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
308
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 49
PROJECT 10: John Denver Park - Vegetation Management & Cattail Control
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: C-
• LANDSCAPE: D
• CONDITION: C+
• SIZE: C-
OBJECTIVES:
To maintain and enhance vegetation community diversity in
the John Denver Park Stormwater Facility.
To mitigate water eutrophication through adaptive
management practices.
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Water quality improvements
• Biological diversity
• Habitat value
• Adaptively managing
infrastructure
• Education and outreach
309
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
45 / 48
16.67%1
50.00%3
33.33%2
Q45 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 10
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
46 / 48
33.33%2
50.00%3
16.67%1
Q46 Rate the feasibility of of implementation of Project 10
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
47 / 48
Q47 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 10?
Ans wered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 If y ou find an effectiv e and feas ible long term c attail management strategy pleas e let me k now.5/11/2021 12:54 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
310
PROGRAMS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 38
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
11 / 48
50.00%3
33.33%2
16.67%1
Q11 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Program 2
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectiveness
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiv eness Lev el 1: These ac tions lik ely hav e a s ignific ant and widespread effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effec tivenes s Level 2: These actions likely have a s t rong or loc aliz ed effec t on the integrit y of riparian areas through the Cit y of As pen.
Eff ec tivenes s Level 3: Thes e actions likely have a moderate or s patially limited effect on t he int egrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
12 / 48
16.67%1
83.33%5
0.00%0
Q12 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Program 2
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibil ity
Level 1 : The...
Feasibil ity
Level 2: The...
Feasibility
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%1 00%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibility Level 1: Thes e actions c an be implemented relativ ely eas ily as they present few c ons traint s and/or are lik ely to meet little to no res istance within the c ommunity.
Feasibility Lev el 2: Thes e ac tions will be moderately diffic ult to implement giv en the presence of s ome loc al s ocial, land owners hip, polit ical, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Feasibility Lev el 3: Thes e ac t ions will be diff icult to implement giv en s ignif icant local soc ial, land ownership, politic al, f inancial, or legal c ons t raints.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyMonkey
13 / 48
Q13 Do you have any addit ional comments or thoughts on Program 2?
Answered: 5 S kipped: 1
#RESPONSES DATE
1 I really lik e this idea...5/11/2021 4:31 PM
2 I t hink s ome s ort of inc ent iv e s truc ture has a lot of potent ial. The c hallenge is going to be finding inc entiv es t hat actually matter t hos e that will be redev eloping
parc els along the Roaring Fork. Mos t of t hes e indiv iduals are relatively pric e insens itiv e to t he s cale of financ ial incentives the c it y would be able t o provide. I
t hink t he key to s uc ces s here will be t hink ing c reat iv ely about inc entives that c an be off ered during dev elopment t hat will be at t ract iv e enough for homeowners
to t ak e mitigation st eps they wouldn't otherwis e do.
5/11/2021 12:43 PM
3 I would guess that money and s oc ial press ure c an be more effec tiv e inc entiv es t han mere education in As pen.5/11/2021 8:07 AM
4 This program would be laudable, but as ref erenc ed in t he t ex t of t he rat ionale, t he ability to mak e c hanges on thes e degraded lands is dif f ic ult and very
ex pensiv e. Thus, I'm not s ure of how ef f ect iv e the program would be. Furthermore, the tex t of the rec ommendat ion mak es it s ound optional for property owners
during redev elopment - is that the c ase? If t his would be opt ional, then it c ould be diffic ult t o garner a high lev el of partic ipation. If it is not opt ional, then t his
program would hav e t o be c ons idered f urther wit h Communit y Dev elopment .
5/10/2021 9:48 P M
5 People want more FAR. incentiv iz ing bigger hous es f or robus t riparian z ones may work .5/10/2021 9:33 AM
RECOMMENDATION 1:
Educate property owners on how to
maintain naturalized riparian buffers.
Highlight importance of a zoned approach
to landscaping and structure development
near riparian areas.
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
311
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
BENEFITS:
• Improve natural channel
function
• Restore floodplain bench
(frequently inundated area
[FIA]):
• Improve fish and
macroinvertebrate habitat
• Improve stream shading
• Education and outreach
ASSESSMENT RATING:
• OVERALL: C+
• LANDSCAPE: C-
• CONDITION: B-
• SIZE: C+
BENEFITS:
To restore the native vegetation community along the floodplain bench on the northwest side of Mill Street.
To control invasive species along the streambanks on the southern side of the road crossing.
Enhance the habitat and water quality of the pond near the ACRA.
Modify site topography and plant various native wetland species to improve the habitat characteristics of the
pond’s vegetated fringe.
Enhance the internal forest’s diversity in age class and structure.
Maintain the parcel’s water rights and fisheries use.
PROJECT 2: Mill Parcel
PROJECTS - REPORT PAGE NUMBER: 41
312
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
21 / 48
33.33%2
50.00%3
16.67%1
Q21 Rate the anticipated effectiveness of Project 2
Answered: 6 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Effectivenes s
Level 1: The...
Effectiveness
Level 2: The...
Effectiveness
Level 3: The...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Effectiveness Level 1: These actions likely have a signific ant and wides pread ef fec t on the integrity of riparian areas t hrough the City of As pen.
Effectiveness Level 2: These actions likely have a strong or localized effect on the integrity of riparian areas through the City of Aspen.
Effectiveness Level 3: These actions likely have a moderate or spatially limited eff ec t on t he integrity of riparian areas through t he City of Aspen.
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
22 / 48
66.67%4
33.33%2
0.00%0
Q22 Rate the feasibility of implementation of Project 2
Ans wered: 6 Sk ipped: 0
TOTAL 6
Feasibility
Level 1: The...
Feasibility
Level 2: The...
F easibility
Level 3: The...
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Feas ibilit y Level 1: These actions can be implemented relatively easily as they present few c ons traints and/or are likely to meet lit tle to no resistanc e wit hin the community.
Feas ibility Level 2: These actions will be moderately difficult to implement given the presence of s ome local soc ial, land owners hip, politic al, financial, or legal c ons traint s.
Feasibility Level 3: Thes e actions will be diffic ult to implement given signific ant loc al s ocial, land ownership, political, financ ial, or legal constraints .
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
23 / 48
Q23 Do you have any additional comments or thoughts on Project 2?
Ans wered: 1 Sk ipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Seems lik e a project with a lot of direct benefits that c ould als o s erve as an educational as set and demonstrat ion projec t as well.5/11/2021 4:35 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
313
ADDITIONAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
7 / 48
Q7 Are there any additional policy recommendations that you have?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 While some of the program rec ommendations inc orporate ideas on how t o reduce c hemic al runoff into the riparian areas and the riv er, it may be worth
formulating a polic y that would require a ban or limit on these c hemic als (f ertilizers, pes ticides, etc.). A mandat e on this item seems like it would be more
powerful than educational/opt ional ef fort. Apologies if this has already been c ons idered and I'm mis sing some contex t on this !
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
314
ADDITIONAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
17 / 48
Q17 Are there any additional program recommendations that you have?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 4
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Pilot project t urning a wealthy landowners priv ate riverfront property into a better functioning riparian area to learn actual cos t s, implementat ion challenges and
demonstrate how it c an s till be aesthetic ally pleas ing to the landowner (I t hink this is a barrier to much riparian enhanc ement still...how can we help mak e a
functioning riparian s exy for traditional green gras s lov ing landowners !?)
5/11/2021 8:07 AM
2 Ov erall, Community Development is very ready t o s upport water quality eff orts for the Roaring Fork, but will need to iron out the details of these it ems if t hey
do inv olv e the c ode before any implementation begins.
5/10/2021 9:48 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
315
ADDITIONAL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS
Aspen Riparian Assessment and Plan Stakeholder Feedbac k SurveyM onkey
48 / 48
Q48 Are there any additional project recommendations that you have?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 5
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Currently there are a number of constructed wetlands around the city for stormwater filtration (J enny Adair, John Denver, and Mill Street off the top of my
head). All of these wet lands hav e management plans for how the filtered pollutant s will be addressed in the future. Runoff from the West End goes i nto the
back wetlands of Hallam Lak e (this is Adam from ACES). Without some periodic mitigation and management eventually t hes e wetlands will stop ef fec t ively
f iltering pollutants and change from a sink to a s ource of pollutants to t he Roaring Fork. ACES would be interes ted in s ome s ort of collaborative plan/projec t to
manage these.
5/11/2021 12:54 PM
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 2020
316
PROJECT 1: Public and private restoration partnerships; in order to create a larger and
more robust riparian buffer and connect high value habitat and ecosystem services, the
City should consider targeted property easements and partnerships that further the goal
of connectivity of the riparian area through Aspen.
PROJECT 5: Newberry Park Enhancement
PROJECT 4: John Denver Park - Kayak Channel and Armored Bank Restoration
PROJECT 7: Garrish Park Restoration and Mine Drainage
PROGRAM 2: Incentivize restoration, enhancement, or mitigation opportunities.
PROJECT 8: Anderson Park and Land Trust Parcel
PROJECT 9: Aspen Club Hydrologic Enhancements
POLICY 1: More-explicitly institutionalize water quality projection as a goal/objective in
city code segments pertaining to riparian lands uses and protections.
PROJECT 6: Herron Park Enhancement
POLICY 2: Strengthen riparian buffer protections on existing undeveloped locations with
functional condition vegetation
PROGRAM 3: Fee – In – Lieu. At sites where improvements still remain practically infeasible
due to topography, parcel size, etc., provide opportunities for in-basin mitigation via
fee-in-lieu or other mechanisms to support off-site work that still provides water quality
benefits directly to the Roaring Fork River system.
PROJECT 3: Jenny Adair - Stormwater Control Facility
PROJECT 10: John Denver Park - Vegetation Management & Cattail Control
PROGRAM 1: Educating property owners on how to maintain naturalized riparian buffers.
Highlight importance of a zoned approach to landscaping and structure development
near riparian areas.
PROJECT 2: Mill Parcel Restoration
ASPEN RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT AND PLAN | 20207111211101312121312 12111312131288911891110121213111314191920202121212323242424242527PROJECT 1 PROJECT 5 PROJECT 4 PROJECT 7 PROGRAM 2 PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 POLICY 1 PROJECT 6 POLICY 2 PROGRAM 3 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 10 PROGRAM 1 PROJECT 2
DRAFT PRIORITIZATION
Effectiveness Feasibility Combined score
317