COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT JUNE 2018 ?l'l COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVI ONMENTAL ASSESSM NT Mead&Hunt in conjunction with: Bluegreen BioEnvirons Bridgenet International Charles Cunniffe Architects Gensler Jviation Leibowitz Horton Metcalf Archaeological Consultants Synergy Consultants TGMC ?This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated, signed, and dated by the Responsible?y?cial. FIE PONSIBLE FAA OFFICIAL TILT W, 201737 DATE US. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region Denver Airports District Office Finding of No Significant Impact/ Record of Decision For the Runway Terminal Area Improvement Projects At the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Aspen, CO July 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 ll. Background 3 Proposed Action (Chapter 1 of the FEA) 4 IV. Purpose and Need (Chapter 2 of the FEA) 5 V. Agency Actions and Approvals 5 VI. Alternatives (Chapter- 3 of FEA) 5 A. Alternatives Examined but Eliminated from Further Study 5 B. Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis 6 C. Preferred Alternative (Chapter 3 of the FEA) 7 VII. Affected Environment (Chapter 3 of the FEA) 8 Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative (Chapter 4 of the FEA) 9 A. Air Quality (Section 4.1 of FEA) 9 Biological Resources (Section 4.2 of the FEA) 10 C. Climate/Greenhouse Gases (Section 4.3 of FEA) 11 Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) (Section 4.5 of FEA) 12 E. Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste and Pollution Prevention (Section 4.7 of FEA) 14 F. Historical, Architectural, Archeological and Cultural Resources (Section 4.8 of the FEA) 15 G. Land Use (Section 4.9 ofthe FEA) 15 Natural Resources and Energy Supply (Section 4.10 of the FEA) 16 I. Noise and Compatible Land Use (Section 4.11 of the FEA) 17 J. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children?s Environmental Health and Safety Risk (Section 4.12 of FEA) 18 K. Visual Effect (Section 4.15 ofthe FEA) 20 L. Water Resources (Section 4.14 of FEA) 21 M. Traffic Study (Section 4.15 of the FEA) 22 N. Cumulative Impacts (Section 4.16 of the FEA) 24 IX. Environmental Mitigation (Chapter 4 of FEA) 25 X. Public and Agency Coordination - 27 XI. Agency Findings 27 XII. Decision and Order 29 I. Introduction This document serves as the Federal Aviation Administration?s (FAA) Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision and provides final agency determinations and approvals for the federal actions necessary to implement the proposed terminal and airfield improvement projects at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE), owned and operated by Pitkin County (Airport Sponsor). This is based on the information and analysis contained in the attached Final Environmental Assessment (FEA), dated June 2018. This FEA has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines and requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the FAA to implement the environmental review and disclosure provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Background ASE is a publically owned and operated commercial service airport located in Pitkin County, Colorado approximately three miles northwest of the City of Aspen?s Central Business District and approximately 38 miles southeast of the City of Glenwood Springs. ASE is situated west of Colorado Highway 82 and east of Owl Creek Road on the northern limits of the Aspen Area Urban Growth Area. Airside facilities at ASE include Runway 15/33 (8,006 feet long by 100 feet wide), a taxiway system, aircraft parking aprons and associated visual and electronic navigational aids. Landside facilities include a terminal building, hangars, ground access routes, automobile parking areas, fuel farm and storage facilities. The Airport Reference Code (ARC) is a coding system used by the FAA to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes that currently and are forecasted to operate at an airport. The ARC has two components. The first component is depicted by a letter and relates to the aircraft approach speed. The second component is depicted by Roman numeral (l-lV) and relates to physical characteristics (aircraft wingspan or tail-height). ASE is a airport that does not fully comply with standards. The non-standard conditions include the separation distance between the runway and taxiway, the taxiway and parked aircraft, and runway and the holding position; runway width; and runway strength. As result, ASE has wingspan restriction that prohibits aircraft with a tip?to-tip wingspan of greater than 95? and landing weight in excess of 100,000 lbs. dual-wheel from operating at ASE. In 2012, ASE completed a Master Plan Update and submitted an updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the FAA. The Master Plan identified needed improvements on the east side area (including a passenger terminal replacement), a full parallel taxiway for the west side, and development for a potential second Fixed Base Operator (F80). The Master Plan Update determined that the existing terminal configuration has resulted in many of the undersized areas that are unable to efficiently accommodate existing demand. The ALP was partially approved on a conditional basis in August of 2013 for projects on the east side, but not for projects on the west side. The conditional basis of the ALP approval was subject to subsequent NEPA compliance. No runway changes were recommended in the Master Plan because of the existing restrictions in place at ASE. In 2014, Pitkin County commissioned an Air Service Study in response to changes that were starting to occur in aircraft fleet. That study found that the regional jets with wingspans less than 95 feet would be phased?out by commercial operators by 2028. Airlines are changing their aircraft fleet in response to air travel demand and it is expected that the aircraft serving ASE that meet the current restrictions will eventually be withdrawn from service in favor of larger aircraft with more seating. As a result, the airlines would not be able to provide similar scheduled commercial passenger air service at ASE in the future because the aircraft contained in their fleet would not meet those specifications. The Air Service Study analyzed options for ASE to retain commercial passenger service consistent to what exists today and the recommendations from that study were used to update the ALP in 2015 and were brought forward in this EA. 111. Proposed Action (Chapter 1 of the FEA) ASE is proposing to build a replacement terminal and make airfield improvements. The existing terminal is not able to efficiently accommodate the passengers who fly in and out of ASE while the airfield improvements are needed to meet FAA design standards. The Terminal Area Improvements include: I Construction of a replacement terminal; I Construction of associated parking; I Re-configuration of the terminal roadway and recirculation roadway; I Integration ofthe passenger terminal with public transit; I Relocation of ancillary facilities, such as rental car facilities; I Demolition of existing passenger terminal facilities; I Commercial service aircraft apron expansion; and I Construction of a noise barrier along the general aviation apron area. The runway improvements include: I Shifting Runway 15/33 80? west, widening to 150? and strengthening to accommodate 150,000 pounds landing weight; I Realignment of the perimeter road, Owl Creek Road, and Owl Creek bike path within the Colorado Department of Transportation?s right-of?way; I Relocation of associated navigational aids and runway/taxiway lighting; I Removing current wingspan and weight limit restrictions; I Piping of Owl Creek (for both the runway relocation and to address a wildlife hazard); and I Amending flight procedures to accommodate the runway improvements. The Proposed Actions are illustrated on Figure 1-1 in the Final EA. During the development of the Final EA it was discovered that Figure 1-1 did not include the entire proposed project. A portion of one of the navigational aids (the Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights which will be relocated as part of this project was not included on the figure though it was included in the analysis in the EA. Figure 1-1 has been updated to reflect the correct project boundary and study area which includes the entire MALSF lighting. In addition, the following figures were also updated to accurately reflect the study areas analyzed: Figure 3?1, Figure 3-4, Figure 4.2-1, Figure 4.6-1, Figure 4.8?1, Figure 4.14-1, Figure 4.14-2 and Figure 4.14?3. IV. Purpose and Need (Chapter 2 of the FEA) A. Terminal Area Improvements The purpose and need for improvements to the passenger terminal at ASE are related to deficiencies in the current terminal, issues associated with the current roadway configuration and passenger parking, and deficiencies in the apron area where aircraft park. The existing terminal is unable to efficiently accommodate existing demand. Runway 15/33 Improvements The purpose and need for the proposed runway improvements is to enable ASE to accommodate anticipated future aircraft and bring the airfield into compliance with the FAA standards and recommendations. B. Piping of Owl Creek Outside of Runway Improvements The purpose and need for the piping of Owl Creek outside of the runway improvements is to reduce the attraction of hazardous wildlife to Owl Creek. The 2012 wildlife hazard management plan (WHMP) identified Owl Creek as a hazardous wildlife attractant within the critical zone (area within 10,000 feet of an aircraft operation area). V. Agency Actions and Approvals The FAA actions, determinations, and approvals necessary for this project to proceed include: I A determination that the environmental analysis prerequisites associated with any future Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding application have been fulfilled pursuant to 49 USC 47101. I Unconditional approval of the Proposed Action as shown on the 2015 ALP Update. I Approval of modifications to the procedures for the shifted runway relocation. I Relocation of navigational aids and runway/taxiway lighting. VI. Alternatives (Chapter 3 of FEA) In accordance with NEPA and FAA Orders 1050.1F and 5050.48, and FAA design standards, the FEA identified and evaluated all reasonable alternatives. A. Alternatives Examined but Eliminated from Further Study The following alternatives were considered during the planning process and were dismissed from further consideration because they were determined not to be feasible and/or did not meet the Purpose and Need. 1. Other Modes of Transportation I Travel by Automobile/Bus: Reliance on ground travel is not a realistic alternative to access the Aspen area given the added travel time, unreliable winter roadway conditions and heavy traffic. I Substitute Telecommunication Technology for Air Travel: Telecommunication technology may relieve potential future business travel demand but would likely have no effect on recreational travel. 2. Use of Other Area Airports Grand Junction Regional Airport and Eagle County Regional Airport are the two closest commercial service airports to ASE that could provide service. The added travel time and unreliable winter roadway conditions makes this alternative unrealistic. 3. Terminal Area Improvement Alternatives I Upgrade ExistingTerminal For this alternative, the existing terminal would be expanded and upgraded in its present location. Passengers and employees would experience significant inconveniences during construction given the constrained facilities. The age of the terminal building would make it difficult to resolve all of the facility deficiencies identified in Chapters 1 and 2 ofthe FEA. I Construction of a Parking Garage The 2012 Master Plan indicated that, by 2027, approximately 1,713 spaces would be needed to meet demand. A parking garage that could accommodate 1,300 spots was included in the Master Plan. Due to a lack of financial feasibility, this alternative will not be brought forward. The terminal planning will include the potential for a future parking garage, so that, if it does become financially feasible at some point in the future, the site will be able to accommodate it. I Offsite Parking An offsite parking location was considered but then tabled given the expected City and County parking study that will consider parking solutions for the Roaring Fork Valley, including ASE. 4. Runway Alternatives An Air Service Study (Study) examined multiple alternatives that would correct the existing non-standard conditions, allowing ASE to meet FAA design standards. Runway relocation and runway realignment are not feasible alternatives at ASE due to the constrained nature of the valley and the mountainous approach. Shifting to the east is not feasible due to existing constraints (terminal, Fixed Base Operator facilities, and Highway 82). The Study examined 18 different alternatives for achieving the design standards. Pages 3.4-3.5 of the FEA provides information on the 18 alternatives considered and reasons for the elimination of the alternatives. 5. Piping of Owl Creek Alternative Manipulation and Maintenance of Vegetation: The sections of Owl Creek located on either side of the runway have been disturbed and maintained by ASE to prevent wildlife hazards. On the west side of the runway, vegetation along Owl Creek is mowed giving the creek the appearance of a meandering ditch. On the east side of the runway within the study area, riparian plants, which include herbaceous species and cottonwoods, have been mowed and the trees trimmed. Hazardous wildlife is still attracted to Owl Creek even with the maintenance being completed by ASE. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. B. Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis 1. NoAction Alternative The No Action Alternative consists of retaining existing ASE facilities (the runway, taxiway, terminal, roadway, and apron) as they exist today. The existing 95-foot wingspan restriction and the Modification to Standards would be kept in place. Consequently, ASE could lose commercial passenger service in the future as aircraft would not be available that meet the current restrictions. Some form of commercial service is anticipated to still exist under this Alternative with the use of smaller, older turboprops; however, it would likely be greatly reduced. The No Action Alternative would not allow ASE to accommodate existing and future passenger and operational needs in the terminal area and would not address the FAA design standard deficiencies,- however, pursuant to NEPA, this alternative was carried forward for environmental analysis. 2. TerminalAlternatives Two terminal alternatives were carried forward for evaluation in the EA. Both terminal alternatives include the relocation and expansion of the terminal, reconfiguration of the terminal area roadways and parking, an expansion of the air carrier apron, relocation of ancillary facilities such as rental car facilities, and a noise wall over by the GA apron. It would also include demolition of the existing terminal facilities. The differences between the two terminal alternatives are related to architectural features the size and footprint are the same for both alternatives. Terminal Alternative 1: A split-level terminal that fits within the landscape where all functions are generally on a single level, and the split?level provides some grade mitigation opportunity. Terminal Alternative 2: A hybrid of the nested/two-story concept that includes a setback appearance to make it less conspicuous within the landscape and a stack of the levels to allow for flexibility of space expansion in the future. These alternatives were combined into one Terminal Alternative for consideration in this that focuses on the footprint ofthe proposed building. 3. Runway Alternative This alternative includes shifting the runway 80 feet to the west, widening to 150 feet and strengthening to accommodate up to 150,000 pounds; piping of Owl Creek; relocating navigational aids and runway/taxiway lighting; updating flight procedures; and relocating the perimeter road, Owl Creek Road and Owl Creek Bike Path. This alternative would also remove the wingspan and aircraft weight restriction policy, allowing ASE to fully meet FAA standards. C. Preferred Alternative (Chapter 3 of the FEA) After careful consideration of the analysis of the impacts of the various alternatives considered and the ability of these alternatives to satisfy the identified purpose and need for the proposed action; and after review and consultation with various resource agencies, and after considering federal policy; the FAA hereby selects the Runway Alternative and Terminal Alternative as the Preferred Alternative in the FEA for federal support. VII. Affected Environment (Chapter 3 of the FEA) ASE is located approximately two miles northwest of Aspen, Colorado on a bench about 200 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The town of Aspen is in a remote area of the Rocky Mountains' Sawatch Range and Elk Mountains, along the Roaring Fork River at an elevation just below 8,000 feet above sea level on the Western Slope, 11 miles west of the Continental Divide. Aspen is a ski resort town and year-round destination for outdoor recreation. Much of ASE is relatively flat except for a few soil piles and topographic high points which support native sagebrush, oakbrush and Aspen/oakbrush communities. The vast majority of ASE has either been disturbed or manipulated through the development of the airport. Areas that were previously disturbed were seeded with a variety of native and non-native species. Owl Creek runs through the northern part of the property. In addition, there are two tributaries, four ditches, three wetlands and multiple irrigation laterals located on ASE property. The 100-year floodplain of Owl Creek is on the northern side of ASE. A surficial, mountainous aquifer associated with the Roaring Fork River lies under an area just north of ASE and the Town of Aspen. ASE currently has a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The major land uses in the vicinity of ASE include government/institutional, open space/recreational, agricultural and residential. There is a large area of open space associated with the North 40 residential development immediately east of ASE that provides a buffer between ASE and residential uses. ASE owns numerous avigation easements in the surrounding area. The North 40 Home Owners Association owns/operates three parks within the North 40 development. The largest of these parks, North 40 Park, is privately owned and operated by the North 40 HOA. The White River National Forest is approximately 1.5 miles east of ASE on the eastern side of the Roaring Fork River. Immediately south of the runway on ASE property is a segment of the Owl Creek bike path, which is owned and operated by Pitkin County. The Airport Business Trail runs along the eastern side of Highway 82 and is connected to ASE via an underpass. ASE is situated within the Scenic View Protection Areas associated with Colorado Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road. The closest Colorado State Park is the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area approximately 40 miles east of ASE. There are five properties within Pitkin County that have used funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund including lselin Park (2.7 miles away), Glory Hole Park (4.4 miles away), Aspen Trail System (4 miles away), North Star Ranch (5.6 miles away) and Wingo Junction Train Crossing (16 miles away). A records search of the NRHP indicated that there are 36 historically significant sites within Pitkin County. The Maroon Creek Bridge is the closest National Register-listed historic resource to the APE. The 2015 Cultural Resources Survey reviewed all properties at ASE including buildings, hangars, and offices related to operations at ASE. The National Register-eligible Airport Ranch (5PT.538) was the only historic property identified within the study area. The Airport Ranch, which was determined eligible in 1988, consists of approximately 463 acres, and retains its nine contributing buildings and structures. Its boundaries are the ASE boundary to the east, the 7,800? foot contour line to the west, Owl Creek Road to the South, and a row of trees to the north. The Airport Ranch is located on the west side of ASE property. The ranch is outside the secured area fence, which surrounds the perimeter separating ASE from the ranch property, and therefore, is located outside the APE. No other properties were found to meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation within the APE. Most of ASE property is pre-disturbed, and previous archeological surveys have not identified any sites that are eligible for the National Register Section 4(f) resources near ASE include Airport Ranch, Children?s Memorial Park, Chuck Brandt Park, Harmony Park, Owl Creek Bike Path, and the Airport Business Center Trail. A small portion of the Owl Creek Bike Path is within the existing 65 DNL contour. Pitkin County is currently designated as maintenance for PMlo and as attainment for the remaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) criteria pollutants. Pitkin County has been preparing carbon dioxide (C02) emissions inventories for ASE since 2008. The most recent airport- wide emissions inventory was prepared for the year 2014, which reported airport?related emissions to be approximately 62,326 metric tons of C02. The day-night noise level (DNL) is used to describe the cumulative noise exposure over a 24-hour period with a 10 dB penalty added for noise during the nighttime hours (10:00pm 7:00am). The base year for the FEA is 2015. There were 39,224 operations in 2015. The 65 DNL contour encompasses 182 acres and there are no noise-sensitive land uses within the existing 65 DNL contour (Figure There are permitted small generators of hazardous waste on and near ASE. These generators are identified as low risk and generally include materials such as fuel, oil, pesticides, and fertilizers. The following resources are not present in the project area: coastal resources and farmlands. Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative (Chapter 4 of the FEA) Environmental impact categories identified in FAA Orders 1050.1F and 5050.48 were evaluated in the FEA. Environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternatives are included in Chapter 4 ofthe FEA. Below is a summary of the findings. Projects were analyzed separately in the FEA given the independent utility of each project and the plan to build only one project at a time; therefore, impacts were provided for the No Action Alternative, the Terminal Alternative and the Runway Alternative. A Combined Alternatives analysis was also completed for those resource categories that could be impacted by the implementation of both projects. A. Air Quality (Section 4.1 of FEA) I No Action Alternative No project?related construction would occur under the No Action, therefore there would be no construction related emissions. Emissions of all pollutants are anticipated to decrease relative to 2015 (base year) except for VOCs. VOCs are expected to increase between 2015 and 2033 (from 45.4 tons in 2015 to 53.8 tons in 2033). These changes in emissions are largely due to the fleet mix changes as jet aircraft that meet the current wind span requirement are phased out of commercial service. I Terminal Alternative 0 Construction Emissions Construction of the terminal building is expected to occur between 2018 and 2022. Short?term construction emissions would occur with the construction of the terminal building. The total direct and indirect construction related emissions are below de minimis levels and are not expected to be significant (Table 0 Operational Emissions Comparing the emissions associated with the No Action alternative, the proposed terminal improvements would not materially change emissions. The taxi distance would decrease by 193 feet with the construction of the new terminal given its proposed location. As a result, the emissions expected with operation of the terminal improvements would be less than the No Action (Table I Runway Alternative 0 Construction Emissions Construction of airfield improvements is expected to occur between 2023 and 2027. Short?term construction related emissions would occur with the construction of the airfield improvements, however, none of the emissions are projected to exceed de minimis levels (Table 0 Operational Emissions A slight change in aircraft movement would occur with the construction of the airfield improvements. The runway would shift 80 feet to the west, which would result in an increase in taxi distance of approximately 160 feet. The most notable difference in emissions between the No Action and the Runway Alternative is the increase in which would increase by 26.1 tons (Table This increase is associated with the bigger aircraft that would be operating in 2033. However, all expected emissions are below de minimis levels and are not expected to be significant. I Combined Terminal and Runway Alternatives Construction emissions for both alternatives were not analyzed given that construction is not expected to overlap. By 2028, both projects would be complete and an operations emission inventory was prepared for the combined scenario. The combined terminal and airfield improvements would produce emissions similar to that of the airfield improvements only. In 2028, and 50x emissions would increase while all other emissions would decrease. By 2033, VOC emissions would decrease while all other emissions would increase due to the change in aircraft operating at ASE. All emissions would be less than de minimis and are not expected to result in significant impacts. 3. Biological Resources (Section 4.2 of the FEA) I No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative does not include any construction or land disturbance and would therefore not impact any wildlife, vegetation, or wetlands in the area. 10 I Terminal Alternative The Terminal Alternative is located in an area that has been previously disturbed. Approximately 1.22 acres of seeded/graded habitat may be disturbed along with a portion of planted trees and existing landscaping. There are no creeks, streams, or rivers, and there is no substantial habitat for fish or animal species in the project area. The Roaring Fork River, located adjacent to ASE, is clearly separated from the study area via berms, Hwy 82, and other features. The FAA determined that the project will have no effect on Federally threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, or plants (Appendix 2). I Runway Alternative Direct impacts of the airfield improvements include the piping of Owl Creek within the fence line. Portions of Owl Creek are already piped within the project area. The piping will not impact the function of Owl Creek to transmit water to the Roaring Fork River. Water quality of Owl Creek will not be impaired and may actually improve with the reduction in debris/sediment that would be able to access the creek. Best management practices will be utilized during construction to minimize impacts to water quality. Piping will also impact vegetation on the banks of the creek (including the removal of approximately 1.5 acres of narrowleaf cottonwood/alder) and change an open water system to a terrestrial system. It is expected that birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and invertebrates that once inhabited the area will move to an area that remains open. Vegetation impacts are also expected as a result of the airfield improvements. Managed areas that will be disturbed consist of seeded/graded areas and a small serviceberry/grass area. Construction impacts will change the physical landscape and alter plant and wildlife habitat. Areas that are disturbed during construction that are not permanently developed will be graded and seeded. Approximately 22 acres of managed vegetation will be permanently removed/disturbed. Impacts to Federally-threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, or plants are not expected. Furthermore, the USFWS concurred with no effect determination (Appendix 2). C. Climate/Greenhouse Gases (Section 4.3 of FEA) I No Action Alternative No project-related construction would occur under the No Action and therefore, there would be no construction greenhouse gas emissions. With respect to operational emissions under the no action scenario, total airport operations are expected to increase between 2015 and 2023 (from 14,199 in 2015 to 14,711 in 2023), but begin decreasing from 2028 through 2033 as curtailment of commercial air service over time would occur as airlines retire aircraft that meet the current wingspan limitation at ASE. I Terminal Alternative 0 Construction Emissions The total quantity of greenhouse gas emissions to complete construction of a replacement terminal would be approximately 5,340 metric tons of C02. Assuming 50% of the emissions occur in a peak construction year, those emissions would be 2,670 metric tons of C02. 11 0 Operational Emissions Once construction is completed, aircraft taxi distance would decrease by approximately 193 feet. This reduced taxi distance would eliminate 27 to 29 metric tons of C02 on an annual basis. There would also be a decrease in the energy use per square foot based on increased efficiencies of the new terminal. However, since there would be an increase in the overall square footage, the change in energy use and thus greenhouse gases related to the terminal would not result in a significant change. I Runway Alternative 0 Construction Emissions Construction of the airfield improvement projects would generate approximately 5,385 metric tons of CO2 emissions, which is expected to occur between 2023-2027. Assuming 50% of the emissions occur in a single year, approximately 2,693 metric tons of C02 would be emitted during the peak construction year. 0 Operational Emissions Once construction is completed, there will be a slight change in the way aircraft move around on the airfield. The airfield changes would result in a taxi increase of approximately 160 feet in addition to a change in aircraft fleet mix. The proposed airfield projects would increase emissions relative to the No Action by 1,510 metric tons of C02 in 2028 and 5,626 metric tons of CO2 in 2033. Although there is an increase over the No Action, the No Action emissions do not include the emissions that would result from vehicle traffic from other airports Denver International Airport, Grand Junction, etc.) if ASE lost commercial service nor does the proposed action calculations reflect County policies put in place to reduce GHG emissions or the fact that the anticipated aircraft to use ASE is expected to be more fuel efficient. I Combined Terminal and Runway Alternatives Construction emissions for both alternatives were not analyzed given that construction is not expected to overlap. Once construction is completed, both projects will change the taxi distances that will offset one another. The airfield improvements will have a notable effect on the aircraft fleet operating at ASE. The proposed combined terminal and airfield projects would increase C02 emissions relative to the No Action by 1,487 metric tons in 2028 and 5,597 metric tons in 2033. As stated above, these calculations for the No Action do not include the emissions that would result from vehicle traffic from other airports Denver International Airport, Grand Junction, etc.) if ASE lost commercial service nor does the proposed action calculations reflect County policies put in place to reduce GHG emissions or the fact that the anticipated aircraft to use ASE is expected to me more fuel efficient. D. Department of Transportation Act Section 40") (Section 4.5 of FEA) I No Action Alternative There would be no direct impacts to Section 4(f) resources. The No Action Alternative would result in a change in noise as jet air carrier aircraft would be phased out over time and air carrier service would be limited to turboprop activity. GA charter jet operations are 12 anticipated to increase to account for the reduction in service via the air carriers. However, this change in aircraft does not change the noise exposure to the Owl Creek Bike Path. Terminal Alternative No direct Section 4(f) resources would be impacted. The closest recreational resource to the terminal improvements is the Airport Business Trail connected to ASE via an underpass. Neither this trail nor the underpass would be affected by the Terminal Alternative. The site plans for the Terminal Alternative creates a better link to this underpass to allow improved pedestrian access to the terminal in the future. During construction, temporary impacts could occur to the underpass that access the terminal from the Airport Business Trail; however, these would be temporary and not significant. There are no changes in the 65 DNL contour as a result of this alternative; therefore, it is anticipated that the overall impacts to Section 4(f) resources will be beneficial once construction is completed. Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative requires a shift of approximately 1,657 linear feet of the Owl Creek Bike Path to the west between 13 feet and 58 feet. During construction, there would be temporary access restrictions to Owl Creek Bike Path, but there is likely room in the CDOT ROW to either build a temporary bike path or allow users to use the road for a small section to minimize impacts. Complete closure is estimated to be about 6-9 months but with phasing and temporary routing, the bike path and/or road should be able to remain open during the majority of this time to minimize impacts. While Owl Creek may be closed for minor durations, these impacts would be temporary and would not be significant. Additionally, adequate notice will be provided prior to closure of the trail. ASE coordinated with users/owners of the bike path and found that the relocation of the bike path would not constitute a negative effect on the bike path, its uses, or its users. Noise contours would shift due to the change in fleet mix and the 80?foot runway shift, resulting in the 65 DNL noise contour extending over a small portion of Airport Ranch, a historically eligible property on the west side of ASE, and Owl Creek Bike Path. Airport Ranch is currently on ASE property and subject to the noise and activity associated with airport use. The slight change in the noise contours would not result in significant impacts to this resource. The 65 DNL noise contour already encompasses portions of the Owl Creek Bike Path. Because this bike path is currently subject to this level of noise associated with ASE, the slight shift in noise would not substantially impair the use of this resource. The FAA has determined that the proposed project will result in a de minimis impact to the Owl Creek Bike Path. A de minimis impact is one that, after taking into account any measures to minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation or enhancement measures), results in a determination that the project would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying the resource for protection under Section The FAA informed Pitkin County of the intent to make a de minimis impact determination and Pitkin County concurred with the determination in an email dated March 4, 2018 (Appendix 4 ofthe FEA). 13 E. Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste and Pollution Prevention (Section 4.7 of FEA) I No Action Alternative The No Action alternative does not include construction and would not generate hazardous wastes or additional pollution. It also would not result in a change in volume ofthe existing solid waste. I Terminal Alternative 0 Hazardous Materials The Terminal Alternative would occur in an area that has no known hazardous sites. Construction activities can sometimes generate hazardous wastes and some construction materials consist of hazardous substances. Any hazardous waste materials generated during construction of the Terminal Alternative would be sent to an apprOpriately permitted facility. 0 Solid Waste The increase in terminal square footage is intended to meet existing passenger needs and therefore is not expected to result in additional waste creation or create additional solid waste streams in the long term. Construction activities would create temporary increases in construction and demolition waste; however, this increase would be short? term and would not put undue strain on land disposal services, as the facility still has a 15-year lifespan. These construction activities would be temporary, non?significant and reduced through best management practices and the use of Sustainable Construction Management Plan. 0 Pollution Prevention ASE implements several best management practices to address pollution prevention initiatives. These include maintaining and updating a site-specific spill prevention control and countermeasure plan, SWMP, and properly handling and storing hazardous materials. Pitkin County provides large recycling containers for the collection of cans, bottles, office paper, and newspapers inside ASE buildings and this would be extended into the new terminal building. The staff at ASE is responsible for the collection of the recyclable materials. I Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative occurs in an area that has been previously disturbed and contains no known hazardous material sites. The airfield improvements would not result in notable increases in the generation or handling of hazardous materials or solid wastes. There is a potential for a temporary increase of solid waste as a result of construction but the impacts would be temporary and would not put undue strain on the landfill. Sustainable Construction Management Plan will be utilized. There is also a potential for removal of fill from the site. Per the Sustainable Construction Management Plan, the contractor may be able to re-use this fill in the area. If such a re?use is not found, the contractor would likely need to truck it to a disposal site down valley at an appropriately permitted facility. 14 F. Historical, Architectural, Archeological and Cultural Resources (Section 4.8 of the FEA) No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in no development activities. Therefore, no direct impacts relative to archaeological, architectural, cultural, or historic sites would occur. Terminal Alternative The existing terminal would be demolished when the new terminal is constructed. None of the existing buildings that would be affected by the terminal area projects are eligible for listing on the NRHP. All terminal projects occur on the east side of ASE and would not affect the Airport Ranch. The FAA issued a No Historic Properties Affected finding on November 17, 2016. The Colorado SHPO requested additional information on Airport Ranch in relation to the proposed projects. The FAA provided this information in an updated No Historic Properties Affected finding on January 31, 2017. The SHPO concurred with the finding in a letter dated February 6, 2017 (Appendix 3 ofthe FEA). I Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative would not impact the closest historic resource, Airport Ranch, which is outside the disturbance footprint for this project. The 80-foot lateral shift of the runway would cause a shift in noise contours 80 feet closer to the Airport Ranch. However, since Airport Ranch is currently on ASE property and it is subject to the noise and activity associated with that use, it would not change the character of the property. The FAA issued a No Historic Properties Affected finding on November 17, 2016. The Colorado SHPO requested additional information on the Airport Ranch in relation to the proposed projects. The FAA provided this information in an updated No Historic Properties Affected finding on January 31, 2017. The SHPO concurred with the finding in a letter dated February 6, 2017 (Appendix 3 of the FEA). G. Land Use (Section 4.9 of the FEA) No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts on land use compatibility surrounding ASE. Terminal Alternative The Terminal Alternative includes a relocated and expanded terminal facility, re?configured roadways and parking, and other associated improvements. Implementation of the Terminal Alternative would not result in the disruption of a community, the relocation of residences or businesses, or result in any changes to existing or planned land uses. The Terminal Alternative provide more direct connectivity to the existing mass transit stops, which is a positive impact ofthe proposed terminal project. Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative is located almost entirely on ASE property. However, it would require the slight relocation of Owl Creek Road and the Owl Creek Bike Path, which are located on CDOT property. The road relocation would occur within the CDOT right-of-way and would be considered a compatible land use. Realignment of approximately 1,657 feet of the bike path 13 to 58 feet west of the existing path would not be considered to have a 15 negative effect on the bike path or its users. No changes to existing land use or zoning codes is anticipated. H. Natural Resources and Energy Supply (Section 4.10 of the FEA) No Action Alternative There would be no significant impacts to natural resources or energy supply as a result of the No Action Alternative. The outdated terminal?s energy use could negatively affect ASE in the future by continuing to operate on old, more energy intensive systems, which means less efficiency and higher costs. This alternative would restrict newer generation aircraft from flying into ASE. Generally, the newer generation aircraft are more fuel efficient; however, this is not expected to result in significant differences in fuel usage. . Terminal Alternative Construction of the Terminal Alternative would require the use of building materials and water. Materials would be sourced locally, if possible; however, due to the remote nature of the valley, the proposed improvements could result in minor increases in fuel consumption for those materials that must be transported into the valley. This increase would be short-term, temporary, and relatively small compared to the overall amount of resources available. The use of fuel to transport materials in combination with fuel used to power construction vehicles is not anticipated to exceed the existing capacity or future availability of fuel in the area. With the construction of the new terminal, aircraft would taxi to a location approximately 193 feet closer on average than the current terminal, which would result in a minor reduction in the amount of fuel used. The proposed terminal improvements represent an increase in square footage compared to the existing terminal. In general, it is assumed that larger square footage would require additional energy for heating, cooling and lighting. However, in this case, the existing terminal is old and relies on outdated energy systems and technology. It is anticipated that, while the overall energy consumption of the proposed larger terminal might increase, it could be partially offset by more efficient technology. The efficiency of the terminal would be improved by incorporating state of the art technology and building innovations and with commitment to purchasing renewable wind power. Any potential increase in energy use is not expected to exceed existing or future available resources. . Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative would not change energy consumption on the airfield. The shift of the runway 80 feet to the west would result in longer taxi distance (160 feet on average for total taxi distance). However, this increase in taxiing distance would not significantly impact fuel use. The impacts associated with the increase taxiing distance may be offset with the introduction of newer generation aircraft. It is predicted that over time these aircraft would be more efficient than the existing aircraft; therefore, there would not be a significant increase in use of aviation fuel at ASE related to this project. Similar to the Terminal Alternative, materials would be locally sourced, if possible, but may be transported in, if necessary. Due to the remote nature of the valley, the transportation of the materials could result in an increase of fuel consumption. The increase in fuel 16 consumption would be short-term, temporary, and relatively small compared to the overall amount of resources available. I. Noise and Compatible Land Use (Section 4.11 of the FEA) No Action Alternative The No Action would not result in operational changes at therefore, there would be no changes to the average annual noise contours. However, there is the potential for a change in noise due to a change in fleet mix with the phase out of CRJ-700. The 65 DNL contour would encompass 165.2 acres in 2023 (Figure 163.9 acres in 2028 (Figure and 162.3 acres in 2033 (Figure No noise-sensitive land uses are located within the 65 DNL contour. Noise levels would not increase noise by 1.5 dB or more for a noise?sensitive area within the 65 DNL or higher contour. Terminal Alternative As with the No Action Terminal Alternative, there would be no operational changes, and there would be no significant noise impacts. The proposed alternatives would result in short-term noise increases from construction activities, but these are expected to be short term, and not significant. The noise contours would be the same as the No Action for 2023 (the 65 DNL would encompass 165.2 acres Figure No noise-sensitive land uses are located within the 65 DNL contour. Noise levels would not increase noise by 1.5 dB or more for a noise-sensitive area within the 65 DNL or higher contour The Terminal Alternative includes the construction of a noise wall/berm on the ramp between the aircraft parking area and the North 40 community. These areas are not within the 65 DNL noise contour. The noise wall will reduce single?event noise from aircraft ground operations (running APUs to provide power to the aircraft when the engines are off) for the residences close to ASE on the other side of Highway 82. The noise wall analysis used an acoustical planning and modeling program called (Version 7.4), created by Braunstein Berndt GmbH. A 14-foot wall is proposed based on the height of an APU mounted on a tail of a business jet (no more than 10?12 feet above ground). Runway Alternative Shifting the runway to meet FAA design standards would remove the current restrictions and allow all aircraft to fly into ASE. The would likely be replaced by a mix of next generation regional jets such as the C5100. Discussions with air carriers have indicated that the 737-MAX could potentially operate out of ASE with the runway shift, but would likely operate under payload restrictions in certain conditions. While no air carrier has officially expressed interest in operating the out of ASE, the aircraft was included in the noise analysis given the potential for it being used in the reasonably foreseeable future. The INM program does not contain noise profiles for new generation aircraft, including the Bombardier C5100 and Boeing therefore, FAA?approved substitution aircraft were used to more accurately model noise. The proposed alternatives would result in short-term noise increases from construction activities, but these are expected to be short term, and not significant. 17 The first year of implementation (2028) assumes a phase?in of regional jets with a wingspan greater than 95 feet. For this scenario, the modeling assumed continued use of turboprops, a reduction in the (as it starts to be phased out of the fleet), and a small number of narrow?body commercial jet (Boeing 737-MAX). Compared to the 2028 No Action, there would be an increase in the 65 DNL contour of 7.6 acres for a total of 171.4 acres. There are no noise sensitive land uses located in the 65 or greater DNL contour and the alternative would not increase noise by 1.5 dB or more over a noise sensitive area within the 65 DNL or higher contours; therefore, the noise impacts would not be significant. The out year (2033) conditions assume a small number of turboprops will still be flying, with the majority of air carrier operations using new generation regional jets with wingspans greater than 95 feet and a small number of narrow-body commercial jet operations. Compared to the 2033 No Action, there would be an increase in the 65 DNL contour of 12.6 acres for a total of 174.9 acres. This action would not increase noise by 1.5 dB or more for a noise?sensitive area within the 65 DNL or higher contours given there are no noise sensitive land uses located in the 65 or greater DNL contour; therefore, there would be no significant impact. 1. Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children?s Environmental Health and Safety Risk (Section 4.12 of FEA) I No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not improve the terminal nor would it allow lifting of the existing aircraft restrictions. While the No Action would have no adverse impacts on children?s health or environmental justice, there could be negative socioeconomic impacts. The terminal would continue to operate with spatial constraints, which could have a negative impact on tourism. The runway would continue to operate under the use restrictions and, as a result, commercial service would be impacted. This would likely result in a form of reduced commercial service to ASE. Some commercial service would likely continue in the future case, but it would need to be operated exclusively by turboprops. The economy in the Aspen/Snowmass Village area relies heavily on tourism and the transportation network. This could translate to an economic loss of nearly $90 million annually by 2033, with the greatest impact on tourism sectors of the economy. This was calculated using the enplanement forecast and the estimate for visitor spending obtained from the 2013 CDOT Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports. The Impact Study found that 74.4% of commercial airline passengers who arrive at ASE are visitors. Since retail sales tax is a major component of local government general fund revenues, government services and employment could also be affected; therefore, the restriction of commercial jet service in the future could result in negative socioeconomic impacts to the area. . Terminal Alternative 0 Socioeconomic Impacts The new terminal and associated terminal area projects are not anticipated to have any negative direct or indirect socioeconomic impacts during construction. Access to businesses on the east side of ASE and at the Airport Business Center (ABC) would be 18 maintained through construction. The existing terminal would remain open during construction of the new terminal. Therefore, any of the businesses within the terminal itself would not be significantly affected. There would be temporary positive socioeconomic impacts during construction by increasing employment opportunities and expenditures on local services and materials. The Terminal Alternative would provide minor long-term positive socioeconomic impacts due to expanded concessions and increased visitor use. Since the Terminal Alternative is not expected to significantly increase the number of employees who work at ASE, no appreciable burden on the existing housing inventory is anticipated. 0 EnvironmentalJustice. Terminal replacement would not increase noise, rather it would result in only a slight change to the location of ground related noise due to the change in the air carrier aircraft apron parking configuration. Additionally, the Terminal Alternative would include a noise wall that would help reduce the single event ground noise levels from Auxiliary Power Unit use on the general aviation apron area; therefore, the Terminal Alternative is not expected to result in any substantial negative or otherwise disproportionate impacts to any specific population groups. 0 Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks. There are no schools, parks, or playgrounds within the Study Area or within the 65 DNL or greater noise contour that might be affected by noise or other impacts associated with the proposed Terminal Alternative; therefore, impacts to children?s environmental health and safety are not expected. I Runway Alternative 0 Socioeconomic Impacts Businesses at ASE would not be negatively impacted by construction because no on? airport development areas or airport access would be affected. Traffic on Owl Creek Road from construction activities could be affected temporarily, but it would not affect any businesses. Temporary positive socioeconomic impacts during construction include an increase in employment opportunities and spending on local services and materials. This alternative would likely have significant positive socioeconomic effects. The ability for commercial airlines to operate aircraft without any restrictions would allow continued growth in tourism, which is the primary economic driver in the region. The growth in enplanements would also generate economic benefits as a result of the dollars spent in the local economy. By 2028 the runway relocation could result in an increase of 46,574 annual visitors with an initial off-airport economic benefit of approximately $107,166,000. By 2033 the initial economic benefit of the runway relocation could rise to nearly $170,712,000. This was calculated using the enplanement forecast and the estimate for visitor spending obtained from the 2013 CDOT Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports. There is limited room to accommodate additional visitors in the existing lodging inventory based on historic occupancy data. However, additional lodging facilities have 19 received development approvals in both Aspen and Snowmass Village. In addition, there has been significant growth in the number of Rent-By-Owner (RBO) units. Comparing the combined practical capacity shows that the capacity of the RED units and the future lodging units is nearly double the number of potential new lodging guests, even for the peak months in 2033. Therefore, the proposed runway shift would not exceed the future capacity of the Aspen/Snowmass Area lodging inventory and would not create development pressure for additional lodging units. 0 Environmental Justice There would be no negative noise or relocation impacts on any population groups. The Runway shift would change the fleet mix to the newer commercial service aircraft, which are generally quieter than their CRJ-700 predecessors; therefore, the Runway Alternative is not expected to result in any substantial negative or otherwise disproportionate impacts to any specific population groups within the Study Area. 0 Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks The Runway Alternative is not expected to result in any environmental health risks or safety risks for children. No schools, parks, or playgrounds are within the Study Area or within the 65 DNL or greater noise contour that might be affected by noise or other impacts associated with the Runway Alternative. K. Visual Effect (Section 4.15 of the FEA) I No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not alter the existing lighting patterns or visual environment at ASE. Terminal Alternative To reduce visual impact to the community, the design of the terminal facility would reflect the community vision, incorporating colors and textures that fit into the landscape visually and aesthetically by complementing the surrounding area. Landscaped areas and a potential green roof would provide aesthetic views from vantage points outside of the terminal. Sky?lights and large windows would optimize daylight within the terminal and provide scenic views of Buttermilk Ski Area for travelers inside the terminal. The greater expanse of pavement associated with roadway and parking reconfiguration would not have a significant impact on visual quality, as it would be similar to the existing visual character of ASE. Existing trees would be kept to the extent possible to screen changes from Highway 82. Light emissions associated with the proposed terminal area improvements would be similar to those of the existing terminal. Neither would impede any scenic views and would not diminish the existing character of the area. Short-term, temporary visual impacts would occur during construction of the terminal area improvements. These impacts would include views of construction equipment, placement of fill, and construction related light emissions. I Runway Alternative The shifted runway, equipment, and lighting and widened runway would be similar in appearance to existing conditions. The NAVAIDS and lighting would not change significantly 20 and would be re?located to maintain a similar relationship to the runway. The potential new location of these elements would be closer to the west side of therefore, these elements could be more visible to viewpoints west of ASE. The visual character would not change drastically from existing conditions; therefore, these improvements are not expected to result in any significant impacts. Relocation of the perimeter road, Owl Creek Road, and Bike Path and the piping of Owl Creek would not result in significant impacts to visual character. The visual appearance of these elements would not change, and would therefore not have any significant impacts on the visual environment. Temporary impacts to visual resources could result from construction activities. However, these impacts would not be significant. L. Water Resources (Section 4.14 of FEA) I No Action Alternative This alternative does not include any development and therefore, would not adversely impact any wetlands, floodplains, or water resources. . Terminal Alternative The Terminal Alternative is proposed in a previously disturbed area on the east side. No wetlands, floodplains, or other water resources are located within this area. Therefore, there wouldn?t be any direct impacts on wetlands, floodplains, or other water resources. The Terminal Alternative would result in a slight increase in impervious surface on the east side due to a larger terminal footprint and the larger apron size. Stormwater runoff from paved airport surfaces typically contains low concentrations of some metals, petroleum compounds, rubber and rubber removal compounds, and airplane and pavement deicers. The deicing pad runoff would continue to flow into an underground storage tank. During non?deicing storm events, stormwater will be captured in a subsurface drainage system that ties to a new trench drain and drain line that will also capture the flows on the commercial ramp. This stormwater will flow to the north and be directed to a drainage feature that will be installed just south of the existing terminal building. This drainage feature will comply with the FAA wildlife Advisory Circular. This alternative would require a change to the NPDES Permit for ASE in the project area to account for the increase in stormwater runoff and to meet stormwater runoff requirements. An update to SWMP for industrial stormwater will likely be required. All necessary permits and approvals for the project would be obtained before construction activities take place. . Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative would change the drainage patterns, but would not substantially change or impact the existing drainage system or the aquifers on or near ASE property. Relocating and widening the runway would alter the stormwater runoff but the design and permitting would account for the change in impervious surface. The NPDES Permit and the SWMP would need to be updated to reflect the changes. This alternative would not impact water quality standards, contaminate public drinking water, or contaminate an aquifer used for public water. 21 The project includes the piping of 1,670 feet of Owl Creek, a Water of the US. Sections of Owl Creek on either side of the runway within airport property would be impacted. Piping of Owl Creek will result in the loss of open water and disturb vegetation. Since the piping of Owl Creek will reduce sedimentation and wildlife hazards, this is viewed as beneficial. However, piping Owl Creek will also reduce access to 1,670 LF of Owl Creek. Organisms that cannot access the piped section of the creek are likely to migrate to habitat that is of better quality and adjacent to the piped section. Impacts to Owl Creek warrant an Individual Permit under the Clean Water Act, per discussions with USACE, due to the length of stream that will be placed in a culvert. The Runway Alternative would also result in direct impacts to the Owl Creek floodplains with the piping of Owl Creek. The piping would be designed to maintain the conveyance and storage capacity of the existing floodplain. Coordination with FEMA will be maintained throughout the project to avoid and minimize impacts to floodplains. Despite the preposed floodplain modifications, the existing drainage patterns of ASE Roaring Fork) will not be changed as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to the floodplain because they would not result in (1) a considerable probability of loss of human life, (2) likely future damage associated with the encroachment that could be substantial in cost or extent, or (3) a notable adverse impact on the floodplain?s natural and beneficial floodplain values. No wetlands would be impacted as a result of the Runway Alternative. . Traffic Study (Section 4.15 of the FEA) No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in a substantial change to the traffic conditions. Vehicle movements would increase in the future due to the anticipated projected growth at ASE that would occur with or without the proposed projects. The No Action would represent a reduction in enplanements compared to Runway Alternative due to the reduction in commercial jet service, as the CRJ-7005 are slowly phased out of the commercial fleet over time. As the are phased out, they would be replaced with turboprops and other GA jets that fit within the wingspan restriction, reducing the overall enplanements compared to Runway Alternative in both the 2028 and 2033 scenarios; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no significant effect on traffic conditions. Terminal Alternative The potential impacts of the No Action and the Terminal Alternative would be the same since the proposed terminal improvements would not have any impact on the number of enplanements at ASE. Similar to the No Action Alternative, vehicle movements would increase in the future due to more enplanements; however, these increases are expected to occur whether or not the terminal improvements are implemented. The Terminal Alternative would have no significant impact on traffic conditions. . Minor modifications to the surface traffic routing at ASE could occur with implementation of the Terminal Alternative, but the airport roads would tie into existing intersections and would not substantially alter the traffic accessing ASE. It is anticipated that more people 22 will use rideshare, public transit, shuttles or taxis to ASE since auto parking will not be expanded as part of the proposed project. This should not substantially impact traffic (though it may have a small reduction in trips), it could add to circling time if people who wish to park cannot find a spot. There would be short?term impacts to traffic relative to construction activities. Routes used for the transportation of materials or construction equipment to ASE would be selected to minimize impacts to the local surface transportation network. Additionally, the contractor would use standard construction traffic techniques to maintain traffic during construction and follow the ASE Sustainable Construction Management Plan for ASE. Overall, implementation of the Terminal Alternative would not have a significant effect on surface transportation in either 2023 or in the out year of 2028. Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative would result in temporary changes to the traffic patterns on Owl Creek Road during construction. However, these impacts would be temporary and not significant. Routes used for the transportation of materials or construction equipment on the surface roads to ASE would be selected to minimize impacts to the local surface transportation network. Additionally, the contractor would use standard construction traffic techniques to maintain traffic during construction and follow ASE's Sustainable Construction Management Plan. The proposed Runway Alternative would have a higher number of enplanements compared to the No Action Alternative. While the total number of operations would be consistent, enplanements would be higher than the No Action due to the phasing out of commercial aircraft in the No Action scenario. These enplanements would represent additional trips on the roadways and intersections on and surrounding ASE. Additionally, the Runway Alternative would relocate Owl Creek Road. However, this relocation is within the existing CDOT right of way and would not result in any significant impacts. In 2028, passenger trips are anticipated to result in an average 1,181 daily vehicle trips including 188 peak?hour trips compared to 1,032 daily vehicle trips including 164 peak-hour trips. The Baltic Avenue and CO-82 intersection would continue to operate at an LOS with an average delay of 50.1 seconds per vehicle. Because the LOS remains the same, the implementation of the runway improvements would not have a significant impact on the surrounding surface transportation network. In 2033, passenger trips are anticipated to result in an average 1,329 daily vehicle trips including 211 peak?hour trips compared to 1,121 daily trips including 178 peak hour trips under the No Action Alternative. The Baltic Avenue and intersection is forecast to operate at an LOS with an average delay of 61.1 seconds per vehicle. An LOS reflects an intersection that operates at capacity and is considered typical for an urban, crowded four- way intersection where major traffic movements conflict with turns. Although the LOS will decrease in relation to the No Action (2033) scenario, the intersection will still function. Therefore, it can be determined that the proposed runway improvements would not have a significant impact on the surrounding surface transportation network. 23 N. Cumulative Impacts (Section 4.16 of the FEA) To adequately understand the potential environmental affects related to cumulative impacts, it is important to document the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. For purposes of the proposed projects, the review of past projects follows the desk reference guidance, ?Present impacts of past actions that are relevant and useful are those that may have a significant cause-and?effect relationship with the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action and Present actions are those that are occurring in the same general time frame that could have cumulative impacts. Reasonably foreseeable projects include actions that are not remote or speculative (generally meaning they are included in planning documents). See Section 4.16.1.1 of the Final EA for the list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Several resources categories would have no impact and therefore would have no potential for cumulative impacts. The categories that are excluded from further discussion are Coastal Resources, Farmlands, Historic Resources, Hazardous Materials, Land Use, and Visual Impacts. I Air Quality: Because the proposed projects would generate emissions during construction as well as ongoing operational emissions, consideration was given to air quality implications for all past, present, and future actions. The pollutant of concern is PM10 because Pitkin County is in a maintenance area for this pollutant. The proposed terminal and airfield projects are expected to result in short?term construction emissions as well as emissions in the out year, both of which are substantially lower than the de minimis threshold for Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would add emissions, but would collectively be small and primarily temporary; therefore, cumulative air quality impacts are not expected to be significant. I Climate: The cumulative impact ofthe proposed terminal and airfield projects on the global climate when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not currently scientifically predictable. At present, there are no calculations of the extent to which measures individually or cumulatively may affect aviation?s C02 emissions. Moreover, there are large uncertainties regarding aviation?s impact on climate. Aviation has been calculated to contribute approximately 3% of global C02 emissions; this contribution may grow to 5% by 2050. Actions are underway within the U.S. and other nations to reduce aviation?s contribution through such measures as new aircraft technologies, renewable alternative fuels, more efficient air traffic management, market? based measures and environmental regulations including an aircraft C02 standard. The US. has ambitious goals to achieve carbon-neutral growth for aviation by 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline, and to gain absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. I Section While the Runway Alternative would require the relocation of the Owl Creek Bike Path, this relocation was determined to not adversely affect the use of the bike path. No 4(f) resources would be significantly affected by noise. When considered with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, there would be no cumulative impacts to Section 4(f) resources as a result of either Proposed Action. I Socioeconomic: The No Action would result in the loss of commercial service, which would be a substantial impact on the economy of the Roaring Fork Valley. This is unusual in that 24 in this case, the No Action would provide the largest socioeconomic impact. This impact would likely create induced impacts relative to the economy within the valley. Most of the other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area (such as the enhancements to roadways, bridges and housing) would provide benefits to the economy. Therefore, the No Action, while it would provide large negative socioeconomic impact in the area, would not have cumulative negative impacts relative to other project as the other projects would generally benefit the economy. The Proposed Actions, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant cumulative socioeconomic impact. . Water Resources: There are no impacts to wetlands under the Proposed Actions; however, 1,670 LF of Owl Creek would be piped as part of the airfield improvements. The projects would occur in areas where the open channel, and riparian and floodplain area of Owl Creek have been maintained to improve safety conditions. The Proposed Actions are not intended to increase capacity; therefore, cumulative impacts to water resources such as increased development near the ASE are unlikely to occur in the present and reasonable future. None of the other past or present projects listed above have had a significant impact on Owl Creek. Additionally, none of the reasonably foreseeable projects would impact Owl Creek. Therefore, there are no known cumulative impacts on Owl Creek as a result of past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects. Based on the analysis described above, there would be no significant cumulative impacts as a result ofthe proposed actions. IX. Environmental Mitigation (Chapter 4 of FEA) ASE has committed to the following mitigation measures as part ofthe Preferred Alternatives: Complete pre-construction surveys and spatial/seasonal buffers would be utilized to minimize construction impacts to common wildlife and migratory birds. Surveys will be coordinated with the FAA prior to construction. Obtain an individual permit for all work within Waters of the US that fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. All mitigation included in the permit that is approved by the USACE will be completed in accordance with the terms ofthe permit. Ensure no vehicle or material storage occurs in wetland areas or other sensitive areas. Utilize phasing and temporary routing to minimize closures to the Owl Creek Trail and/or Owl Creek Road. Adequate notice will be provided prior to any closure of the Owl Creek Trail and/or Owl Creek Road. Design the piping of Owl Creek to maintain flood storage capacity on ASE property. Include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit construction impacts. The contractor would be required to carry out dust and erosion control procedures, such as watering to control dust, seeding with a temporary cover crop in work areas that are temporarily inactive, and installation/maintenance of silt fence. This also includes the installation of silt curtains and berms, to the extent possible, to isolate the work area during fill placement to prevent temporary impacts on water quality in Owl Creek. These requirements would be included in 25 the project drawings and specifications under the FAA standard specification Item ?Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control? (AC Update the SWMP in association with the NPDES Construction Permit. Mitigate water quality impacts including flow control and treatment BMPs in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Design all water drainage/treatment features to meet FAA AC (Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports). All phases of construction would be performed in accordance with FAA AC 150/5370?10, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports. Contaminated soil and water will be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and/or local regulations. In the event that cultural or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work will stop until ASE notifies SHPO and the FAA Denver Airports District Office (DEN-ADO). ASE shall protect the area until cultural/archaeological resource concerns have been appropriately addressed, and ASE shall take action to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, as appropriate. During construction, in the event that previously unknown contaminants are discovered or if a reportable spill occurs, work shall cease until ASE notifies appropriate local, state, and Federal agencies. The following mitigation is voluntary and may be implemented by ASE: Odors from vehicle emissions during construction would be controlled by muffler systems on the vehicles. Dust from construction activities would be controlled by the use of a water truck that will water the construction site at least once daily. Emissions from equipment and vehicles would not exceed state and national air quality standards. Construction equipment engines would be turned off when idle for more than 5 minutes. New terminal will meet current building code (which will be substantially more energy efficient than the 1971 terminal that it will replace). Partnerships with Rocky Mountain Institute (as part ofthe design committee). Consideration of energy efficiencies in building design, and when selecting materials and energy sources renewable and geothermal energy sources). Improve airside geometry ramp configuration), which currently has sloping pavement making this flat will improve push in and push out of aircraft. Use of energy?efficient methods throughout the construction period. Maximize the use of natural lighting, LEDs and other energy reducing technologies in the terminal and other airport facilities. Contractors will adhere to Sustainable Construction Management Plan. 26 I Construction of a noise wall to help reduce existing single event noise from the general aviation apron. II Final design would need to go through local approvals and meet local planning standards, including the Airport Design Guidelines and the Highway 82 Corridor Plan Standards. X. Public and Agency Coordination Public involvement is a vital component of the NEPA process. The EA started with scoping in 2015 that included the development of a Community Input Committee (CIC). CIC and public meetings occurred on February 23, 2015; April 16, 2015; September 10, 2015; October 22, 2015; February 16/17, 2016; September 29, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five notices for each public meeting were placed in the local papers, online, via radio on the local station, as well as through social media and press releases. Comments were accepted at all these meetings. Presentations to the BOCC were made throughout the project and these meetings were open to the public. Pitkin Connect Online Public Town Hall was utilized throughout the process to gather input on various topics. The Draft EA was released for agency and public review on August 23, 2017. Comments were accepted through October 3, 2017. To facilitate comments, public hearings were held on September 25 and 26, 2017. 30 comments from the public were received during the public comment period. Outreach materials, comments, notices of the meetings, and responses to comments are contained within Appendix 11 of the FEA. XI. Agency Findings The FAA makes the following determinations for the project based upon careful review of the attached FEA, comments received on the Draft EA, the supporting administrative record, and appropriate supporting information. The following determinations are prescribed by the statutory provisions set forth in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as codified in 49 USC ?47106 and 47107. A. The Project is reasonably consistent with existinq plans of public aqencies for development of the area surrounding the airport ?19 USC ?4 The determination prescribed by this statutory provision is a precondition to agency approval of project grant funding applications. Extensive coordination regarding the Preferred Alternative has taken place among federal, state and local agencies. The Preferred Alternative is not in conflict with the comprehensive planning and goals of Pitkin County or the Town of Aspen. Evidence of public and agency coordination can be found in Appendices 4, 8, 9 and 11 of the FEA. The Pitkin County Planning Commission is authorized to institute zoning regulations by 1973 Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 30, Article 28, Section 111, Title 24, Article 65.1, Section 101, and Title 24, Article 67, Section 101, et. seq. as amended and are hereby declared to be in accordance with all provisions of these statutes. ASE is encumbered by five different zone districts: PUB, P-l, AR-Z, and RS-20. Pitkin County Land Use Code provides the restrictions that are included with these zoning designations. 27 B. The interests of the community in or near which the project may be located have been qiven fair consideration {49 USC ?47106(b)(2)). The determination prescribed by this statutory provision is a precondition to agency approval of airport development project grant funding applications. The Draft EA was published and made available for public review on August 23, 2017. The Airport Sponsor held public hearings on September 25 and 26, 2017, after the release of the Draft EA (Appendix 11). The public comment period ran from August 23, 2017 October 3, 2017. Comments were received and responses were completed. In addition, the project has been discussed at numerous public meetings over the three years: I Public Meetings/Open Houses: February 2015, March 2015, April 2015, September 2015, October 2015, February 2016, September 2016, January 2017 and September 2017. 'Community Impact Community Meetings: February 2015, September 2015, October 2015, February 2016, September 2016, and January 2017. I Board of County Commissioners Meetings (open to the public): January 2015, September 2015, December 2015, April 2016, December 2016, July 2017, and November 2017. Pitkin County, the Town of Aspen, and ASE all recognize that the Preferred Alternative has the potential to provide economic benefits to ASE, the County and the Town by providing reliable commercial service in the future. C. The airport sponsor has taken, or will take, actions to restrict land use in the airport vicinity, includinq adoption of zoning laws, to ensure the uses are compatible with airport operations (49 USC ?47107(a)(10)). The determination prescribed by this statutory provision is a precondition to agency approval of airport development project grant funding applications. As a recipient of AIP funding, the Airport Sponsor has signed grant assurances that require them to take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft. The Pitkin County Planning Commission is authorized to institute zoning regulations by 1973 Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 30, Article 28, Section 111, Title 24, Article 65.1, Section 101, and Title 24, Article 67, Section 101, et. seq. The Pitkin County Planning Commission has designated five different zoning districts within ASE property: PUB, P-I, AR-2, AR-10, and Pitkin County Land Use Code provides the restrictions that are included with these zoning designations. 28 XII. Decision and Order After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal action, namely the Preferred Alternative, is consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101 of NEPA and other applicable environmental requirements and is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment or otherwise, including any condition requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA. As a result, the FAA will not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. This decision does not constitute a commitment of funds under the Airport Improvement Program however, it does fulfill the environmental prerequisites to approve applications for grants of AIP funds for the proposed project in the future. (49 U.S.C 47101) Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator of the FAA, I approve and direct that agency action be taken to carry out implementation of the Preferred Alternative 0/4 /7,20/5 David C. Suomi Date Regional Administrator FAA Northwest Mountain Region Right of Appeal This constitutes a final order of the FAA Administrator and is subject to the exclusive judicial review under 49 USC 46110 by the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person contesting the decision resides or has its principal place of business. Any party having substantial interest in this order may apply for review ofthe decision by filing a petition for review in the appropriate US Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the order is issued in accordance with the provisions of 49 USC 46110. Any party seeking to stay implementation ofthe ROD must file an application with the FAA prior to seekingjudicial relief as provided in Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 29 Table of Contents Content .................................................................................................................................. i Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv Figures .................................................................................................................................. vi Appendices Content ........................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Proposed Projects ....................................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 Airport Information ...................................................................................................... 1.2 1.3 Background – Historical Planning Efforts ..................................................................... 1.7 1.4 Other Considerations ................................................................................................... 1.8 CHAPTER 2 PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 Purpose and Need of the Runway Configuration ........................................................ 2.1 2.1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 2.1 2.1.1.1 FAA Airfield Design Standards .................................................... 2.1 2.1.1.2 Current and Forecast Fleet Mix ................................................... 2.2 2.1.2 Purpose and Need Statement for the Runway Reconfiguration ................. 2.6 2.2 Purpose and Need of the Terminal Improvements .................................................... 2.7 2.2.1 Terminal Deficiencies ................................................................................... 2.7 2.2.1.1 Gate Areas/Hold Room Deficiencies ............................................ 2.8 2.2.1.2 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ............................. 2.8 2.2.1.3 Baggage Service Office ................................................................. 2.9 2.2.1.4 Rental Car Operators ................................................................... 2.9 2.2.1.5 Summary of Terminal Deficiencies .............................................. 2.9 2.2.2 Terminal Circulation Road Requirements and Parking Needs ..................... 2.9 2.2.3 Apron Area Needs ...................................................................................... 2.10 i 2.2.4 The Need to Reduce Apron Noise on Surrounding Communities ............. 2.10 2.2.5 Purpose and Need Statement for the Terminal Improvements Projects ............................................................................. 2.11 2.3 Federal Action Requested ......................................................................................... 2.11 2.4 Actions by Other Agencies ........................................................................................ 2.11 2.5 Airport Operator Actions .......................................................................................... 2.11 2.6 Action Funding and Time Frame .............................................................................. 2.12 CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Range of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 3.1 3.2 Initial Consideration of Range of Alternatives ............................................................. 3.2 3.2.1 Other Modes of Transportation ................................................................... 3.2 3.2.2 Use of Other Area Airports .......................................................................... 3.3 3.2.3 Development Options at ASE ....................................................................... 3.3 3.2.3.1 Development Alternatives - Runway Reconfiguration ................ 3.3 3.2.3.1.1 Runway Alternative ..................................................... 3.6 3.2.3.2 Development Alternatives - Terminal Area Improvements ......... 3.9 3.2.3.2.1 Upgrading Existing Terminal ...................................... 3.11 3.2.3.2.2 Terminal Area Improvements .................................... 3.13 3.2.3.2.2.1 Terminal Alternatives ................................ 3.13 3.2.3.2.2.2 Parking Alternatives ................................... 3.16 3.2.4 No Action Alternative ................................................................................. 3.19 3.3 Alternatives Brought Forward into the EA ................................................................. 3.19 3.3.1 Runway Alternative Brought Forward ........................................................ 3.19 3.3.2 Terminal Area Improvement Alternatives Brought Forward .................... 3.20 3.4 Forecasts .................................................................................................................... 3.20 ii CHAPTER 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.0 Introduction: Approach to the Affected Environment/Environmental Chapter ...... 4.0.1 4.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 4.1.1 4.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 4.2.1 4.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................... 4.3.1 4.4 Coastal Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.4.1 4.5 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) ....................................................... 4.5.1 4.6 Farmlands .................................................................................................................. 4.6.1 4.7 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention .................................. 4.7.1 4.8 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources ............................. 4.8.1 4.9 Land Use .................................................................................................................... 4.9.1 4.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply .................................................................. 4.10.1 4.11 Noise and Compatible Land Use ........................................................................... 4.11.1 4.12 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justic, Children’s Health and Safety ................. 4.12.1 4.13 Visual Effects ......................................................................................................... 4.13.1 4.14 Water Resources (Including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers) .......................................................... 4.14.1 4.15 Traffic Study .......................................................................................................... 4.15.1 4.16 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 4.16.1 CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public Involvement ............................................................................................................ 5.1 CHAPTER 6 PREPARERS Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 6.1 iii TABLES Chapter 2 Purpose and Need Table 2-1 ARC D-III Standards and Deficiencies – ASE ....................................................... 2.2 Table 2-2 Aircraft Technical Specifications – ASE .............................................................. 2.4 Table 2-3 Summary of Aviation Activity Forecasts, 2015-2033 ......................................... 2.5 Table 2-4 Non-Stop ASE Markets in 2015 ........................................................................... 2.6 Table 2-5 Parking Requirements ....................................................................................... 2.10 Chapter 3 Alternatives Table 3-1 Facility Requirements Comparison .................................................................. 3.10 Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 4.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................... 4.1.2 Table 4.1-2 Current Sources of Emissions (2015) That May be Affected by the Proposed Project (Tons/Year) ...................................................................... 4.1.3 Table 4.1-3 Project Related Emissions ............................................................................ 4.1.5 Table 4.1-4 Operating Emissions – No Action ................................................................. 4.1.6 Table 4.1-5 Construction Emissions – During Terminal Construction ............................ 4.1.7 Table 4.1-6 Operating Emissions With Project Terminal Only Alternatives 1 and 2 ...... 4.1.8 Table 4.1-7 Construction Emissions During Airfield Construction (2023-2027) ............. 4.1.9 Table 4.1-8 Operating Emissions With Project Runway Alternative ............................. 4.1.10 Table 4.1-9 Operating Emissions With Project Combined Terminal and Runway Alternatives ........................................................................ 4.1.12 Table 4.1-10 Total Project Related Impacts (Tons per Year Emissions) – Applicability Analysis ................................................................................ 4.1.14 Table 4.2-1 Species Encountered During Site Visit on July 10, 2008, and September 9, 2015 ....................................................................................... 4.2.5 Table 4.2-2 Acres of Vegetation with Survey Area ......................................................... 4.2.7 Table 4.2-3 Acres of Vegetation Impacted By Alternatives .......................................... 4.2.16 Table 4.3-1 Total Airport Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory (2014) ................................ 4.3.3 Table 4.3-2 Summary of Aircraft Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................................... 4.3.5 Table 4.9-1 Recorded Avigation Easements ................................................................. 4.9.15 iv Table 4.11-1 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Assumptions for Existing Conditions (2015) ..................................................................................... 4.11.4 Table 4.11-2 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Assumptions for Future Year No Action & Action (2023) ..................................................................... 4.11.10 Table 4.11-3 Noise Wall Analysis, LMAX DBA ............................................................. 4.11.14 Table 4.11-4 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Assumptions No Action (2028) ................... 4.11.20 Table 4.11-5 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Assumptions No Action (2033) ................... 4.11.23 Table 4.11-6 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Assumptions with Project Runway (2028) ....................................................................................... 4.11.28 Table 4.11-7 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Assumptions with Project Runway (2033) ....................................................................................... 4.11.32 Table 4.11-8 Summary of Noise Exposure in Acres .................................................... 4.11.33 Table 4.12-1 Population Data (2000-2015) ................................................................... 4.12.2 Table 4.12-2 Population Projections (Pitkin County), 2020 to 2035 ............................. 4.12.3 Table 4.12-3 Regional Household Data (2014) ............................................................. 4.12.5 Table 4.12-4 Residential Building Permits (Annual) ...................................................... 4.12.6 Table 4.12-5 Household Income Estimate (2015) ......................................................... 4.12.7 Table 4.12-6 Owners/Renters Spending More than 35% of Income on Housing Costs .......................................................................................... 4.12.8 Table 4.12-7 Pitkin County Employment and Payroll (2014) ........................................ 4.12.9 Table 4.12-8 White River National Forest Area Annual Visitation .............................. 4.12.12 Table 4.12-9 Lodge Units/Pillow by Location .............................................................. 4.12.14 Table 4.12-10 Combined Units & Pillows Comparison 2009, 2012, & 2015 ............... 4.12.14 Table 4.12-11 Lodge Units by Type/Location ............................................................. 4.12.15 Table 4.12-12 Lodge Pillows by Type/Location ........................................................... 4.12.15 Table 4.12-13 Potential Future Lodge Units/Pillows by Location (Short-term Rentals) ............................................................................. 4.12.17 Table 4.12-14 RBO Inventory Compared to Traditional Lodging ................................ 4.12.18 Table 4.12-15 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Operating Revenues vs Expenses (2010-2015) .......................................................................... 4.12.22 Table 4.12-16 Annual Economic Benefit of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport .................. 4.12.25 Table 4.12-17 Economic Benefits of New Visitors (Annual) ....................................... 4.12.28 Table 4.12-18 New Lodging Guests (Annual) .............................................................. 4.12.30 v Table 4.12-19 New Lodging Guests by Month ............................................................ 4.12.31 Table 4.15-1 Level of Service ...................................................................................... 14.15.1 Table 4.15-2 Ground Vehicle Movements .................................................................. 14.15.2 Table 4.15-3 Intersection Performance by Year ......................................................... 14.15.3 FIGURES Chapter 1 Background and Proposed Action Figure 1-1 Proposed Projects ............................................................................................. 1.3 Figure 1-2 Airport Location Map ........................................................................................ 1.5 Figure 1-3 Airport Vicinity Map .......................................................................................... 1.6 Chapter 3 Alternatives Figure 3-1 Runway Alternative .......................................................................................... 3.7 Figure 3-2 Conceptual Terminal Alternatives .................................................................. 3.15 Figure 3-3 Conceptual Site Plans ...................................................................................... 3.18 Figure 3-4 Combined Proposed Projects Runway Relocations and Terminal Projects .... 3.21 Chapter 4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Types ...................................................................................... 4.2.13 Figure 4.5-1 Bike Paths within Airport Vicinity ............................................................... 4.5.3 Figure 4.5-2 Bike Path and Owl Creek Road Relocation ................................................. 4.5.7 Figure 4.6-1 Farmlands Soil Survey ................................................................................. 4.6.2 Figure 4.8-1 Area of Potential Effect (APE) ..................................................................... 4.8.3 Figure 4.9-1 Generalized Land Use Map ......................................................................... 4.9.3 Figure 4.9-2 Generalized Existing Zoning ........................................................................ 4.9.7 Figure 4.9-3 Avigation Easement Map .......................................................................... 4.9.13 Figure 4.11-1 Existing Conditions 65 DNL (2015) .......................................................... 4.11.7 Figure 4.11-2 Future Year No Action & Terminal Alternatives 65 DNL (2023) ........... 4.11.11 Figure 4.11-3 10-ft. Noise Wall Project Contours ....................................................... 4.11.15 Figure 4.11-4 14-ft. Noise Wall Project Contours ....................................................... 4.11.17 Figure 4.11-5 Future Year (2028) No Action ............................................................... 4.11.21 vi Figure 4.11-6 Out Year (2033) No Action .................................................................... 4.11.25 Figure 4.11-7 Future Year (2028) with Project ........................................................... 4.11.29 Figure 4.11-8 Out Year (2033) with Project ................................................................ 4.11.35 Figure 4.12-1 Annual Growth Rate (15-Year Average) ................................................. 4.12.3 Figure 4.12-2 Estimated Growth Rate vs Historic Growth Objective (Pitkin County) ... 4.12.4 Figure 4.12-3 ............................................................................................................... 4.12.11 Figure 4.12-4 County Sales Tax Revenue in $ Millions ................................................ 4.12.13 Figure 4.12-5 Aggregate Occupancy Rate for Aspen and Snowmass ......................... 4.12.16 Figure 4.12-6 RBO Unit Listing Trends – Aspen Area .................................................. 4.12.19 Figure 4.12-7 RBO Unit Listing Trends – Snowmass Village Area ............................... 4.12.19 Figure 4.12-8 Annual Enplanements (Commercial Passenger Service) ...................... 4.12.21 Figure 4.12-9 Airport Operating Revenues versus Expenses (2010-2015) ................. 4.12.23 Figure 4.13-1 Topography ............................................................................................. 4.13.3 Figure 4.13-2 Terminal Alternative 1 – Ridge Concept ................................................. 4.13.5 Figure 4.13-3 Terminal Alternative 2 – Pavilion Concept ............................................. 4.13.6 Figure 4.13-4 Visual Observation Points ....................................................................... 4.13.8 Figure 4.13-5 Trentaz Road Alternatives .................................................................... 4.13.11 Figure 4.13-6 McClain Flats Alternatives .................................................................... 4.13.12 Figure 4.13-7 Colorado 82 North Bound Alternatives ................................................ 4.13.13 Figure 4.13-8 Buttermilk Alternatives ......................................................................... 4.13.14 Figure 4.13-9 Owl Creek Road Alternatives ................................................................ 4.13.15 Figure 4.13-10 South Bound Alternatives ................................................................... 4.13.16 Figure 4.13-11 Nighttime View – Trentaz Road Alternatives ..................................... 4.13.17 Figure 4.14-1 Wetlands & Water Features Near Airport .............................................. 4.14.7 Figure 4.14-2 Owl Creek Floodplain .............................................................................. 4.14.9 Figure 4.14-3 Owl Creek Piping Detail ........................................................................ 4.14.15 vii APPENDICES CONTENTS Appendix 1 Biological Survey Photographs Appendix 2 USFWS Coordination Appendix 3 Historic and Archaeologial Appendix Appendix 4 DOT Section 4(f) Letter Appendix 5 Supplemental Noise and Aircraft Substitution Appendix 6 Wetland Delineation Appendix 7 Traffic Appendix 8 Scoping Appendix 9 Public Involvement Appendix 10 Forecast Approval Letter Appendix 11 Public Hearing and Public Comment Period Appendix 12: Army Corps of Engineers Letter viii Chapter 1 - Background and Proposed Action Pitkin County, as owner and operator of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE), is proposing improvements to ASE. These improvement projects require a modification to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP)1. In addition, the County will seek federal funding assistance. Both actions, approval of the ALP and federal funding, are considered federal actions. Other federal actions include the movement of the navigational aids and revised procedures. Pursuant the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the approving federal agency must disclose the environmental consequences of the action(s) before a federal action can be undertaken. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the responsible federal agency for these projects. To disclose any potential environmental consequences of the proposed actions, this Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. This EA includes the following components: • Chapter 1: Background and Proposed Action; • Chapter 2: Purpose and Need; • Chapter 3: Alternatives; • Chapter 4: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences; and • Chapter 5: Preparers. This chapter provides background on the proposed actions and the existing airport facilities related to the proposed actions. 1.1 Proposed Projects This EA evaluates the potential impacts related to projects and actions proposed by the Airport Sponsor (Pitkin County) for FAA approval. These projects, which are shown in Figure 1-1, include: • 1 Shifting the runway 80 feet to the west, widening the runway to 150 feet, strengthening to allow up to 150,000 pounds landing weight and associated projects including but not limited to: o Realignment of the perimeter road and Owl Creek Road and Bike Path within the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way o Relocation of associated Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs), and runway/taxiway lighting o Change of the wingspan and aircraft weight restriction policy implemented by the County in 2001 (removing the current restrictions, and allowing aircraft up to 118 feet wingspan and with an aircraft weight up to 150,000 pound per FAA design group D-III) o Piping of Owl Creek o Amending flight procedures to accommodate the shift in runway location An ALP graphically shows existing airport facilities as well as proposed long-term improvements 1.1  Terminal Area Improvements  o o o o o o o o Construction of a replacement terminal  Construction of associated parking  Re‐configuration of the terminal roadway and recirculation roadway  Integration of the passenger terminal with public transit   Relocation of ancillary facilities, such as rental car facilities  Demolition of existing passenger terminal facilities   Commercial service aircraft apron expansion  Construction of a noise barrier along the general aviation (GA) apron area      1.2 Airport Information  ASE is located about three miles northwest of Aspen’s Central Business District, within Pitkin County,  Colorado.  ASE is situated west of Highway 82 on the northern limits of the Aspen Area Urban Growth  Area.  Figure 1‐2, AIRPORT LOCATION MAP, illustrates ASE’s location with respect to the surrounding  cities within the valley.  Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs are located north and west of Aspen,  with Independence Pass located east of the City of Aspen, that provides summer access to Denver.   Figure 1‐3, AIRPORT VICINITY MAP, shows a more detailed drawing of the surrounding airport environs.   ASE has an elevation of 7,820 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).    The City of Aspen is the county seat and the most populous municipality of Pitkin County.  Based on the  2010 Census, the city population was 6,658, and that increases significantly during the winter, as the  Aspen area is an internationally recognized ski resort, and during certain summer events.  Aspen is  situated in a remote area of the Rocky Mountains' Sawatch Range and Elk Mountains, along the Roaring  Fork River on the Western Slope, 11 miles west of the Continental Divide.    The Proposed Actions are illustrated on Figure 1‐1 in the Final EA. During the development of the Final  EA is was discovered that Figure 1‐1 did not include the entire proposed project. A portion of one of the  navigational aids (the Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights  (MALSF)) which will be relocated as part of this project was not included on the figure though it was  included in the analysis in the EA. Figure 1‐1 has been updated to reflect the correct project boundary  and study area which includes the entire MALSF lighting.  In addition, the following figures were also  updated to accurately reflect the study areas analyzed: Figure 3‐1, Figure 3‐4, Figure 4.2‐1, Figure 4.6‐1,  Figure 4.8‐1, Figure 4.14‐1, Figure 4.14‐2 and Figure 4.14‐3.              1.2  N 0' 125' ' 250' 500' FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 750' BALTIC AVENUE INTERSECTION BA RELOCATED TERMINAL RELOCATED LOC/DME NU VE CA L TI EXISTING TERMINAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER E E VIC SE R TER CEN AD RO RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT A' Y' IWA X A T OWL CREEK PIPING AD RO EK E ILK R RM AIL LC E W T O UT P TR IALB RLOO T TEN TO PO NEC N CO RELOCATED PAPI 2 Y8 A W IGH OWL CREEK ROAD & BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT H LEGEND FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE OWL CREEK SURROUNDING AREA Ow EXCESSIVE SLOPE l k ee Cr RELOCATED MALSF VISUAL/NOISE BUFFER OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED ASOS RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK Figure 4 POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 1-1 ProposedProejcts 1.3 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SOURCE : Google Map Data, 2016. 287 Steamboat Springs Estes Park JACKSON 34 125 131 LARIMER 34 MOFFAT 25 ROUTT GRAND RIO BLANCO 85 BOULDER 134 40 72 GILPIN WELD EAGLE Golden Denver GARFIELD Eagle 70 Vail 103 Glenwood Springs SUMMIT CLEAR CREEK 470 85 121 Carbondale Basalt DELTA PITKIN 133 Aspen 105 PARK LAKE Leadville DOUGLAS 83 82 TELLER MONTROSE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT 24 135 GUNNISON 25 Woodland Park 24 Colorado Springs 9 CHAFFEE 67 92 Gunnison Salida FREEMONT 115 EL PASO 50 SAGUACHE N 0 5 10 15 20 2 Aspen 25 Approximate Scale 1” = 20 Miles Figure 1-2 Airport Location Map APPROXIMATE SCALE 1” = 40 MILES 1.5 of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Database. Snowmass Village Boundary SOURCE : City 82 W/J Ranch Brush Creek Village SNOWMASS VILLAGE Airport Boundary d oa kR e Cre Br ush White Horse Springs Starwood n ari Ro gF or k ve Ri r Owl Creek Ranch Aspen Airport Business Center ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT Melton Ranch Owl Creek Road Buttermilk Ski Area N 0 1,250’ 2,500’ 3,750’ Aspen Boundary ASPEN 82 Aspen 5,000’ Approximate Scale 1” = 5 Miles Figure 1-3 Airport Vicinity Map Urban Growth Boundary 1.6 1.3 Background - Historical Planning Efforts Pitkin County currently limits the size of aircraft that can operate at ASE through Section 10.12.030(C) of the Pitkin County Code. This section, adopted in 2001, prohibits the operation of aircraft with “a tip-totip wingspan of greater than 95 feet.” The wingspan restriction was required because ASE could not satisfy all of the applicable FAA design standards without significant improvements. The FAA approved modifications to design standards for ASE based on the Pitkin County Code. The non-standard conditions that do not meet FAA current airfield design standards include the separation distance between the runway and taxiway, between the taxiway and parked aircraft, and between the runway and the locations at which aircraft wait to enter the airfield until receiving permission from the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), known as the “holding position.” In 2012, the County completed a Master Plan Update and submitted an updated ALP to the FAA for review and approval. The Master Plan called for projects improving the east side area (including a passenger terminal replacement), a parking garage on the east side, a full parallel taxiway for the west side, and development for a potential second Fixed Base Operator (FBO). The ALP was partially approved on a conditional basis in August of 2013 for projects on the east side (terminal replacement, etc.), but not for projects on the west side (the full parallel taxiway on the west side and the second FBO were not included in the FAA approval). The conditional basis of the ALP approval was subject to subsequent NEPA compliance. No runway changes were recommended in the Master Plan because that study assumed continuation of the County’s wingspan policy and the taxiway/runway design Modification to Standards granted by the FAA2. Changes in the air carrier fleet were not expected at the time the Master Plan was completed. In 2014, the County commissioned an Air Service Study to consider how the industry was expected to evolve with changes that were occurring in aircraft fleet. That study found that the regional jets with wingspans less than 95 feet will be phased-out by commercial operators by 2028. This means that if ASE retained the 95-foot wingspan restriction, the airlines would not be able to provide similar scheduled commercial passenger air service at ASE in the future because the aircraft contained in their fleet would not meet those specifications. Thus, the Air Service Study noted a substantial dilemma for Pitkin County: either risk the loss of commercial passenger jet service to/from ASE or modify the airfield to enable commercial service by the jet aircraft that could be in service in the future. The Air Service Study analyzed options that would enable ASE to retain commercial passenger service, similar to what occurs today (but with aircraft that will be in operation), and the recommendations of that study are brought forward into the analysis of this EA. The lifting of the wingspan restriction would require a vote of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Therefore, this EA evaluates both the east side improvement projects (new passenger terminal and parking garage) proposed in the 2012 Master Plan Update, as well as the airfield improvements from the Air Service Study. Both efforts are reflected in the 2015 ALP Update referenced in the remainder of this report. 2 FAA’s design standards are mandatory for airports that receive federal funding through the Airport Improvement Program. When an airport cannot meet all of the standards due to physical constraints, FAA must approve a modification to standards that will maintain an acceptable level of safety. 1.7 1.4 Other Considerations In May 2017, the FAA’s Western Service Area (WSA) Operations Support Group (OSG) determined that ASE air traffic control’s (ATC) techniques of modifying an aircraft’s flight path while on the LINDZ EIGHT departure procedure was not in line with FAA rules and regulations. As a result, the FAA suspended the technique causing an increase in separation distances between arriving aircraft, which has decreased the number of operations per hour. Though ASE is able to accommodate the same number of flights on a daily basis, the flights are now spread out throughout the day. Though this is slightly different from what was analyzed in this EA, it would not result in a change in the impacts disclosed since the total number of daily operations have remained the same. The FAA is working diligently to return ASE to preMay 2017 operational rates and conditions with the publishing of a VFR Departure Procedure, the COZY ONE, in October of 2017 and amending ATC techniques. During the fall of 2017, the FAA will begin developing Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures in order to increase operational efficiency and safety. This review process could take up to two years to complete and will consider the proposed actions included in this EA. Any changes to existing published procedures or any new procedures identified as part of this process will be analyzed in a separate NEPA document. 1.8 Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need This chapter identifies the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Actions. In general terms, the purpose and need for a project identifies the issues, goals, and objectives associated with the project, answering questions like “Why is the project needed?”, “What problem is being solved?” and “What purpose will it serve?” This chapter also provides a list of federal, state, and local actions, as well as an anticipated timeframe for the Proposed Actions and associated projects. The proposed projects are categorized as those projects related to the Runway Reconfiguration (to meet FAA airfield design standards) and those projects related to the Terminal Area Improvements (improving the efficiency of ASE). Therefore, two purposes and several needs are described below as related to the two separate projects. 2.1 Purpose and Need of the Runway Reconfiguration 2.1.1 Background 2.1.1.1 FAA Airfield Design Standards. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, identifies the standards that FAA has established for airfields to ensure operational safety. The Airport Reference Code (ARC) is a system developed by the FAA to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the aircraft that use an airport. The ARC has two components. The first component, depicted by a letter A through E, is the aircraft approach category and relates to certified aircraft approach speed. Based on FAA AC 150/5300-13A, aircraft are grouped into five approach speed categories: • Category A: Approach speeds less than 91 knots; • Category B: Approach speed of 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots; • Category C: Approach speed of 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots; • Category D: Approach speed of 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots; and • Category E: Approach speed of 166 knots or more. Aircraft Approach Categories A and B typically include small piston engine aircraft and a limited number of smaller, commuter turboprops and business jets. Category C consists of business jets as well as commercial service regional and other commercial jet and propeller aircraft. Categories D and E include some business jet models and some high performance smaller jets, as well as larger jet aircraft generally associated with wide-body commercial and/or military use. The second component of the ARC, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group, which is categorized by wingspan or tail height. Where an airplane is in two categories, the most demanding category should be used. 2.1 Under the County’s current wingspan and weight limit, ASE is an ARC D-III airport. D-III includes aircraft with a wingspan up to 118 feet. However, even though ASE has a D-III ARC, it does not fully comply with D-III standards. For this reason, the FAA previously provided a Modification to Standards when the County enacted its 95-foot wingspan restriction. The design standards are included in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 ARC D-III Standards and Deficiencies – ASE Existing ASE Condition Runway/Taxiway Separation 320 feet Runway Width 100 feet Weight Limit 100,000 lbs FAA Standard Difference/Shortfall 400 feet 150 feet 150,000 lbs 80 feet 50 feet 50,000 lbs Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design; Mead & Hunt, 2016 To achieve the FAA airfield design standards, Pitkin County would be required to increase the runwayto-taxiway separation by 80 feet and to increase the width of the runway by 50 feet. According to FAA AC 150/5200-13A, Runway Safety Areas must be “cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions or other surface variations.” Additionally, the Object Free Area should also not contain objects that are non-essential for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. This means that Owl Creek Road and the Owl Creek Bike path would need to be relocated outside of the Object Free Area. Wildlife Considerations: A wildlife hazard management plan (WHMP) for ASE was completed in the summer of 2012. The purpose of the plan was to identify specific wildlife hazards at ASE and then provide recommendations. This fulfills the legal requirements set forth in 14 CFR Part 139.337(e). Owl Creek was identified in the WHMP as an attractant within the critical zone, which is the area within 10,000 feet of ASE as measured from the nearest aircraft operations area. The separation distances are based on (1) flight patterns of aircraft, (2) altitude at which most strikes occur, and (3) recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board. Nationwide approximately 75 percent of all bird-aircraft strikes by civilian aircraft occur within this critical zone. While removing this wildlife attractant from the critical zone is not a mandate for the Runway Reconfiguration, it would occur at the same time, and thus, under the terms of NEPA for actions occurring in a similar time, is considered as part of the Runway Reconfiguration. 2.1.1.2 Current and Forecast Fleet Mix. In 2014, under the Air Service Study, coordination with air carriers indicated that the existing aircraft currently serving ASE under the 95-foot wingspan restriction are being phased-out of the commercial service fleet and being replaced by aircraft with larger wingspans and higher seat counts by 2028. According to the Air Service Study, the CRJ-700 and the Q-400 are the only commercial aircraft that are able to operate in and out of ASE year-round that are under the 95-foot wingspan restriction. Since the start of this Study the Q-400, a propeller aircraft, has already stopped operating at ASE. 2.2 Based on this information, the Air Service Study examined the existing and future aircraft to determine whether the commercial service fleet will contain aircraft that can operate at ASE within the current 95foot restriction both from a wingspan and a performance standpoint. Aircraft technical specifications are provided in Table 2-2. The table illustrates that other than the CRJ-700 which is being phased-out, no existing or future aircraft meet three important criteria: 1) the 95-foot wingspan, 2) the current weight limit and 3) can operate out of ASE with the current airfield configuration. The existing shorter wingspan aircraft, such as the E-170, E-175, E-190, and E-195, are not capable of operating in and out of Aspen due to how the aircraft operate related to the extreme terrain. Those future aircraft that can operate at ASE from a performance standpoint all have wingspans longer than 95 feet. For ASE to continue to support future jet-based commercial passenger service, the County would need to meet all FAA design standards and remove the 95-foot wingspan restriction. Coupled with the removal of the restriction, the FAA would require the County to reconfigure the airfield to meet its current airfield design standards. This forecast takes into account that the wingspan restriction will be lifted in the future and assumes that as soon as the wingspan restriction is lifted, airline and corporate operators will start using larger aircraft at ASE. As a result, the forecast identified the aircraft operations that would be affected and the aircraft that would replace the phased-out aircraft. Table 2-3 shows the forecasts for the No Action and With Project scenarios. The forecast in the 2015 ALP Update assumes an unconstrained forecast (i.e. that in the future [2028], the airfield will be in compliance with FAA design standards), allowing for the longer-wing air carrier fleet to operate at ASE. This forecast was reviewed and approved by the FAA (Appendix 10). The No Action therefore, will represent a constrained scenario, where air carrier operations will be limited to turboprop activity, paired with an increase in general aviation (GA) charter jet operations to account for the reduction in service via the air carriers. The No Action would likely have the same number of operations, but due to the lower seating capacity of the turboprops, enplanements would likely decrease, when compared to the With Project Scenarios. 2.3 Table 2-2 Aircraft Technical Specifications – ASE Wingspan Aircraft Type Feet/Inches CRJ-700 Q-4003 CRJ-900 CRJ-1000 E-170 E-175 E-190 E-195 76' 3" 93' 3" 81' 7" 85' 11" 85' 4" 85' 4" 94' 3" 94' 3" E-175 E2 E-190 E2 E-195 E2 MRJ-70 Standard MRJ-90 Standard CS100 Base CS300 Base 101’ 7” 110’ 6” 115’” 95' 9" 95' 9" 115’ 1” 115’ 1” ASE Performance Capable Meets/Does Not Meet ASE Operational Restrictions Number of Seats 67,000 62,000 73,500 81,500 72,312 74,957 94,799 99,208 Yes Yes No No No No No No Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets 64-70 70 76 100 70 78-88 97 106 86,201 109,018 118,498 79,807 83,776 110,000 121,500 Yes* Yes* TBD* TBD TBD Yes Yes Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet 80 97 118 70 90 110-135 135 Yes** Yes** Yes** Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet 126-144 118-143 110 Max Landing Meter Weight (lbs.) Current Aircraft 23.2 28.4 24.9 26.2 26.0 26.0 28.7 28.7 Future Regional Aircraft 31.0 33.7 33.7 29.2 29.2 35.1 35.1 Comparison Non-Regional Aircraft Airbus A319 Boeing 737-700 MAX Boeing 717 111' 11" 117 '5" 93' 5" 34.1 35.7 28.5 138,000 128,928 100,000 Source: Air Service Study, Manufacturers Coordination, Jviation, 2014 Note: ASE Operational restriction includes the 95 ft. wingspan restriction and the 100,000 lb. weight restriction. Performance capability refers to the aircrafts ability to fly in an out of ASE (based on the constrained terrain) under an air carriers ops specs. *Data on E-Jets E-2 are preliminary ** Potentially performance capable, but likely limited during hotter summer months. Pending airline coordination will help determine if these aircraft could meet airline safety requirements for performance. 3 Note the Q-400 has stopped operating at ASE since January 2016. 2.4 Table 2-3 Summary of Aviation Activity Forecasts, 2015-2033 A/C Operations by Type GA and Air Taxi Aircraft Air Carrier Aircraft Scheduled Commuter (less than 50 seats) Total Air Carrier Less than Total Air Carrier 95 ft (wingspan less than 95’) Total CRJ-700 Turboprop Greater Total Air Carrier (wingspan than 95 ft greater than 95’) New generation regional jets 737-MAX GA and Air Taxi Total Single Piston Twin Piston Single TP Twin TP Jet Helo Military Local Military Aircraft Military Itinerant Total Aircraft operations TOTAL Total Enplanements Actual 2015 Actual 36 Forecasts 2023 2028 2028 No No Action Runway Action Runway Project: and and With First Year With Terminal of Termina Project Implementl Project ation 0 0 0 2033 No Action 2033 Runway Project: Out Year 0 0 8,950 8,950 10,012 10,012 9,245 9,245 10,877 6,877 10,037 10,037 11,808 938 8,950 0 0 10,012 0 0 4,623 4,622 0 3,439 3,438 4,000 0 10,037 0 0 938 10,870 0 0 0 3,453 0 9,228 0 30,001 0 27,550 547 28,427 0 31,106 1,642 29,335 3,935 2,097 998 1,662 20,816 493 81 156 39,224 233,541 3,614 1,926 917 1,526 19,116 453 30 107 37,699 263,153 3,729 1,987 946 1,574 19,724 467 30 107 39,441 296,140 3,848 2,050 976 1,625 22,125 482 30 107 41,280 281,036 3,848 2,050 976 1,625 20,354 482 30 107 41,280 333,259 0 30,05 9 3,729 1,987 946 1,574 21,356 467 30 107 39,441 258,860 Source: 2015 data: ATADS 2016. 2015 ALP Update – Forecast Chapter, Jviation 2015. +Note: For 2023 the number of operations for the No Action and the Terminal are the same because there would be no operational changes in the year of implementation for the Terminal Project. ASE is served by three airlines (American, Delta, and United). Currently, the CRJ-700 (a regional jet) is the only commercial aircraft that meets the 95-foot wingspan restriction and is operating in and out of ASE year-round. The Q-400 was retired in January 2016 and no longer operates at ASE. Therefore, 100% of these commercial service flights now operate the CRJ-700. Table 2-4 shows the city pair markets served to/from ASE. 2.5 During the Air Service Study, coordination with airlines indicated that many of the 70 seat regional jets and turboprops will be retired by 2025 and will likely be replaced with larger regional jet aircraft such as the Embraer E175 E2, E190 E2, or the E195 E2 that have 80-144 seats, or be replaced by newer aircraft such as the Embraer E170 and Mitsubishi (MRJ-70) that are 70-86 seat regional jet aircraft. Given the length of the runway at ASE, the altitude, and the surrounding terrain, service by larger commercial air carrier aircraft may not be able to consistently operate with full passenger and baggage loads. It is not possible to determine how established airlines would alter their operation (i.e., weight/payload restriction, aircraft operating performance) to allow large aircraft such as B737 to operate at ASE once ASE meets all applicable FAA design standards. The Air Service Study indicated that technically the B737 aircraft could operate at ASE once it meets all FAA design standards. Discussions with air carriers have indicated that the 737-MAX could potentially operate out of ASE with the runway relocation to meet FAA standards, but likely operating under payload restrictions in certain conditions. While no air carrier has officially expressed interest in operating the 737 out of ASE, it is a potential condition that the EA will address. Therefore, this EA will discuss the modeling assumptions for inclusion of a conservative fleet mix, including a number of operations by the 737 in the future conditions (With Project). Table 2-4 Non-Stop ASE Markets in 2015 Airline Markets United Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) United Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Houston Intercontinental Airport (IAH) United Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Denver International Airport (DEN) United Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) United Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Delta Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Delta Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) American Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) American Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) - Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Note some markets are not served year-round. Source: 2015 ALP Update, Jviation, 2015 2.1.2 Purpose and Need Statement for the Runway Reconfiguration. Airlines are changing their aircraft fleet in response to air travel demand and it is expected that the aircraft serving ASE, which meet the County’s wingspan and weight limit, will eventually be withdrawn from service in favor of larger aircraft with greater wingspan and passenger seating. Based upon manufacturer information, aircraft replacing the CRJ-700 will not meet the wingspan and weight criteria. Unless the current wingspan policy is rescinded, the Airport risks the loss/reduction of commercial passenger service as it stands today. Before the County can rescind its current policy, FAA will require that the airfield be brought into compliance with current airfield design standards. 2.6 Given these factors, the purpose of the proposed runway reconfiguration is to enable ASE to accommodate the anticipated future aircraft and bring the airfield into compliance with the FAA airfield design criteria, allowing for safe separation of aircraft movement on the airfield. 2.2 Purpose and Need of the Terminal Improvements The purpose and need for improvements to the passenger terminal at ASE are related to deficiencies in the current terminal, issues associated with the current roadway configuration and passenger parking, and deficiencies in the apron area where aircraft are parked, as discussed below. 2.2.1 Terminal Deficiencies The existing terminal is a 45,000-square foot, single-level structure that is divided into three general areas: a ticketing area to the north, a departure area in the center, and a baggage claim area to the south. The terminal building is situated near the middle of the airfield, on the east side of the runway/taxiway complex. A single common departure lounge supports the ground loading of commercial passengers to the adjacent terminal apron aircraft parking positions. There are no enclosed passenger loading bridges. Existing terminal building use areas include airline ticket counters, baggage handling areas, passenger waiting areas, rental car counters, snack bar/restaurant area, and airport/airline administration offices. According to the analysis completed in the 2012 Master Plan Update, “Despite previous terminal expansion measures in 1986-1987, passenger demand at ASE has outpaced facility capacity, putting a strain on ASE facilities and roadways during peak activity periods. Also, the current use areas are not configured in an efficient manner, resulting in some spaces that are oversized and many spaces that are undersized to fulfill their intended function. As the building continues to age, the recurring costs to keep the facility in good repair will continue to increase without major investment in newer and more efficient building systems.” The existing building has substantial deficiencies in meeting life/safety needs. A review of the building life safety/fire protection systems, mechanical systems, and electrical systems was performed by BCER, Inc. Numerous deficiencies were identified in these building systems. Some systems with deficiencies included the sprinkler systems, exterior deluge systems (exterior fire protection), insufficient number of fire hydrants, and the fire alarm system. Other deficiencies that were identified included ramp and restroom areas that don’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), poor access to rooftop heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, duct work, boiler plant, roof conduits in need of repair; and the need to remediate electrical deficiencies, test and replace egress lighting, perform thermal image scanning of electrical systems, provide emergency power via generator to certain areas, among others. 2.7 Additionally, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen have jointly created and adopted an Efficient Building (EB) program to encourage sustainable and efficient construction in the County, something that would be cost prohibitive to meet with the current terminal. As a result, the existing facility does not enable Pitkin County to reduce its energy use and carbon footprint. The following areas were cited in the 2012 Master Plan Update as being deficient in space relative to the existing and future demand. Full details of the terminal deficiencies are described in the full Master Plan Update (available at ASE airport offices). 2.2.1.1 Gate Areas/Hold Room Deficiencies The gate areas represent the single largest undersized existing area at ASE. All flights board from doors that are too close together, which results in passenger confusion and congestion. As flights are called, passengers often approach the wrong door and attempt to board aircraft for which they are not flying and then when identified, block access for others. The hold room is currently too crowded on peak weekends in the winter, during normal daily operations. Four to five flights are typically waiting to board at a time. Furthermore, there is only one hold room service counter that houses too many staff, leading to a perception by passengers that customer service is poor. There is also limited room for adequate concessions and restrooms on the secure side due to the hold room deficiencies. Under the assumption that the new commercial service aircraft in the future will have greater seat capacity, these deficiencies in the hold room will only be made worse. Forecasts in the Master Plan Update indicate that in 2017, eight gates would be required during the average day, peak hour and 10 would be required for the peak day, peak hour. The existing terminal only has four actual gates; however, parking is available for six aircraft. Therefore, the existing terminal facilities and accompanying apron would not be able to meet the projected future passenger and associated aircraft activity. 2.2.1.2 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) A large constraint placed on the passenger terminal building has been the required adaptation of an older building to modern security standards and practices. The existing building was not designed to accommodate present security protocols and standards and as a result, the current security checkpoint encroaches on other spaces. This encroachment of one space into another reduces efficiency and causes terminal crowding. The security processing area is typically a pinch point of congestion for both passenger and baggage screening. Based on discussions with TSA during the Master Plan, the TSA screeners should process 200 passengers per lane per hour; however, they typically only process 130 passengers, creating long lines and the potential for passengers to miss flights. Additionally, the baggage screening area is inadequate and inefficient. Part of this is related to a higher-than-average bag count per passenger and an abundance of oversized baggage (skis, etc.) that slows the processing rate of the machines. Additional space for TSA is required for passenger screening, baggage screening, a training room, staff break room, and office space. 2.8 2.2.1.3 Baggage Service Office The baggage service office is insufficient. When weather inevitably causes delays preventing passenger bags from making their connection through Denver, baggage trucks from Denver often deliver hundreds of bags at a time. There is presently no secure space to accommodate this influx of luggage and the bags are placed on the floor indefinitely for people to retrieve on the honor system. This presents both a potential security threat and a liability for ASE. 2.2.1.4 Rental Car Operators The rental car operators currently lack adequate space in the baggage claim areas of the terminal for personnel as well as places to store vehicles ready for rental. They have substantially less space at ASE in terms of ready parking positions and equipment storage as they do at comparably sized airports. The crowded condition at the rental counters is both a nuisance to customers and presents a potential privacy violation in that neighboring customers could easily overhear/oversee sensitive information. Furthermore, child seats are stored in front of the counters or in an unheated shed in the parking lot because there is not enough room behind the counters. These factors add up to customer queues of up to 7-10 people during peak hours. 2.2.1.5 Summary of Terminal Deficiencies The existing terminal is deficient in many of the functional areas at current and future activity levels. Some of the largest deficiencies are associated with baggage and public circulation areas, as well as mechanical/electrical and building support systems space. As discussed earlier, these deficiencies are expected to be worse with higher passenger levels associated with the aircraft that would replace the CRJ-700 when it is phased out. 2.2.2 Terminal Circulation Road Requirements and Parking Needs. Data presented in the 2012 Master Plan Update indicates a total of 257 long-term and 223 short-term stalls would be needed to accommodate the air travel demand in 2017, for a combined total of 480 additional passenger parking stalls. Today, approximately 270 public parking stalls are available, but in 2017, 480 parking spaces would be needed, an increase of 210 stalls or 77 percent. By 2027, 566 public parking stalls would be needed, resulting in a shortage of 296 stalls or a 110 percent deficit. Forecasts also indicate that, for 2017, 88 stalls will be needed for employee parking versus the 69 stalls available (a shortage of 19 stalls), as shown in Table 2-5. By 2027, this deficit would increase to 35 employee stalls, as 104 stalls would be needed then, but only 69 are available today. Additionally, 2017 forecasts indicate that 150 ready/return rental car stalls and 97,000 SF for rental car overflow storage parking will be needed. The sum of these stated parking needs is 1,550 parking stalls for 2017, and 1,713 in 2027, shown in Table 2-5. 2.9 Table 2-5 Parking Requirements Existing Terminal Parking 2017 Parking Stall Needs 2027 Parking Stall Needs Airline Functions Short Term Parking Long Term Parking Employee Parking Rental Car Ready Return Rental Car Storage RFTA Park-n-ride Commercial Development Parking 115 155 69 58 265 0 0 223 257 88 150 363 225 244 263 303 104 226 428 205 184 Total Parking Requirement 662 1,550 1,713 Description Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2.2.3 Apron area needs. The existing commercial service terminal apron currently slopes down toward the terminal building. This creates public health and safety issues. During periods of intense rain, the terminal has occasionally flooded due to this sloping issue. Additionally, according to the 2012 Master Plan Update, the commercial service apron is undersized. Forecasts in the Master Plan indicated that, in 2017, eight gates would be required to serve the average day-peak hour and 10 would be required for the peak day-peak hour. This means that up to 10 aircraft could be parked at one time on the terminal apron. The Master Plan Update analyzed parking based on the existing type of aircraft operating at ASE with the 95-foot wingspan restriction in place. Based on this analysis, there is apron area currently available for six aircraft of current wingspans (under 95 feet). Therefore, the existing apron is already deficient based on current aircraft and existing and future passenger activity. This deficiency could be made worse by the potential future change in aircraft, which would have longer wingspans and would require more apron space. With the higher capacity aircraft that would operate at ASE in the future if ASE meets all FAA design standards and the wingspan restriction is lifted, the peak number of aircraft would not likely increase because their larger capacity. 2.2.4 The need to reduce apron noise on surrounding communities. Coordination with the public during the Master Plan Update identified noise from the GA apron as a substantial concern for the businesses and residences near the Airport Business Center. The GA apron can be very busy during peak times in the summer and the winter, with numerous business jets parked. Jets are generally parked with Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) running, facing Highway 82 and the Airport Business Center (ABC). 2.10 These units are run prior to taking off, during maintenance, and sometimes for hours while waiting for clients. This creates noise in the surrounding community. While this project is not directly related to the needed terminal improvements, its need could be addressed at about the same time as the terminal improvements. 2.2.5 Purpose and Need Statement for the Terminal Improvements Projects. The existing terminal is unable to efficiently accommodate existing and forecast passenger demand. The purpose is to meet the existing and future passenger and staff needs at ASE and improve operational efficiency of the terminal space and apron areas. 2.3 Federal Actions The types of actions likely to be undertaken by the FAA include: • Unconditional approval of the proposed actions as shown on the ALP; • Federal funding for the proposed actions under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP); • Modifications to existing procedures; • Approval of an amendment to the Airport’s Certification Manual per 14 C.F.R.139 (Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Requirements) and 49 U.S.C. 44502(b); and • Relocation or upgrade of existing NAVAIDs per 49 U.S.C. 44502(a)(1). 2.4 Actions by Other Agencies Permits and clearances would also be required from various federal, state, and local agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers and various departments within the State of Colorado. The agencies will be coordinated with during the development of this EA. See Chapter 4, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and Chapter 5, Mitigation and Best Management Practices, for more detailed information about permits and clearances. 2.5 Airport Operator Actions The actions expected by the Airport Sponsor include: • Application for federal financial assistance; • Application for and approval of a building and grading permit; • Formal approval (public hearing) from the BOCC to accept the EA and forward it to the FAA for their independent review; • Airport Design Guidelines Review and Approval; • Local Land Use Approval: Location and Extent Review approval (for each phase of construction); and • Construction of the Preferred Alternative. 2.11 2.6 Action Funding and Time Frame According to the 2015 ALP Update, during the preliminary engineering, the total preliminary cost estimates for updates to the terminal area and the runway shift were identified, as well as when the projects would be completed. The Terminal Area (design, terminal construction, apron construction, parking, and roadway improvements) would cost approximately $90,475,777 for either alternative, but dependent on final design and finishes selected. This would be completed in 2018-2022. The Runway Shift (design and construction) would cost approximately $87,488,974. These projects would be completed during the 2023-2027 timeframe so that the new runway is functional at the time that the air carrier fleet would be retired and switched over to the longer wingspan. The Runway Reconfiguration, Terminal improvements and associated improvements would be completed using a combination of local, State and Federal funding paired with money from the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) fund. 2.12 Chapter 3 - Alternatives In accordance with the federal guidelines that implement the NEPA, a range of reasonable alternatives has been identified that may accomplish the objectives of the proposed action. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations state that the responsible federal agency shall “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.” The CEQ has defined “reasonable” as those alternatives that are prudent or feasible. CEQ regulations require the following regarding the analysis of alternatives:  The analysis shall inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment (CEQ 1502.1);  The range of alternatives shall encompass those to be considered by the ultimate agency decision maker;  Agencies shall include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency (CEQ 1502.14[c]); and  Agencies shall include the alternative of No Action (CEQ 1502.14[d]). This chapter examines the No Action Alternative, as well as a range of alternatives to meet the Purpose and Need described in Chapter 2. As described in Chapter 2, the purpose of the proposed projects has two components: 1. Runway Reconfiguration: ASE currently does not meet FAA design standards. The purpose is to enable ASE to meet FAA design standards and to accommodate anticipated commercial service aircraft in the future. 2. Terminal Area Improvements: The existing terminal is unable to accommodate existing and forecast passenger demand. The purpose is to improve operational efficiency to meet the existing and future passenger and staff needs at ASE. 3.1 Range of Alternatives To ensure a wide consideration of the possible range of alternatives, four primary types of alternatives were identified:  Use of other modes of travel. Other modes of travel and telecommunications might reduce the commercial service demand for air service at ASE. 3.1    3.2 Use of other airports. Passengers and aircraft could use other airports that do not have wingspan restrictions in place and can already accommodate the upcoming change in the commercial service fleet. Development Improvements at ASE. Includes physical improvements at ASE. No Action. The No Action Alternative assumes that no improvements are made ASE and is used as the baseline in the determination of impacts. Initial Consideration of Range of Alternatives The initial review of the broad types of Runway Alternatives and the Terminal Area Improvements was conducted to determine feasibility and whether they would meet the project’s Purpose and Need. The following sections document that evaluation and identify alternatives to be carried forward for further evaluation. Those alternatives that were determined not to be feasible/prudent or not to meet the Purpose and Need were eliminated from further evaluation. 3.2.1 Other Modes of Transportation Alternative modes of transportation may provide options to meet air travel needs of individuals who are unable to use air travel into ASE due to the reduced or eliminated commercial service. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, this is an anticipated result of the wingspan restriction paired with the future longerwingspan fleet. This type of alternative would require passengers to travel by highway (auto or bus), or substitute telecommunications technologies for actual air travel. The ability of such alternatives to satisfy the need at ASE largely depends upon such factors as: 1) availability of the mode of transportation; and 2) trip characteristics and travel needs of the air passengers. Although it may seem a reasonable choice, reliance on ground travel is not a realistic alternative to access the Aspen area. Because Aspen is largely a vacation travel destination, the added travel time and unreliable winter roadway conditions would be troublesome. Since visitors come from all over the world, some portion of travel would still occur by air, reliant on other area airports within driving distance. While Colorado has 79 airports, three commercial service airports are a reasonable ground travel distance from ASE: Denver, Eagle County, and Grand Junction. ASE is about 200 road miles from the nearest major airport (Denver) with international air service. The flight between Aspen and Denver is about 30 minutes, whereas the drive time from Aspen to Denver is approximately 3.5 to 4 hours. The drive to Eagle County Airport is about one hour and fifteen minutes, and the drive between ASE and Grand Junction Regional Airport takes about two hours and fifteen minutes. All three of these estimated drive times are based on good weather conditions. Winter driving conditions (as well as road closures) and heavy traffic on Interstate 70 can significantly increase this travel time, especially during weekends when considerable traffic heads to and from the mountains from the Denver metropolitan area. Telecommunication options simplify doing business in today’s global economy, and may also seem a reasonable substitute for reduced or eliminated air service. However, improved communications and videoconferencing technology may relieve potential future business travel demand or even increase it, but would likely have no effect on recreational travel. 3.2 Because the Aspen area is primarily a tourist destination, there would be little or no decrease in the travel to Aspen for recreation if increased telecommunication were used for business dealings. Demand for air travel at ASE has increased in terms of the number of passengers served by the ASE. The purpose and need for the runway reconfiguration and Terminal Area Improvements is related to the ability of ASE to retain its commercial service and to address existing and future terminal deficiencies. Therefore, this alternative is not prudent and has been eliminated from further consideration. 3.2.2 Use of Other Area Airports There are 79 public use airports spread throughout Colorado. Airports either nearby ASE or accessible via roadway include Glenwood Springs Airport, Eagle County Regional Airport, Garfield County Regional Airport, Meeker Airport, and Grand Junction Regional Airport, among others. Grand Junction Regional Airport and Eagle County Regional Airport are the two closest commercial service airports to ASE that could provide service to ASE. The same reasons that discourage use of other modes of transportation including added travel time, weather conditions and air travel demand are valid reasons that use of other airports is not a prudent alternative to improvements to ASE. Therefore, this alternative is eliminated from future consideration in this EA. 3.2.3 Development Options at ASE As described in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, this EA is addressing two specific categories of projects: the runway reconfiguration (Section 3.2.3.1) and the Terminal Area Improvements (Section 3.2.3.2). Separate alternatives were considered for each category since they represent different functional areas of ASE. 3.2.3.1 Development Alternatives – Runway Reconfiguration The Air Service Study (Study) examined multiple alternatives that would correct the non-standard condition, allowing ASE to meet FAA design standards and enable ASE to retain similar level of commercial service in the future. Runway relocation and runway realignment are not feasible alternatives at ASE due to the constrained nature of the valley and the mountainous approach. Due to the constraints on the east side (terminal, Fixed Base Operator [FBO] facilities, and Highway 82), shifting to the east was not feasible. Therefore, the Study focused on providing adequate separation between the runway/taxiways and the width of the runway to meet standards primarily with alternatives shifting the runway to the west. Therefore, shifting of the runway within a general envelope that would enable aircraft to still clear the mountains while at the same time meeting design standards was the primary focus of the Air Service Study. The Study examined approximately 18 different alternatives for achieving the design standards. The alternatives included a review of the regulatory environment, analysis of airfield and airspace configuration, feasibility analysis of different options to ensure future commercial air service to ASE (including likelihood of community support, cost, compliance with FAA regulations, etc.) 3.3 During the first and second phases of the Study, the following alternatives, listed in the order that they were considered, were examined and rejected due to the issues noted:          Alternative 1: Construct a new parallel taxiway 320 feet west of the existing runway, leaving the runway and east side taxiways in place. o Issues: Does not meet full runway/taxiway separation on east or west side and does not meet runway width standards; Alternative 2: Construct a new parallel taxiway 350 feet west of the existing runway, leaving the runway and east side taxiways in place. o Issues: Does not meet full runway/taxiway separation on east or west side and does not meet runway width standards; Alternative 3: Construct a new parallel taxiway 400 feet west of the existing runway, leaving the runway and east side taxiways in place. o Issues: Does not meet full runway/taxiway separation on east side and does not meet runway width standards; Alternative 4: Shift east side parallel taxiway 80 feet east, construct a new parallel taxiway 400 feet west of the existing runway. o Issues: Financially not feasible. Would require relocation of the airport traffic control tower, hangars, tie downs, maintenance hangar, fuel farm, wash pad, etc. Due to constraints of Highway 82, commercial terminal area would be substantially affected; Alternative 5: Shift Runway 15/33 30 feet west and construct a new parallel taxiway west of the relocated runway. o Issues: Does not meet full runway/taxiway separation on east and west side and does not meet runway width standards; Alternative 6: Shift Runway 15/33 80 feet west, construct a partial parallel taxiway 400 feet west of the relocated runway, and add west side tea cup taxiways on the south end of the runway 160 feet west with no west side parallel taxiway or FBO. o Issues: Does not meet runway width design standards; Alternative 7: Shift Runway 15/33 80 feet to the west and construct a partial parallel taxiway at 400 feet west of the relocated runway with a midfield runway crossing for access to the west side. o Issues: Conflicts with FAA recommendations to limit runway crossings and does not meet runway width standards; Alternative 8: Shift Runway 15/33 80 feet west and construct a new parallel taxiway at 400 feet west of the relocated runway. o Issues: Does not meet runway width standards; Alternative 9: Hold Runway 15 threshold, shift Runway 33 threshold 20 feet west, and construct a new parallel taxiway at 350 feet west of the angled runway; existing east side parallel Taxiway A separation from the runway varies from 330 feet to 377 feet. o Issues: Does not meet full runway/taxiway separation and does not meet runway width standards. Runway would not be parallel to other infrastructure; 3.4        Alternative 5a: Evolved from Alternative 5 and includes a shift of the runway 25 feet, widening to 150 feet, and construct a new west side parallel taxiway at 345 feet from the relocated runway. o Issues: Would not meet runway/taxiway separation standards; Alternative 7a: Addition to Alternative 7 to include an extension to Taxiway B to Taxiway A6 for runway crossing. Allows landing aircraft better access to west side; o Issues: Does not meet runway width standards. Greater impact on west side; Alternative 7b: Addition to Alternative 7 to include an extension of Taxiway B to Runway 15 threshold for runway crossing. o Issues: Does not meet runway width standards; Alternative 10: New alternative including a shift of the runway 25 feet, widen to 150 feet, shift Taxiway A 25 feet east, and construct a new west side parallel taxiway at 360 feet from the relocated runway. o Issues: Does not meet runway/taxiway separation standards; Alternative 11: New alternative including a shift of the runway 80 feet, widening to 150 feet, and construction of a new west side parallel taxiway at 320 feet from the relocated runway. o Issues: Would require shift of GA from east side to west side, operational efficiency issues; Alternative 12: New alternative including a shift of the runway 80 feet, widening to 150 feet, construction of a new west side parallel taxiway at 320 feet from the relocated runway south of the Airport Operations Center (AOC). Construct a new west side parallel taxiway at 400 feet from the relocated runway north of the AOC. East side runway/taxiway separation meets FAA standard. West side taxiway operational restrictions south of the AOC. o Issues: Does not meet runway/taxiway separation standards on the west side; and Alternative 13: Hybrid of 5a and 10. Explore shifting runway more than 25 feet to the west and pushing Taxiway A into the ramp further than 15 feet than in Alternative 10. o Issues: Does not meet runway/taxiway separation on west side. Impacts to efficiency. During the third phase, all previous alternatives were rejected for failing to meet all of the needs. Two additional alternatives were added to focus on the shift of 80 feet and widening to 150 feet that met the runway/separation on the east side:   Alternative 12a: Modified Version of Alternative 12. Shift runway 80 feet, widen to 150 feet, and construct a new west side parallel taxiway at 400 feet north of the AOC and 320 feet south of the AOC from the relocated runway; and Alternative 8a: Modified Version of Alternative 8. Shift runway 80 feet, widen to 150 feet, construct a new west side parallel taxiway at 400 feet from the relocated runway, and provide bump out around AOC at 320 feet from the relocated runway. These final two alternatives included a runway shift of 80 feet to the west, a widening to 150 feet, and a new west side parallel taxiway of varying lengths and shifts further to the west. As described above, the shift of the runway by 80 feet and the widening to 150 feet was the only portion of the alternatives that fully met the purpose and need to meet the design standards. 3.5 The alternatives described above included a west side taxiway, which was considered to provide access to a  potential second FBO.  Since that time, the parallel taxiway was determined to be not reasonably foreseeable  due to funding considerations and was eliminated from further study.      3.2.3.1.1 Runway Alternative:   This alternative includes shifting the runway by 80 feet to the west and  widening the runway to a total width of 150 feet.  This alternative meets the purpose and need and is  feasible within the constraints of the site.  This alternative includes the piping of Owl Creek within the fence,  as illustrated in Figure 3‐1.    As a result of the shift in the runway, portions of Owl Creek within the fence would be contained within the  Object Free Area and Runway Safety Area.  Therefore, piping Owl Creek within the airport fence‐line would  be required to meet FAA design standards relative to grading within these areas. According to FAA AC  150/5200‐13A, Airport Design, Runway Safety Areas must be “cleared and graded and have no potentially  hazardous ruts, humps, depressions or other surface variations.”  Additionally, the Object Free Area should  also be clear of objects that are non‐essential for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes.    Review of Alternatives (Minimization on Owl Creek): Owl Creek also was reviewed in terms of impacts  through a WHMP completed in the summer of 2012.  Owl Creek was identified in the plan as an attractant  within the critical zone (the area within 10,000 feet of ASE as measured from the nearest aircraft operations  area).  Based on the analysis, one of the recommended measures in this plan was to pipe Owl Creek within  the critical zone within the boundaries of the Airport fence to reduce wildlife attractants, increasing safety.     Owl Creek and associated wetlands are protected under Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. This  Executive Order’s stated purpose is to “minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to  preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.” Additionally, under Section 404 of the  Clean Water Act, no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if an alternative exists that avoids  or minimizes wetland impacts. As a result of these protections, the EA must consider whether other  reasonable alternatives exist that would reduce the impacts on Owl Creek.      There are no other alternatives that meet the purpose and need that also avoid impacts to Owl Creek and the  wetlands as well as to the Owl Creek Bike Path and Owl Creek Road (Figure 3‐1).  Additionally, previous work  to minimize the attraction of Owl Creek to wildlife, including vegetation management, has not resolved the  issue and the piping would be a permanent fix for this issue.    3.6  N 0' 125' ' 250' 500' FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 750' COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION BALTIC AVENUE INTERSECTION L BA POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING TIC EN AV UE NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER TER EN EC VIC SER D A RO RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING RELOCATED LOC/DME RELOCATED TERMINAL OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED PAPI Y 'A A AXIW T AY W H PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT ' AD RO K MIL L TER TRAI OW T LBU OOP TIA EN CTORL T PO NE N CO OWL CREEK ROAD & BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT EK RE LC 82 HIG LEGEND FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT Ow l k ee Cr RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE OWL CREEK PIPING EXCESSIVE SLOPE Figure 4 RELOCATED ASOS RELOCATED MALSF VISUAL/NOISE BUFFER RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 3-1Runway Alternative 3.7 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.2.3.2 Development Alternatives – Terminal Area Improvements Facility requirements for a passenger terminal building are based on the number of people and aircraft it is expected to serve. As can be seen in Table 3-1, the Master Plan concluded that most of the areas are currently deficient in size (shown in red). The Master Plan does not account for the potential need to accommodate larger aircraft due to the anticipated phase-out of the smaller wingspan aircraft because that issue came up after the plan was created. Based upon the 2012 Master Plan analysis, during the peak hour approximately 482 passengers would need to be accommodated, assuming that the existing, smaller wingspan aircraft continue to operate through the year 2027. The Master Plan indicated an estimated terminal size of 80,411 square feet for 2017 using the CRJ700 to help determine the estimates of the sizing and 97,939 square feet for the terminal in the 2027 timeframe. With the assumed scenario of larger aircraft, averaging 100-110 seats (such as the CS100 at 110 seats), and a larger apron parking area that allows more aircraft to be parked at the same time, the potential maximum throughput number of passengers would conservatively increase to about 900-1,100 peak hour passengers. This means the square footage shown in Table 3-1 would need to increase to meet an adequate level of service. Despite the larger throughput and larger aircraft, not all functional areas would require equal enlargement. The larger aircraft would be expected to have a substantial impact on the size of the following terminal areas: hold room, TSA screening, baggage handling, and concessions. While final terminal building sizing will occur during the design phase, it is important in the EA to look at a high-level estimate of terminal size to disclose potential environmental impacts. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report #25 on Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1, provides high-level planning criteria for terminal sizing. Report #25 methodology is based off an estimated number of square feet per narrow body gate. Assuming the use of the CS100 aircraft and the ACRP planning assumption for small domestic airports, the report provides a range of 15,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet per narrow body gate. Currently the airport operates with six gates, and the 2012 Master Plan recommended ten gates. It is assumed that the larger CS-100 can be accommodated by the eight to ten gate estimate from the Master Plan in the future. Therefore, based on these assumptions, the terminal sizing range from the ACRP report tracks as follows: o Conditions Today (CRJ-700) – 90,000-108,000 (six gates x15,000 square feet per gate and six gates x 18,000 square feet per gate) o Future Conditions (2028) – eight gates with CS-100 aircraft: 120,000 – 144,000 (eight gates x 15,000 square feet per gate and eight gates x 18,000 square feet per gate) o Future Conditions (2033) – 10 gates with CS-100 aircraft: 150,000 – 180,000 (10 gates x 15,000 square feet per gate and ten gates x 18,000 square feet per gate) Based on these assumptions, this alternative includes a terminal footprint around 140,000 square feet and a disturbance footprint of the entire east side area shown in the site plan (Figure 3-3) to environmentally clear the maximum space needed for the terminal. This allows for flexibility of final design relative to the terminal sizing, and roadway and parking configuration. A detailed breakdown of space requirements to a high level 3.9 of detail can be done during terminal programming and design to assist the County in the final decision on the terminal size going forward. Table 3-1 Facility Requirements Comparison Terminal Building Conceptual Facility Requirements Comparison Description Airline Functions Ticket Counter Area Ticket Counter Length Ticket Counter Queuing Curbside Baggage Check Baggage Claim Area / Oddsize Area Baggage Claim Frontage Baggage Service Office Airline Operations / Airline Ticket Office Outbound Baggage Inbound Baggage Departures Lounges (Holdrooms) Jet Gates Subtotal Airline Functions Concessions Concessions (Food / Beverage) Concessions Other (seating / ATM) Concessions (News / Gifts / Sundry) Concessions (Concession Storage)Transportation Ground Information Rental Car Counters Subtotal Concessions Secure Public Area Security Circulation Restrooms TSA Bag Screen Room TSA Offices / Break Airport Administration Other / Airline Service Counters Subtotal Secure Public Area Non-Secure Public Area Circulation - Ticketing Circulation - Baggage Claim Circulation - General Restrooms Other Existing Terminal 2017 Space Requirements 2027 Space Requirements 1,035 97 1,834 50 4,057 224 786 5,131 4,227 1,050 2,160 4 20,280 907 86 1,727 169 5,175 180 1,242 6,346 6,474 2,588 6,615 7 31,241 1,073 102 2,044 200 6,100 212 1,464 7,499 7,666 3,050 8,505 9 37,601 877 1,433 567 175 318 243 567 4,180 2,004 100 751 376 626 451 877 5,184 2,364 118 887 443 739 532 1,034 6,118 2,610 1,200 673 1,700 312 1,213 387 8,095 2,400 7,560 1,428 3,750 872 2,755 351 19,116 3,600 9,450 1,684 5,000 1,033 3,251 414 24,431 3,086 2,872 3,930 766 0 2,159 3,105 6,261 1,428 351 2,556 3,660 7,389 1,684 414 3.10 Table 3-1 Facility Requirements Comparison Terminal Building Conceptual Facility Requirements Comparison Description Subtotal Non-Secure Public Area Non-Public Area Loading Dock Storage Maintenance Mech. / Elec. / Bldg. Systems Miscellaneous Subtotal Non-Public Area Grand Total Existing Terminal 2017 Space Requirements 2027 Space Requirements 10,654 13,304 15,702 0 167 686 955 0 1,808 45,017 207 688 688 8,261 1,721 11,566 80,411 252 839 839 10,062 2,096 14,087 97,939 Source: Jviation, 2012 Red Numbers show existing deficiencies; Analysis from the Airport Master Plan and based on CRJ-700 3.2.3.2.1 Upgrading Existing Terminal In this alternative, the terminal would be expanded and rebuilt in its present location with improvements designed to address the facility deficiencies discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, and above. The following subsections identify the various functional areas of the terminal and the improvements that would occur from this alternative. Function: As described in Chapter 2, the existing terminal is deficient for size, such as in the areas of the hold room, TSA screening, baggage screening, and concessions, among others. All of these areas would need to be substantially expanded in order to create a functional space for passengers and for operational efficiency and safety. Safety: In order to understand the safety, maintenance and upgrade needs of the terminal, a review of the building life safety/fire protection, mechanical systems, and electrical systems was performed by BCER, Inc. and summarized in the 2012 Master Plan Update. Numerous deficiencies were noted in the various systems, with many of those deficiencies related to ongoing preventative maintenance and operational procedures. The BCER report included an assessment of current inadequacies, as well as estimated costs, to bring the problem areas into code compliance and/or meet recommendations. The following sections summarize these findings. Life Safety/Fire Protection A total of approximately $1.5 million in upgrades to the life safety/fire protection systems were identified:  Upgrade ramp at the entrance to the ticketing area and modify restrooms to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; 3.11        Upgrade fire protection sprinkler system to a fully automatic system and replace existing sprinkler heads; Install fire protection standpipe system; Install exterior deluge system on apron facing windows if fueling is to be performed within 100 feet of the terminal face; Install fire hydrants to the airside and increase the diameter of the water supply main from six inches to eight inches; Correct maintenance deficiencies and upgrade fire alarm system; Improve and repair fire area separations as they are inadequate and/or inoperable; and Provide permanent, safe rooftop access to heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Mechanical Systems: A total of approximately $535,500 in mechanical system improvements was identified. A summary of major findings includes:  Prepare accurate mechanical system and controls drawings;  Ductwork modifications in the baggage and operations areas;  Current boiler plant improvements, and replace boiler by 2017; and  Repair and upgrade other minor issues. Electrical Systems: A total of approximately $363,000 in electrical system improvements was identified. Major findings include:  Prepare system drawings;  Remediate electrical deficiencies and broken devices;  Conduct thermal imaging, repair roof conduits;  Remove abandoned electrical equipment;  Test all egress lighting and repair or replace as needed;  Perform lighting study to identify higher efficiency lighting and maximize daylight harvesting;  Provide emergency power to key areas; and  Repair and upgrade issues as they are identified. Conclusions: Even if all the safety issues highlighted above were fixed, the expansion of the terminal is functionally unfeasible due to the sheer age and configuration, and would still not address some of the other movement and functionality issues noted in Chapter 2. For this reason, upgrading would not be feasible while still meeting the needs of the passengers and staff during construction. Therefore, this alternative is eliminated from further consideration in the EA. 3.12 3.2.3.2.2 Terminal Area Improvements Terminal Area Improvements includes the redevelopment of the Terminal Area to fix the deficiencies and operational issues that exist with the current terminal and the parking area. Additionally, Terminal Area Improvements includes the apron expansion, relocation of ancillary facilities, integration with public transit, relocation of the terminal roadway and the installation of a noise wall to mitigate aircraft run-ups. These projects are identified as the Terminal Area Improvements, because the disturbance footprint includes the whole east side as described in Chapter 1 (see Figure 1-1). This allows for some flexibility in final design as it assumes a redevelopment of the entire area. Specific development alternatives pertaining to the terminal and the parking are split out to detail the needs of these two specific areas of focus within the terminal area. 3.2.3.2.2.1 Terminal Alternatives: This alternative will include a terminal size around 140,000 square feet and a disturbance footprint of the entire east side area shown in the site plan to environmentally clear the maximum space needed for the terminal. This allows for flexibility during final design relative to the terminal sizing, and roadway and parking configuration. A highly detailed breakdown of space requirements can be done during the final terminal design to assist the County in the final decision on the terminal size. The first step in determining the terminal alternatives was to review the existing site constraints. The overall slope to the valley is about two percent down valley; additionally, the aircraft apron must slope away from the terminal to fix the existing issue of having runoff from the apron go into the terminal. This means that, from the start of the apron to its end, the height difference between the apron and the site slope is about 12-18 feet. Four initial terminal concepts were presented to the community and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for review. These included a single-story option, a split-level alternative, a nested concept, and a two-story concept. Two of the concepts were found to be more favorable due to their ability to fit within the landscape, while still providing functional “flow” of passengers through the terminal. During the public involvement effort, it was also determined that the general public preferred jet bridges not be implemented to preserve the passenger “experience” of unloading with the full mountain view. Therefore, jet bridges were removed from alternatives going forward. The two alternatives carried forward are a hybrid of the nested, two-story, and split-level concepts as detailed below. These two alternatives were chosen to move forward into the EA because they would provide several options that would be visually different and give the community a good understanding of the range of potential impacts in the EA, but both also would work functionally within the site constraints. Additionally, because this project assumes a full redevelopment of the east side terminal area, both terminal concepts are considered to have similar footprint impacts (that could be sized up or down based on final programming), but would have different visual impacts. 3.13 Terminal Alternative 1 – Ridge: Figure 3-2 (top) shows Terminal Alternative 1, a concept that includes a split-level that fits within the landscape where all functions are generally on a single level, and the split level provides some grade mitigation opportunity. This alternative would include an expanded air carrier apron that would fit within the site constraints and allow for additional parking of the larger aircraft expected in future conditions. It would increase the aircraft parking spots from six spots to 8-11 spots, depending on the wingspan (100 feet to the max 118 feet). Terminal Alternative 2 – Pavilion: Figure 3-2 (bottom) shows Terminal Alternative 2, a hybrid of the nested/two-story concept that includes a setback appearance to make it less conspicuous within the landscape and a stack of the levels to allow for flexibility of space expansion in the future. It would include an expanded air carrier apron that would fit within the site constraints and allow for additional parking of larger aircraft in the future conditions. It would increase the parking spots from six spots to 811 spots, depending on the wingspan (100 feet to the max 118 feet). 3.14 Terminal Conceptual Alternative 1: The Ridge Terminal Conceptual Alternative 2: The Pavilion Figure 3-2 Conceptual Terminal Alternatives 3.1 3.2.3.2.2.2 Parking Alternatives As part of the Terminal Area Improvement, parking deserves additional consideration due to the stated needs in the Master Plan versus the constraints that have been identified since the Master Plan was completed. As stated in Chapter 2 and shown in the Master Plan Update, ASE is currently operating at a deficiency for the parking needs. Several alternatives examining this issue are described below. The 2012 Master Plan examined the site constraints, which include the location of Highway 82 and Taxiway A, that create a building envelope that reduces the area on airport property for efficiently locating terminal area functions. The dictated Colorado Department of Transportation access points also limit the possibilities for layout of parking and roadways. Parking Alternative 1 — Construction of a parking garage: The 2012 Master Plan evaluated several options to meet the future needs of ASE. The analysis indicated that, by 2027, approximately 1,713 spaces would be needed to meet demand. An extensive alternatives analysis was completed along with detailed public involvement process. Given the site constraints, the resulting recommendation was that, in order to accommodate even just 1,300 spaces, a garage would need to be built. Therefore, a parking garage that could accommodate 1,300 spots and integrate with the potential new terminal was a recommendation included in the Master Plan. The discussion with the public indicated that ASE could limit total number of spots to potentially entice people to use public transit or other options rather than driving, recognizing that traffic on Highway 82 is an issue for the valley. As recently as 2015, the parking garage was considered to be the preferred alternative to meet parking needs. However, after the Air Service Study was completed, ASE initiated an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Update and an update to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to account for the addition of the largescale project related to the runway reconfiguration. This addition made it financially unfeasible for both the parking garage and the runway reconfiguration to occur at the same time. As the runway reconfiguration to retain commercial service was a higher need, the parking garage was not included in this EA. Therefore, due to a lack of financial feasibility, this alternative will not be brought forward into evaluation in the EA because it is not a reasonably foreseeable project. However, the terminal and site planning will take into account the potential for a future parking garage, so that, if it does become financially feasible at some point in the future, the terminal and site will be able to accommodate and fit efficiently with a future parking garage. Parking Alternative 2 – Replace existing number of spaces: Once it was determined through the 2015 ALP Update that the parking garage was not reasonably foreseeable, coordination with ASE led to discussions on how many spots could be accommodated within the site constraints. 3.16 Full build out of the site with roadways and connections to the terminal could create about 950 spots, but would result in a “sea” of parking that likely would not meet ASE’s design guidelines. Based on that, as well as direction from the BOCC, this alternative looks at meeting the existing number of spaces (662) with the terminal area update. The recommended site plan with generalized parking layout is included in Figure 3-3. The graphic shows a generalized site plan for both alternative options, which indicates similar disturbance footprint (Terminal Alternative 1 is on the top of the graphic and Terminal Alternative 2 is on the lower half of the graphic). Final design would take into account all design guidelines, and this EA covers the disturbance of the entire area to account for final design changes. Although this parking alternative (the site plans for Terminal Alternative 1 and 2) matches the existing number of spots, the existing number of spots does not meet the projected demand. Therefore, this alternative assumes that for the near term, some number of passengers would need to find other ways to ASE due to the parking deficiencies. This could include use of taxi cab or shuttle service and the use of public transit. With recent improvements to the bus rapid transit (BRT) system within the valley, this could help alleviate some of the near-term parking issues at ASE. Parking Alternative 2 would meet the existing number of spots currently on ASE today, but would take into account a potential future parking garage to allow for future integration if it becomes feasible. Parking Alternative 3 – Offsite Parking: Another alternative is the development of additional off-site parking. Other sites in the valley could help meet the parking demand. However, in addition to the ASE parking requirements, there is currently a larger valley-wide discussion occurring relative to parking availability and traffic on Highway 82. A future study of parking is expected at the City and County level. With the ASE parking garage still in consideration for the future term, the potential barriers to other sites, and the valley-wide concerns, it is recommended that offsite parking development is tabled until a full study of ASE and Roaring Fork Valley requirements is further examined within the context of other options, such as the parking garage, public transit and other community wide alternatives for long term solutions to ASE and the valley-wide parking issues. Therefore, this third alternative is not considered further in this EA. 3.17 1 2 Conceptual Site Plan: 1) The Ridge. 2) The Pavilion. Figure 3-3 Conceptual Site Plans 3.1 3.2.4 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative consists of retaining the existing ASE facilities (the runway, taxiway, terminal, roadway, and apron) as they exist today. This means that the runway and taxiway would continue to not meet FAA design standards. Existing functional limitations within the terminal and apron would continue to persist. The No Action Alternative, in this case, would keep the existing 95-foot wingspan restriction and the Modification to Standards in place. Consequently, in the future, as airlines discontinue flying the CRJ-700, ASE could lose commercial passenger service as aircraft would not be available that meet the current County policy. Some form of commercial service is anticipated to still exist under this Alternative with the use of smaller, older turboprops; however, it would likely be greatly reduced. Table 2-3 shows the anticipated level of activity in the No Action condition. Existing and future expected passenger needs would not be met. Because the No Action would not allow ASE to accommodate their existing and future passenger and operational needs in the terminal area and would not address the FAA design standard deficiencies, the No Action Alternative would not meet the project Purpose and Need. However, because the CEQ regulations require consideration of the No Action Alternative as a baseline, it is carried forward for evaluation. 3.3 Alternatives Brought Forward into the EA Based on the analysis above for the Terminal Area Improvements and Runway Alternatives, the following alternatives are brought forward into analysis of the EA. The combined alternatives are included in Figure 35. The two terminal alternatives are shown in detail in Figure 3-3. 3.3.1 Runway Alternative Brought Forward Runway Alternative: This alternative includes a Runway Shift of 80 feet to the west, a widening to 150 feet and strengthening to allow up to 150,000 pounds, the piping of Owl Creek within the fence, the relocation of the NAVAIDs and runway/taxiway lighting, and the relocation of the perimeter road, Owl Creek Bike Path and Owl Creek Road as illustrated in Figure 3-1. This would also change the wingspan and aircraft weight restriction policy, removing the current restrictions and allowing aircraft up to 118 feet in wingspan and with an aircraft weight up to 150,000 pounds per FAA design group D-III. Flight procedures would need to be amended to take into account the shift in runway location. As is noted in the prior section, this alternative would affect Owl Creek, Owl Creek Bike Path, Owl Creek Road and the wetlands associated with Owl Creek. No other alternatives were identified that would avoid affects to Owl Creek and yet meet the project purpose and need. 3.19 3.3.2 Terminal Area Improvement Alternatives Brought Forward Two terminal alternatives are being brought forward into the EA for further analysis. Common to both terminal alternatives: As described above, both terminal alternatives include the relocation and expansion of the terminal, reconfiguration of the terminal area roadways and parking, an expansion of the air carrier apron, relocation of ancillary facilities such as rental car facilities, and a noise wall over by the GA apron. It would also include demolition of the existing terminal facilities. Based on the parking discussion, Parking Alternative 2 is being brought forward as part of these alternatives (meeting existing parking needs). Both terminal alternatives include the same parking, apron, noise wall, and roadway projects as depicted in the combined alternatives Figure 3-4 and the sizing of the terminal can be scaled based on the final terminal design. The differences between the two alternatives focus on the conceptual visual elements. Terminal Alternative 1: Figure 3-2 (top) shows Terminal Alternative 1, a concept that includes a splitlevel that fits within the landscape where all functions are generally on a single level, and the split-level provides some grade mitigation opportunity. This alternative would include an expanded air carrier apron that would fit within the site constraints and allow for additional parking of the larger aircraft expected in future conditions. It would increase the parking spots from six spots to 8-11, depending on the size of the aircraft. Terminal Alternative 2: Figure 3-2 (bottom) shows Terminal Alternative 2, a hybrid of the nested/twostory concept that includes a setback appearance to make it less conspicuous within the landscape and a stack of the levels to allow for flexibility of space expansion in the future. It would include an expanded air carrier apron that would fit within the site constraints and allow for additional parking of larger aircraft in the future conditions. It would increase the parking spots from six spots to 8-11, depending on the size of the aircraft. 3.4 Forecasts As stated in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, the forecasts in Table 2-3 show the forecasts for the No Action and With Project scenarios. These forecasts will be the basis for the environmental impact analysis contained in Chapter 4. 3.20 N 0' 125' ' 250' 500' FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 750' COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION BALTIC AVENUE INTERSECTION L BA POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING TIC RELOCATED LOC/DME RELOCATED TERMINAL EN AV UE NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER E VIC SE R CEN TER RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING AD RO OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED PAPI Y 'A A AXIW T H HIG Y8 WA 2 PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT ' D OA ILK RM AIL L E W T O UT P TR IALB RLOO T TEN TO PO NEC N O C OWL CREEK ROAD & BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT KR E CRE LEGEND FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT Ow l k ee Cr RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE OWL CREEK PIPING EXCESSIVE SLOPE Figure 4 RELOCATED ASOS RELOCATED MALSF VISUAL/NOISE BUFFER RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 3-4 Combined Proposed Projects Runway Relocation and Terminal Projects 3.21 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.0 Introduction: Approach to the Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences Chapter The environmental analysis in Chapter 4 combines the required affected environment and environmental consequences sections for each resource category, following the organizational structure outlined below. The intent of this chapter is to provide the reader with a clear description of the baseline conditions and the environmental analysis conducted for the project within the applicable framework of regulations. The discussion for each resource category follows the organizational structure outlined below: 4.X Introduction to Resource This section provides background the resource category and the associated regulatory context. 4.X.1 Affected Environment This section describes the existing project site and study conditions at the time of analysis. Information about the affected environment is focused on issues relevant to the specific technical topic. Describing the baseline resources allows further study of the setting and environmental impacts of the alternatives under consideration. Each resource category can have a slightly different study area. 4.X.2 Environmental Consequences The Environmental Consequences section documents the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives under consideration, including construction impacts, compared to the No Action Alternative. Potential impacts were calculated through research, analysis, and superimposing footprints over Geographic Information System (GIS) resources data. This section examines the potential environmental consequences associated with the No Action Alternative; Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2; and Runway Alternative—all carried forward from the Alternatives chapter. The alternatives are outlined below: No Action Alternative: The No-Action Alternative would maintain the existing conditions of the 1971 ASE terminal, and existing runway taxiway deficiencies, which means these facilities would not be able to support the anticipated future commercial service aircraft fleet with the larger wingspan. For a few select categories the No Action will be separated out into the No Action Terminal and the No Action Runway. 4.0.1 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2: Overall, the potential impacts for both terminal alternatives are similar, differing only in design and visual impact. Both terminal alternatives assume a disturbance footprint of the entire east side (relative to the terminal, parking and roadway improvements) as shown in Chapter 3, Alternatives. Because both assume a full disturbance footprint, the overall east side improvement footprints do not change substantially between each alternative, and are thus considered together for most resource categories, except for visual impacts. Runway Alternative: This alternative would consist of a runway shift and widening in compliance with minimum federal standards. Adjustments include an 80-foot runway shift, a widening of the runway to 150 feet, an adjacent road and bike path realignment, and the continuance of Owl Creek piping underneath the runway. 4.X.3 Mitigation and Minimization This section provides guidance on types of mitigation and best management practices that may be employed to reduce the potential impact of the proposed alternatives. 4.0.2 4.1 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA), which was last amended in 1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR Part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The CAA established two types of national air quality standards: Primary Standards (for the protection of public health) and Secondary Standards (for the protection of public welfare) and are presented in Table 4.1-1. The pollutants of concern are called “criteria pollutants” and include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns aerodynamic diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), and lead. VOCs are not a criteria pollutant and therefore no ambient air standards have been established for this pollutant. Since VOCs, however, react with NOx in sunlight to form O3, this analysis includes VOCs and NOx emissions, and refers to them as ozone precursor pollutants. All areas of the country are required to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. Attainment areas are areas where pollutant levels have not exceeded the NAAQS whereas non-attainment areas are those where one or more NAAQS was exceeded. If an area has exceeded a NAAQS in the past but currently meets the standards, the area is then designated as maintenance. States with regions that are non-attainment or maintenance are required to have a State Implementation Plan (SIP) in place to identify how the region will attain the NAAQS. Maintenance areas are subject to a SIP to ensure continued attainment. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is the state agency responsible for air quality in Colorado, and has established a state standard for SO2 (a three-hour maximum of 700 micrograms per cubic meter)1 in addition to the EPA NAAQS. The air quality evaluation focuses on emissions of criteria pollutants. The air quality assessment considered the emissions associated with each project independently, as well as the emissions for the combined projects. 1 Department of Public Health and Environment. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/5-CCR1001-14.pdf, accessed 3-20-2017 4.1.1 Table 4.1-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME PRIMARY SECONDARY 8-hour 0.075 ppm (147 µg/m3) Same as Primary 1-Hour N/A N/A 8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) N/A 1-Hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) N/A Annual 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary 1-Hour 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) N/A Annual 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3) N/A 24-Hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) N/A 3-Hour N/A 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) 1-Hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) N/A Course Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) AAM 12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 24-Hour 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary Rolling 3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 Same as Primary Ozone (O3) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Lead (Pb) Source: USEPA NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter ppm = parts per million (by volume) N/A = Not applicable µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter AAM = Annual arithmetic mean 4.1.1 Affected Environment Pitkin County is currently in attainment for all NAAQS criteria pollutants. However, because the region was previously non-attainment for PM10, it is now designated by USEPA as a PM10 maintenance area. The area is subject to a Maintenance Plan/SIP for PM10. In addition, federal approvals of projects occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas must be shown to conform with the SIP before the federal approval can be granted. 4.1.2 The City of Aspen has been measuring PM10 for more than 20 years. Based on a City of Aspen inventory, the two main sources of PM10 in the Aspen area are from surface traffic dust (83%) and from wood burning (13%). In recent years, concentrations of PM10 have decreased from their peak in 1991 due to local actions. PM10 levels “climb when the roads dry out and become dusty from all the traffic grinding up the dirt on the roads and tracking the dirt back out onto roadways.”2 Pollutant levels are usually higher on weekdays when commuter and business surface traffic are high, and drop on weekends when there is less traffic. The City of Aspen and Pitkin County sweep and flush streets to reduce PM10 levels. The emissions inventory prepared for the criteria pollutants is based on current activity levels and aircraft fleet mix. Table 4.1-2 quantifies the yearly emissions of CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 by airport sources for 2015. Approximately 30,000 gallons of Avgas was consumed in 2015 in contrast to approximately 6 million gallons of JetA. Avgas emits lead, but was not evaluated because it is used in small quantities at ASE relative to JetA.3 As Table 4.1-2 shows, of the sources evaluated, aircraft and auxiliary power units (APU) emissions are the greatest, with the greatest quantity of emissions being CO. The next greatest quantities are ozone precursor pollutants (VOC and NOx). Table 4.1-2 Current Sources of Emissions (2015) That May be Affected by the Proposed Project (Tons/Year) Aircraft & Auxiliary Ground Passenger Power Support On-Road ConstPollutant Units Equipment Travel ruction Total Carbon Monoxide 259.1 42.0 1.0 NA 302.2 Volatile Organic Compounds 44.0 1.4 0.1 NA 45.4 Nitrogen Oxides 38.9 3.8 0.1 NA 42.8 Sulfur Oxides 6.7 0.1 0 NA 6.9 Particulate Matter (PM10) 2.0 0.1 0 NA 2.2 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2.0 0.1 0 NA 2.2 Source: BridgeNet Consulting Services, May 4, 2017. May not add due to rounding. NA=Not applicable 2 City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, 2008 Air Quality and Temperature Report for the City of Aspen; www.aspenpitkin.com/ pdfs/ dept s/ 44/ 2008airrpt .pdf 3 Because Avgas consumption is declining, emissions were not quantified. 4.1.3 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences The following sections discuss the air quality implications of the proposed projects at ASE in terms of air emissions. The FAA’s Emissions Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 5.1.4 was used to determine emissions from aircraft and ground support equipment.4 The ACRP Report 102 Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions and the electronic Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACEIT), which relies on emission factors from the USEPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model, was utilized to determine construction related emissions. The following subsections contrast the 2015 conditions with future emissions in 2023 (the opening year for proposed terminal), 2028 (the first year for relocated operational runway), and then approximately five years later in 2033. Each project is considered separately, and then in combination. The No Action scenario was compared to the With Project scenarios to identify the project-related change in the same respective year. Table 4.1-3 details the project related emissions anticipated from operating the development scenarios described in the sections that follow. Because ASE is located in a maintenance area for PM10, a General Conformity Applicability Analysis was conducted and is provided in the General Conformity Conclusion for PM10 emissions; a key criterion of the General Conformity process is to identify if emissions are less than the de minimis threshold established for PM10 (where de minimis is the level where no further analysis is needed). The General Conformity de minimis consideration is only needed for criteria air pollutants that are in non-attainment or maintenance, in the case of Pitkin County it is only needed for PM10. The General Conformity de minimis applicability analysis is included in Section 4.1.4. 4 While FAA has adopted a new tool for evaluating air quality, because the project assessment began before the new tool was released, FAA National Environmental Policy Act guidance enables use of the model available when the study began. The newer model would be expected to produce the same results. 4.1.4 Table 4.1-3 Project Related Emissions Year/Scenario 2015/Existing Conditions 2023 No Action With Terminal Alt 1 or Alt 2 Project-related change (Alt 1 & 2) 2028 No Action With Terminal Alt 1 or Alt 2 Project-related change (Alt 1 & 2) With Airfield Improvements Project-related change With COMBINED Terminal and Airfield projects Project-related change 2033 No Action With Terminal Alt 1 or Alt 2 Project-related change (Alt 1 & 2) With Airfield Improvements Project-related change With COMBINED Terminal and Airfield projects Project-related change CO Annual Operational Emissions (tons per year) VOC NOX Sox PM10 PM2.5 302.2 45.4 263.4 263.1 -0.3 41.5 41.5 42.8 6.9 2.2 7.1 7.1 0 41.8 41.7 +0.1 263.8 263.6 -0.2 258.3 -5.5 48.3 48.2 -0.1 43.2 -5.1 32.8 32.9 +0.1 39.5 +6.7 6.1 6.1 6.8 +0.7 2.0 258.1 -5.7 43.1 -5.2 39.4 +6.6 6.8 +0.7 2.0 263.1 263.0 -0.1 266.0 +2.9 53.8 53.7 -0.1 42.3 -11.5 24.1 24.1 5.2 5.2 1.9 1.9 265.8 +2.7 42.2 -11.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 0 2.1 2.1 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 2.0 0 0 2.0 0 0 1.9 1.9 0 0 0 0 50.2 +26.1 7.9 +2.7 2.1 +0.2 2.1 +0.2 50.2 +26.1 7.9 +2.7 2.1 +0.2 2.1 +0.2 Source: BridgeNet Consulting, May 4, 2017 4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action, neither the terminal nor the runway projects would occur. Therefore, no project-related construction would occur, nor the associated construction emissions. However, total ASE activity is expected to continue to evolve (increase in aircraft operations and changes in fleet mix/aircraft) over time as noted in other chapters of this document. As is shown by comparing the 2015 emissions to the future No Action emissions noted in Table 4.1-3, emissions of all pollutants are anticipated to decrease relative to 2015 except for VOC emission. 4.1.5 VOC emissions are expected to increase slightly between 2015 and 2033 (from 45.4 tons in 2015 to 53.8 tons in 2033 No Action). NOx emissions are expected to decrease from nearly 43 tons in 2015 to nearly 33 tons in 2028 and decrease further to 24 tons in 2033 under the No Action alternative. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are expected to remain relatively the same, decreasing slightly from 2.2 tons in 2015 to 1.9 tons in 2033. Table 4.1-4 identifies the emissions by airport source and pollutant for 2023, 2028, and 2033. The anticipated decreases in emissions can occur as activity levels at ASE are expected to increase due to changes in the aircraft fleet mix that lower most pollutants. These changes in emissions over time are largely a function of the fleet mix changes in the No Action condition as jet aircraft that meet the current wing span requirement are phased-out of commercial service and are primarily replaced with older turbojets and GA jets. Table 4.1-4 Operating Emissions – No Action Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total CO 2023 No Action (Tons per year) VOC NOx SOx PM-10 PM-2.5 239.7 40.6 38.9 6.6 1.6 1.6 6.6 0.4 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 246.2 40.9 40.5 7.0 2.1 2.1 16.1 0.5 1.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.35 41.52 41.75 7.1 2.2 2.1 CO 2028 No Action (Tons per Year) VOC NOx SOx PM-10 PM-2.5 244.6 47.6 30.7 5.8 1.7 1.7 4.3 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 248.9 47.8 31.7 6.0 1.9 1.9 13.9 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 48.3 32.8 6.1 1.0 263.8 CO 2033 No Action (Tons per Year) VOC NOx SOx 0.0 0.0 2.0 PM-10 2.0 PM-2.5 246.3 53.2 22.6 5.0 1.8 1.8 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 248.5 53.2 23.0 5.1 1.8 1.8 13.6 0.5 1.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.1 53.8 24.14 5.24 1.9 1.9 Source: BridgeNet International, May 4, 2017. May not add due to rounding. 4.1.6 4.1.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 With implementation of the proposed terminal improvements, there would be construction emissions, and then upon completion of the project, operating emissions. The following paragraphs discuss these emissions. Construction Emissions: To calculate emissions during the construction of the replacement terminal and associated facilities, the types of equipment and construction processes were considered. ACRP Report 102 Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions and the electronic Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACEIT), which relies on emission factors from the USEPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model, was utilized. The construction emissions estimates include emissions from non-road equipment, employee work commute, material delivery, and fugitive emissions. Construction of the terminal is expected to occur between 2018 and 2022. Because detailed construction phasing plans have not yet been developed, it is estimated that peak construction emissions would not exceed 50 percent of total construction emissions. Table 4.1-5 lists the total terminal replacement construction emissions and identifies the peak year construction emissions, assumed to be 50 percent of the total. Table 4.1-5 Construction Emissions – During Terminal Construction Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Particulate Matter (PM10) Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Total Construction Duration Emissions (Short Tons) 29.9 5.9 6.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 Peak Year Construction Emissions (50% of total – tons) 15.0 3.0 3.0 <0.1 0.3 0.2 Source: Synergy Consultants, Inc. December 2016, numbers rounded to the nearest tenth of a ton. Short-term construction-related emissions would occur with the proposed project implementation. The short-term construction emissions are not expected to be significant, as the total direct and indirect emissions including construction emissions are below de minimis (below the USEPA General Conformity threshold set for PM10 in a maintenance area), as shown in Section 4.1.4 for the General Conformity conclusion and do not require further analysis. Section 4.1.4 discusses the best management practices that would be used to reduce construction-related emissions. Operational Emissions: Table 4.1-6 shows the Terminal operational emissions in years 2023, the first full year after commissioning, year 2028, and year 2033. Project-related emissions, those emissions that would occur beyond the No Action, are also identified in Table 4.1-3 (in the row titled project-related change). This includes an average decrease in taxi distance of 193 feet due to the shift in terminal location to the south. 4.1.7 When comparing the table above to the emissions associated with the No Action, the proposed terminal improvements at ASE would not materially change emissions. All project-related changes due to the terminal would be less than 1 ton in 2023 through 2033. In 2023, NOx emissions would increase slightly (0.1 ton) but result in a slight reduction in CO emissions (0.3 ton). By 2028, CO emissions with the project would decrease by 0.2 ton, VOC would decrease by 0.1 ton, and NOx would increase by 0.1 ton. By 2033, the project-related change would be a reduction in both CO and VOC, and no change in other pollutants. As is described in a later section (4.1.4), all terminal-related project emission changes would not be significant. Table 4.1-6 Operating Emissions With Project Terminal Only Alternatives 1 and 2 Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total 2023 With Terminal ONLY Alternatives 1 and 2 (Tons per year) CO VOC NOx SOx PM-10 PM-2.5 239.4 40.6 38.9 6.6 1.6 1.6 6.6 0.4 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 245.9 40.9 40.4 7.0 2.1 2.1 16.1 0.5 1.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.1 41.51 41.7 7.1 2.2 2.1 2028 With Terminal ONLY Alternatives 1 and 2 (Tons per Year) CO VOC NOx SOx PM-10 PM-2.5 244.4 47.5 30.7 5.8 1.7 1.7 4.3 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 248.7 47.7 31.6 6.0 1.9 1.9 13.9 0.5 1.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.6 48.2 32.7 6.1 2.0 2.0 2033 With Terminal ONLY Alternatives 1 and 2 (Tons per Year) CO VOC NOx SOx PM-10 246.1 53.1 2.2 248.3 PM-2.5 22.6 5.0 1.8 1.8 <0.1 0.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 53.2 23.0 5.1 1.8 1.8 13.6 0.5 1.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 263.0 53.7 24.1 5.2 1.9 1.9 Source: BridgeNet International, May 5, 2017. Note: May not add due to rounding. 4.1.8 4.1.2.3 Runway Alternative The With Project airfield evaluation identified emissions associated with construction of the project and operation of the proposed runway improvements. Construction Emissions: To calculate emissions during the construction of the airfield improvements, the types of equipment and construction processes were considered. Similar to the methods for evaluation of the terminal, ACRP Report 102 and the ACEIT were used. The project description identified in Chapters 1 and 2 of this document formed the basis of the construction equipment estimates. Included in the construction emissions estimates are emissions from nonroad equipment, employee work commute, material delivery, and fugitive emissions. Construction of the airfield improvements are expected to occur between 2023 and 2027. Because detailed construction phasing plans have not yet been developed, emissions are not available at the planning phase, and it is estimated that peak construction emissions would not exceed 50 percent of total construction emissions. Table 4.1-7 lists the total terminal replacement construction emissions and identifies the peak year construction emissions, assumed to be 50 percent of the total. Table 4.1-7 Construction Emissions During Airfield Construction (2023-2027) Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Particulate Matter (PM10) Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Total Construction Duration Emissions (Short Tons) 24.0 26.7 3.7 0.1 1.4 0.2 Peak Year Construction Emissions (50% of total – tons) 12.0 13.4 1.9 <0.1 0.7 0.1 Source: Synergy Consultants, Inc. December 2016, numbers rounded to the nearest tenth of a ton. Short-term construction-related emissions would occur with the proposed project implementation. These construction-related emissions will be minimized by use of best management practices noted in Section 4.1.3. 4.1.9 Operational Emissions: Once construction is completed, the airfield operation will change slightly, including a slight change in aircraft moving around on the airfield and a change in the aircraft fleet mix as described in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. The runway would be shifted 80 feet to the west, the taxi distance would increase by about 160 feet on average. Table 4.1-8 shows the With Project operational emissions in years 2028 (the first full year after commissioning the airfield improvements) and then in year 2033 (five years hence). Project-related emissions, those emissions that would occur beyond the No Action, are also identified in Table 4.1-3. Table 4.1-8 Operating Emissions With Project Runway Alternative Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total Category Aircraft Engines APUs Subtotal GSE Roadways Grand Total 2028 With Project Runway Alternative (Tons per Year) CO VOC NOx SOx PM-10 PM-2.5 238.6 42.5 37.0 6.5 1.7 1.7 5.3 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 243.8 42.7 38.4 6.7 1.9 1.9 13.3 0.5 1.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 258.3 43.2 39.5 6.8 2.0 2.0 2033 With Project Runway Alternative (Tons per Year) CO VOC NOx SOx PM-10 246.3 41.6 PM-2.5 47.3 7.6 1.8 1.8 6.2 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 252.5 41.8 49.2 7.8 2.1 2.1 12.2 0.4 1.0 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 266.0 42.3 50.2 7.9 2.1 2.1 Source: BridgeNet International, May 5, 2017. Note: numbers may not add due to rounding. When comparing the table above to the emissions associated with the No Action, the airfieldrelated improvements would not materially affect ASE emissions. In 2028, the proposed airfield improvements would reduce emissions (or maintain emission levels) of all criteria pollutants except NOx and SOx, which would increase slightly. These changes are all associated with the changes in aircraft fleet mix due to the wider wingspan/bigger aircraft and the increased number of operations in future timeframes. By 2033, these changes in aircraft fleet mix would be expected to increase emissions of all criteria pollutants, except VOC which would decrease. As noted in Table 4.1-3, which shows the project-related changes, the most notable increase in 2033 would be for NOx, which would increase by 26.1 tons (slightly more than double the NOx emissions). This change is associated with the much greater NOx emissions associated with the bigger aircraft that would be operating in the 2033 timeframe. All airfield-related project emission changes would not be significant. Changes to PM10 would be de minimis as described in Section 4.1.4. 4.1.10 4.1.2.4 With Project Combined Terminal and Runway Alternatives In addition to considering each project separately, the combined effect of the terminal improvements and the airfield projects were also considered. As the airfield projects would not be completed by 2023, the 2023 effects noted for the Terminal Improvements in Section 4.1.2.2 would be the resulting air emissions from the combined project. By 2028 both projects would be complete and thus an operational emission inventory was prepared for the combined scenario. Construction Emissions: Completion of the combined terminal and airfield improvement projects would result in construction of the terminal improvements between 2018 and 2022 as noted in Table 4.1-5. Completion of the airfield improvements would occur between 2023 and 2027 and result in the emissions shown in Table 4.1-7. Thus, construction of the two sets of projects is not expected to overlap. Short-term construction-related emissions would occur with the proposed project implementation. These construction-related emissions will be minimized by use of best management practices noted in Section 4.1.4. Operational Emissions: Once construction of the terminal is completed, a slight change in emissions relative to the No Action would occur in 2023 due to the slight overall average decrease taxi distance to the center of the new terminal and relocation of the runway. With completion of the airfield improvements, in 2028 the combined terminal and airfield projects would again experience a slight change in emissions. Table 4.1-9 shows the With Project operational emissions in years 2028 (the first full year of the combined implementation of the terminal and airfield improvements) as well as emissions in 2033 (five years hence). Project-related emissions, those emissions that would occur beyond the No Action, are identified in Table 4.1-3. 4.1.11 Table 4.1-9 Operating Emissions With Project Combined Terminal and Runway Alternatives 2028 With Project Combined Terminal and Airfield Improvements (Tons per Year) CO VOC NOx SOx PM-10 Category Aircraft Engines 238.3 42.4 36.9 6.5 1.7 APUs 5.3 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.3 Subtotal 243.6 42.6 38.3 6.7 1.9 GSE 13.3 0.5 1.1 0.1 <0.1 Roadways 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 Grand Total 258.1 43.1 39.4 6.8 2.0 2033 With Combined Terminal and Airfield Improvements (Tons per Year) Category CO VOC NOx SOx PM-10 Aircraft Engines 246.1 41.6 47.2 7.6 1.8 APUs 6.2 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.2 Subtotal 252.3 41.7 49.2 7.8 2.1 GSE 12.2 0.4 1.0 0.1 <0.1 Roadways 1.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 Grand Total 265.8 42.2 50.2 7.9 2.1 PM-2.5 1.7 0.3 1.9 <0.1 0.0 2.0 PM-2.5 1.8 0.2 2.1 <0.1 0.0 2.1 Source: BridgeNet International, May 5, 2017. Note: numbers may not add due to rounding. When comparing Table 4.1-9 to the emissions associated with the No Action in 2028, the combined terminal and airfield improvements would produce emissions similar to that of the airfield improvements only. In 2028, the proposed combined projects would reduce emissions (or maintain emission levels) of all criteria pollutants except NOx and SOx, which would increase slightly (6.7 tons and 0.8 tons, respectively). These changes are all associated with the changes in aircraft fleet mix due to the wider wingspan/bigger aircraft that would be operating. By 2033, these changes in aircraft fleet mix would be expected to increase emissions of all criteria pollutants, except VOC which would decrease. As noted in Table 4.1-3, which shows the projectrelated changes, the most notable increase in 2033 would be for NOx, which would double. This change is associated with the much greater NOx emissions associated with the bigger B737 aircraft that would be operating in the 2033 timeframe with the project. All airfield-related project emission changes would not be significant. Changes to PM10 would be de minimis as described in Section 4.1.4. 4.1.12 4.1.3 General Conformity Because a federal approval is required for the proposed actions, it must be shown that the project would conform with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for those criteria pollutants that are in nonattainment or maintenance. As noted earlier, the area is subject to a SIP for course particles (PM10) due to past exceedances of the standard. Thus, conformity must be demonstrated for PM10 only. The first step in the conformity process is to prepare an applicability analysis, as the proposed projects are not presumed to conform.5 The applicability analysis compares project-related emissions to the de minimis thresholds established in the General Conformity rules. To identify potential air emissions from the proposed actions, the emissions inventories in the preceding sections were contrasted with the de minimis levels for a maintenance area for PM10, which is 100 tons per year. The analysis in Table 4.1-10 shows that with the combined terminal and airfield improvements the project-related emissions would be below the Clean Air Act defined de minimis threshold, and thus the planned actions do not require a conformity determination. No project, either individually or in combination, would produce significant air quality impacts. The General Conformity rules allow agencies to identify and adopt projects that are “presumed to conform” as their emissions will always be below the de minimis. FAA has adopted a list of such projects, which do not include those reflected in the Proposed Project. 5 4.1.13 Table 4.1-10 Total Project Related Impacts (Tons per Year Emissions) – Applicability Analysis Year Project-Related Are Project-Related Emissions less than PM10 De-Minimis? (tons/year) Terminal Replacement Project Only Year 2018-2022 (terminal construction year peak year) 0.3 Yes Year 2023 (Operational emissions) 0.0 Yes Year 2028 (Operational emissions) 0.0 Yes Year 2033 (Operational emissions) 0.0 Yes Year 2023-2027 (Airfield construction peak year) 0.7 Yes Year 2028 (Operational emissions) 0.0 Yes Year 2033 (Operational emissions) 0.2 Yes Years 2018-2022 (construction of terminal replacement) 0.3 Yes Year 2023-2027 (Operational and airfield construction) 0.7 Yes Year 2028-2032 (Operational emissions) 0.0 Yes Year 2033 (Operational emissions) 0.2 Yes Airfield Improvements Only Implementation of Both Projects De-minimis (Maintenance area) 100 Note: Construction emissions for airfield 0.7 ton PM10 plus no operational related changes in emissions Source: Synergy Consultants Sources reflect direct and indirect emissions. 4.1.14 4.1.4 Minimization and Mitigation The two proposed projects are not expected to produce significant air quality emissions when compared to the No Action Alternative. However, Pitkin County anticipates voluntarily implementing a number of measures to reduce project emissions further, beyond that which is described earlier:     Odors from vehicle emissions during construction would be controlled by muffler systems on the vehicles. Dust from construction activities would be controlled by the use of a water truck that will water the construction site at least once daily. Emissions from equipment and vehicles would not exceed state and national air quality standards. Construction equipment engines would be turned off when idle for more than 5 minutes. In addition to the emission reduction actions during construction, Pitkin County anticipates that the terminal improvements will result in an energy reduction on a per square foot basis over the current terminal complex. Pitkin County will explore obtaining FAA Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) funding for the installation of preconditioned air and ground power to enable airlines to reduce their use of APUs. Additionally, ASE will consider applying for additional energy efficient grants such as under Section 512 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (FRMA) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (Section 138 of the Airport Improvement Program), as well as potential local grants such as the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE). 4.1.15 4.2 Biological Resources Biological resources include fish, wildlife, plants, and their respective habitats. There are numerous regulations and guidance related to biological resource including, but not limited to, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.), Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species), as well as various state and local regulations. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the federal agency responsible for the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is the state agency that is responsible for conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management within the State of Colorado. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency would not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species nor result in the destruction or adverse modification of a species’ habitat. Agencies overseeing Federally-funded projects are required to obtain information from the USFWS concerning any species listed, or proposed to be listed, which may be present in the study area. Coordination with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) consists of requesting information regarding any endangered, threatened, and rare species (ETR species) that may occur within the survey area and nearby, and consequently asking for concurrence with the assessment that there is no significant impact or concern regarding endangered, threatened, or rare species. 4.2.1 Affected Environment The area surveyed for this project is included in Figure 4.2-1. ASE and the project survey area are located approximately two miles northwest of Aspen, Colorado, on a bench about 200 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The river is approximately one mile east and north of the survey area, and the survey area is at an approximate elevation of 7,800 feet. The general region is semi-arid and typified by sagebrush-steppe. The survey area experiences a total annual precipitation of approximately 24 inches. The annual average maximum temperature is about 55 degrees and the annual average minimum temperature is about 28 degrees. The total annual snowfall is approximately 174 inches. Both the Terminal Alternatives and the Runway Alternative are located primarily on previously disturbed ground. 4.2.1.1 General Conditions Field surveys for plants and animals were conducted on-site to document the affected environment. Aerial photographs were reviewed for indications of various habitats and vegetation. 4.2.1 Maps were used as a resource to perform a qualitative survey within the study area, which included identifying potential habitat for the protected species as identified by the CNHP data and the USFWS. Survey methods included meandering pedestrian transects throughout the study area by habitat type. Flora and fauna species were identified and recorded, with special attention to any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The field survey took place in 2015. The survey area on the east includes the heavily-developed terminal area, which has been previously disturbed in its entirety. The west side of the survey area has been manipulated and includes a bike path; seeded areas at the sides of the existing runway, along the apron, and along Owl Creek Road; as well as some remaining natural sagebrush communities. Owl Creek, which is a habitat for fish and other wildlife, is present at the northern end of the survey area where a segment of stream is piped under the runway and taxiway as it courses northeast towards the Roaring Fork River. No listed endangered, threatened, or special status species are commonly found within the survey area. Owl Creek supports a riparian/wetland area in the northwestern portion of the survey area and is a source of water for hay meadows north and west of the runways. Other ditches with control features parallel Owl Creek Road. A spring, located outside of the survey area to the west of the runway, is controlled at various points along its course before the channel moves through the survey area. One small wetland area is identified along a ditch in the western portion of the survey area. Within the southern end of the survey area, there is another wetland area that divides into two branches up gradient. These two arms are separated by a sagebrush-covered hill. Water flows north from under Owl Creek Road into one arm of the wetland. The other wetland arm receives water from a ditch west of Owl Creek Road and the survey area. Much of the survey area is relatively flat except for soil piles and topographic high points which support native Sagebrush, Oakbrush and Aspen/Oakbrush communities. The Sardy Homestead and Airport Ranch site, on the northwest side of the runway and taxiway, consist of several abandoned buildings and old developed springs and channels, one of which is Owl Creek. The western portion of the survey area grades upslope and encompasses shrubby hillsides. The Wasatch Formation of Paleocene age dominates the landscape in this area. The formation underlies the Uinta Formation. Soils made from these formations differ according to slope, aspect, and other conditions. ASE resides on a soil type that can support native populations of wheatgrasses, needle and thread grasses, and sagebrush. However, this natural vegetation has been cleared for the runway and much of the survey area has been seeded. 4.2.2 Mapped soil units in the survey area are in the Kilgore, Kobar, Morval and Uracca series and are classified as Ustolic Haplargids. With the exception of the Kilgore silt loam, they are well-drained soils. Their derivation is from igneous and metamorphic rock in the case of the Uracca soils, and from shale in the case of Kobar soil. The Morval soil is derived from sandstone and shale, and the Kilgore is of a mixed alluvium origin. Site conditions, such as soils, slope, exposure to solar radiation, and disturbance, dictate where wildlife and plant communities exist within the site boundaries. For example, graded areas are seeded with a mixture of native and non-native species, while small hills support remnants of the high mountain sagebrush communities that vary based on their exposures. Steeper slopes support Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii) and aspen (Populus tremuloides). Figure 4.2-1 provides the general location of the survey area and the plant communities described. Photos are also presented in Appendix 1. 4.2.1.2 Wildlife, Fish and Plants Aerial photographs were reviewed for indications of various land uses including wetlands and “waters of the United States,” development, and other uses. The maps were used as a resource to perform a qualitative survey, which included identifying potential habitat for the protected species as identified by the CNHP data and the USFWS. Survey methods included a site survey based on meandering pedestrian transects throughout the survey area by habitat type. Flora and fauna were recorded, with special attention to any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The mobile nature of many mammal and bird species can limit the effectiveness of field surveys. Although surveys for these species can include actual sightings, sometimes more pertinent data is developed from identifying and characterizing habitat types that fall within the proposed project boundaries. Field survey data from site visits in 2008 and 2015, and information from the USFWS and Colorado Natural Heritage Program, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) latitude longitude studies, Righter and Andrews (1992)1 and Hammerson (1999)2 serve as the basis for species potentially located within the project boundaries. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) was contacted to assess the presence of endangered, threatened, and rare species (ETR). Correspondence from CNHP, dated October 21, 2015, indicated that a federally threatened and state endangered species, the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), was last observed in 1969 within a two-mile radius of the survey area. It was sighted well to the north of ASE in a forested area. There is no dense coniferous forested habitat within the ASE project boundaries and therefore no Canada Lynx are expected to be found in the area. 1 Righter, Robert and Andrews, Robert, Colorado Birds, A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat, Denver Museum of Natural History, 1992, pp. 442. 2Hammerson, Geoffery, Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, University Press of Colorado, 1999. 4.2.3 The CNHP lists no other locations of candidate species, rare and/or imperiled mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or insects within a two-mile radius of the proposed projects. Bio-Environs accessed the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website in September 2015 and found no indication of critical habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species in Pitkin County or near the survey area. A letter to USFWS was sent December 3, 2015, to confirm these findings, and a response was received in 2015 (Appendix 2) stating that they had no concerns. The ASE project area is primarily disturbed or previously developed land, which does not provide suitable habitat for endangered species listed at the IPaC. These species include the Canada Lynx, North American Wolverine, Yellow Billed Cuckoo, Mexican Spotted Owl, Ute Ladies’tresses, Boney Tail Chub, Colorado Pike Minnow, Greenback Cutthroat Trout, Humpback Chub, Razorback Sucker. According to the IPaC website the ASE project area is outside of designated critical habitat for the Canada Lynx, Spotted Owl, Yellow Bellied Cuckoo, Boney Tail Chub, Colorado Pike Minnow, Humpback Chub, and Razorback Sucker. No critical habitat has been designated for the North American Wolverine, Ute Ladies’-tresses and the Greenback Cutthroat Trout. The elevation at ASE is too low for North American Wolverines and therefore this species is unlikely to be found in the area. Although the ASE project area includes limited habitat that can potentially support Ute Ladies’-tresses none were found in the 2015 survey. Greenback Cutthroat Trout require clear, cold, well oxygenated water. Owl Creek affords marginal water quality due to inputs from warmed irrigation waters and therefore, it provides a poor trout habitat. Bio-Environs conducted field surveys September 8-9, 2015, for plant communities and wetlands, and while doing so also noted presence of wildlife. The following information was compiled from this survey, the previous site survey and the other previously discussed sources. Wildlife Wildlife species identified in the field are presented in Table 4.2-1. This table also includes species recognized by scat, bones, or other means within the property boundaries. These species are typically associated with mixed sagebrush shrublands, marsh or sedge meadows, or drainages. No threatened or endangered species were encountered. 4.2.4 Table 4.2-1 Species Encountered During Site Visit on July 10, 2008, and September 9, 2015 Common Name Goose Common snipe Red-tailed hawk Northern harrier Vesper sparrow American robin Broad-tailed hummingbird Northern flicker Cliff swallow Common raven American crow Brewer’s blackbird Red-winged blackbird Yellow-headed blackbird Black-billed magpie Black-capped chickadee Mountain bluebird Elk Deer Red fox Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Scientific Name Branta Canadensis Gallinago Buteo jamaicensis Circus cyaneus Pooecetes gramineus Turdus migratorius Celasphorus platycerus Colaptes auratus Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Corvus corax Corvus brachurhynchos Euphagus cyanocephalus Agelaius phoeniceus Xanthocephalus Pica Poecile atricapillus Sialia sialis Cervus Canadensis Odocoileus hemionus Vulpes Spermophilus tridecenlineatus Evidence Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Sighting Scat and tracks Sighting Sighting Sighting Source: Bio-Environs, 2008 and 2015 Fish Owl Creek, four ditches, and waterways through the wetlands at the southern end of the survey area may provide habitat for fish; however, none were observed in those features during the September 2015 field survey. The Roaring Fork is adjacent to ASE and is clearly separated from the survey area via berms, Hwy 82, and other features. In addition, there is a substantial drop off in Owl Creek with natural fish barriers leading up from the Roaring Fork River to ASE property (see Appendix 1, Photograph 1). The drop-off and rock barriers prevent fish from migrating from the Roaring Fork River up Owl Creek within the survey area. Plants and Plant Communities Based on correspondence from the CNHP dated October 21, 2015, there is one potential conservation area (PCA) and multiple network of conservation areas (NCAs) within the vicinity of the survey area. PCAs are areas that provide habitat and ecological processes upon which a particular species, suite of species, or natural community depends on for its continued existence. 4.2.5 NCAs include unoccupied or un-surveyed areas that are within the same ecological system that the species or natural communities require. NCAs contain PCAs that may occur at a variety of ecological scales. The CNHP notes that the Brush Creek at Roaring Fork River PCA is located along the Roaring Fork between Aspen and Basalt and is within a deep canyon that is outside of the proposed projects boundary. Also, several NCAs are located within the vicinity of ASE, but are all located outside the survey area. 4.2.1.3 Ground Cover and Vegetation Types Vegetation and ground cover is an important component of biological resources and provides food and shelter for mammals, birds, and other organisms. Identifying the types, amount of vegetation and ground cover provide the ability to measure habitat loss based on project scope. To that end vegetation and ground cover was mapped by identifying plant communities (Figure 4.2-1). Plant communities are identified by dominant plant species, and these associations provide useful habitat information for many animal species and provide an efficient starting point for biological surveys Bio-Environs mapped plant community and associations boundaries by observing and determining dominant plant species and vegetative coverage in different locales within the ASE project area. These boundaries of the plant communities and associated coverage were recorded on maps in the field whereby the majority of species were identified within an identifiable plant community. The field mapped areas were compared to aerial photographs of the project area and the boundaries identified in Figure 4.2-1 were established using GIS,. Based on the survey completed in September 2015, the following cover and plant communities identified in Table 4.2-2 were found in the survey area: 4.2.6 Table 4.2-2 Acres of Vegetation with Survey area Vegetation Types Acreage Airport Pavement Aspen/Oakbrush Graded/Developed 104.0 6.2 47.0 Grassland 1.0 Gravel Pad 2.0 Hawthorne/Oakbrush 6.5 Hay Meadow 28.8 Meadow 3.6 Oakbrush 7.0 Non-wetland Riparian Area 2.6 Sagebrush Sardy Homestead Seeded/Graded Seviceberry/Grass Wetland Area 13.4 4.1 110.0 5.7 4.35 Source: Bio-Environs, 2015 Graded and Developed Areas The bench where ASE exists includes roads, a runway, a taxiway, airport facilities, and other infrastructure; these areas are void of vegetation. Within the survey area, the apron to the south of the runway has been seeded with alfalfa (Medicago sativa). This area comprises approximately 47.0 acres. Seeded/Graded Community Within the west, east, and very south of the survey area, the ground is graded and seeded with a variety of native and non-native species. The area comprises approximately 110.0 acres of the 385-acre survey area (–see Appendix 1, photographs 2 and 3). Species include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii)), wild rye (Elymus trachycaulus), needlegrass (Stipa nelsonii), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), Russian wild rye (Psathyrothacys juncea), aster (Aster sp.), Rocky Mountain penstemon (Penstemon strictus), wild chamomile (Matricaria perforata), whitetop (Cardaria draba), peppergrass (Lepidium sp.), and thistle (Carduus acanthoides). 4.2.7 Hay Meadow At the northwest end of the survey area, approximately 28.8 acres comprises irrigated hay meadow. Mowed grasses including orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) and timothy (Phleum pretense) exist within the hay meadow (–see Appendix 1, photograph 4). Grassland Where the bike path crosses a service road from Owl Creek Road at the southern end of the survey area, a one-acre seeded grassland consisting of giant wild rye (Leymus cinereus) dominates (–see Appendix 1, photograph 5). Sagebrush Several small hills support what appears to be a remnant high mountain sagebrush community (– see Appendix 1, photograph 6). This community type encompasses 13.4 acres within the survey area. Species included in this community are sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata, rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), snowberry (Symphiocarpus rotundifolius), serviceberry, bitterbrush, needlegrasses (Stipa nelsonii and Stipa lettermanni), muttongrass (Poa fendleriana), sedge (Carex sp.), Rocky Mountain penstemon, lupine (Lupinus bakeri), wild buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum), false arabis (Boechera sp.), mariposa (Calochortis gunnisonii), senecio (Senecio sp.), geranium (Geranium viscosissum), desert sandwort (Eremogene congesta), alumroot (Heuchera parviflora), Indian paintbrush (Castilleja sp.), Oregon grape (Mahonia repens), and mule’s ears (Wyethia amplexicaulus). Hawthorn/Oakbrush A hawthorn/oakbrush (Crataegus rivularis/Quercus gambelii), located west of the hay meadow, includes approximately 6.5 acres and slopes upwards. The hawthorn dominates the area east of a ditch that flows north from Owl Creek. Oakbrush dominates to the west of the same ditch, and this community includes Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii), snowberry (Symphiocarpus sp.), gooseberry (Ribes sp.), chokecherry (Padus virginiana), serviceberry, bluegrass, wheatgrass, timothy, and redtop (Agrostis stolonifera). Aspen/Oakbrush To the west of the Sardy homestead, a 6.2-acre area supports aspen and oakbrush. Its adjacency to the homestead likely caused the weedy nature of the community’s understory. While the community supports Wood’s rose, gooseberry, serviceberry, chokecherry, wheatgrass, orchard grass, cow parsnip ((Heracleum maximum), monument plant (Frasera speciosa), it also harbors stands of thistle. 4.2.8 Oakbrush A seven-acre oakbrush community surrounds a portion of the graveled bike trail that traverses west from a gravel pad adjacent to the runways. This community includes oakbrush, snowberry, chokecherry, smooth brome, wheatgrass and thistle. Serviceberry/Grassland Along Owl Creek Road parallel and west of the runways, 5.7 acres of a serviceberry/grassland community exists. Comprised of serviceberry, sagebrush, oakbrush, rabbitbrush, smooth brome and wheatgrasses, this plant community slopes up towards the west (see Appendix 1, photograph 5). Meadow A 3.6-acre meadow situated adjacent to Highway 82 on a bench above the Roaring Fork River in the northeastern corner of the survey area is dominated by upland grasses. Riparian Owl Creek supports an established, 2.3-acre non-wetland riparian area along 2,950 linear feet of stream reach on the east and west sides of the existing runway within the survey area. Another 0.3-acre non-wetland riparian area is associated with ditches south of Owl Creek on the west side of the runway. On the west side of ASE, Owl Creek supports cottonwoods, hawthorn and willows (see Appendix 1, photograph 7). This plant community is similar to the description of the PCA, which includes narrowleaf cottonwoods-blue spruce/alder though no blue spruce is present. On the east side of the runway, Owl Creek, again, supports a similar riparian area. The creek on the east side of the runway is incised and likely does not connect with its floodplain due to the managed nature of the airport operation area (see Appendix 1, photograph 9). Combined with a shallow water table in some areas, Owl Creek supports three acres of wetlands to the west of the runway and operations fence line (see Appendix 1, photograph 8). Tributaries Tributaries 1 and 2, located on the Sardy homestead, are open channels with Tributary 1 being dry and surrounded by grasses (D-1,420 feet long, see Appendix 1, photograph 10 and Figure 4.14-1). Tributary 2 is dry for approximately 40 feet ending in a dug out and ponded area with standing water approximately 3 feet wide and 6 inches deep (D-2, see Appendix 1, photograph 11). Ditches Four ditches (Ditch 1-4) identified in the northwestern portion of the survey area are part of the ASE water system and serve to convey hydrology to various sections of the northwest portion of ASE property to irrigate ranching operations in the area (see Figure 4.14-1). All of these ditches are associated with control features that can be used to calibrate or terminate flows within the ditches. 4.2.9 Ditch 1 (610 LF) is located near the western survey area boundary just north of Owl Creek in the northwestern portion of the survey area. This feature appears to deliver water to the irrigation system that serves the hay meadows in the northwest corner of ASE property. Ditch 2 (1306 LF) runs along the western edge of the hay meadow and appears to convey irrigation waters down gradient towards Owl Creek. Ditch 3 (2,400 LF) flows east from a headgated and culverted area at the crossroads of Owl Creek Road and an ASE service road, then parallels the runways until it joins Owl Creek within the fence line. The upper portion of Ditch 3 supports hawthorn, narrowleaf cottonwood, willow, rushes, manna grass (Glyceria grandis), and sedge. This portion of the ditch is approximately one foot wide by three inches deep. The portion of Ditch 3 that parallels the runway supports cattail (Typha latifolia), manna grass, redtop, and other herbaceous species. This portion of Ditch 3 is three feet wide by eight inches deep. Ditch 4 (306 LF) is a small ditch, one foot wide by one inch deep, that flows northeasterly from a headgate through a grassland/sagebrush area. A portion of this ditch is piped underground to join Ditch 3. Multiple irrigation laterals are also part of the irrigation delivery system located in within the hay meadows in the northwestern portion of the survey area Wetlands Based on the site visit in September 2015 and a wetland delineation that was verified by the USACE in September 2016, three wetland areas totaling 4.35 acres (identified as Wetlands A, B, and C in the wetland delineation report; see Figure 4.14-1) exist within the survey area. The section of Owl Creek considered for piping in the Runway Alternative does not support wetlands; however, the creek itself is considered jurisdictional under current Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance. (The wetland delineation of the survey area is included in Section 4.14 and Appendix 6 – Wetland Delineation. Wetlands are also discussed in Section 4.2.1.2.). Associated with Owl Creek, approximately 3.0 acres of wetlands (Wetland A) exist at the northern end of the survey area (see Appendix 1, photograph 8). The wetlands associated with Owl Creek support narrowleaf cottonwood, Bebb’s willow (Salix bebbiana), beaked sedge and manna grass. The wetland area includes 1890 LF of Owl Creek, which is likely considered a jurisdictional “waters of the US” under current USACE guidance. 4.2.10 The habitat quality and diversity of the Owl Creek wetlands is adequate for birds, deer, small rodents and other species that require water during some part of their life cycle. Wetland A supports quality wetland functions, such as food chain support, streambank stabilization, water quality improvement, flood protection, and maintenance of hydrologic cycle (recharge/discharge to ground water). Wetland B is a 0.05-acre scrub-shrub wetland located along a ditch just north of the operations center. Wetland B includes a dominance of Booth’s willow (Salix boothii) and narrowleaf cottonwood (Populous angustifolia) with an understory comprised of wetland species, such as spreading bent (Agrostis stolinifera) and American brooklime (Veronica Americana). This wetland provides limited habitat and wetland functions due to size and the fact that the hydrology that supports this wetland is controlled as part of the ASE water system and can be initiated or terminated based on ASE’s water needs. Wetland C is an emergent wetland area located at the southern end of the runway. This area was identified in a report provided by Carter & Burgess, Inc. (August 18, 2006) in association with a previous runway expansion and bike path construction. The area totals 1.3 acres and comprises two branches of stream course that enter the area from the south. Drainage from this area is piped underneath ASE facilities. Vegetation supported in Wetland C comprises mostly sedge species (Carex aquatilis, Carex nebrascensis) with the establishment of some cattail (Typha latifolia) (see Appendix 1, photograph 12). Wetland C provides low habitat diversity, low habitat value for fish and wildlife, little in the way of flood protection, some water quality improvement, some bank stabilization, low food chain support, moderate maintenance of the hydrologic cycle, and low quality with respect to food production, educational research, recreation, and heritage. Finally, there is a small constructed detention feature located north of the wetland (see Appendix 1, photograph 14). This pond receives water from the wetland, where it is stored and released to a culvert that likely follows in a northeasterly direction off ASE property. 4.2.11 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.2.12 Legend Aspen City Limits 2016 Airport Property Study Area Airport Business Center Survey Area = 385.0 Airport PVMNT = 104.0 ac Gravel Pad = 2.0 ac Graded/Developed = 47.0 ac Seeded/Graded = 110 ac Grassland = 1.0 ac White Horse Springs Colorado Mountain College Aspen/Oakbrush = 6.2 ac Meadow = 3.6 ac Hay Meadow = 28.8 ac Hawthorne/Oakbrush = 6.5 ac Oakbrush = 7.0 ac Riparian Area = 3.0 ac Sagebrush = 13.4 ac Sardy Homestead = 4.1 ac Seviceberry/grass = 5.7 ac Created Wetlands = 1.3 ac Wetland Area = 3.0 Boundaries_stream course ® Owl Creek Ranch 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Types 4.2-13 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences The proposed projects would impact only a portion of the entire area surveyed. The proposed projects are proposed within a 300.59-acre study area established within the 385.0-acre ASE survey area (see Figure 4.2-1 for survey area and study area delineations). This study area consists of mostly pre-disturbed ground. No listed endangered, threatened, or special status species are commonly found within the study area. The USFWS sent a response letter stating they had no concern on December 3, 2015 (Appendix 2). On August 2, 2017, the FAA sent a letter of determination of No Effect on engendered or threatened species and requested written concurrence (Appendix 2). 4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not require a disruption of land or soil and would therefore not impact any wildlife, vegetation, or wetlands in the area. 4.2.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 have the same construction footprint and are located in an area of ASE consisting of entirely pre-disturbed ground. These alternatives propose redevelopment of the terminal building and terminal area, and include improvements to the apron within an area that contains no undisturbed land and no quality wildlife habitat. Approximately 1.22 acres of seeded/graded habitat may be disturbed along with a portion of planted trees and existing landscaping in association with the terminal (see Table 4.2-3). No wetlands will be disturbed as a part of the Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2. Within the east side footprint, there are no creeks, streams, or rivers, and there is no substantial habitat for fish or animal species. While there are some green areas between the pavements on the east side, it is all frequently disturbed by public and airport related activities. Therefore, there is no quality wildlife habitat that would be affected by these alternatives. The Roaring Fork River, located adjacent to ASE, is clearly separated from the study area via berms, Hwy 82, and other features. No impacts to Federally-threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, or plants is expected. Furthermore, the USFWS concurred with a determination of no affect (Appendix 2). Because there would be no impacts to threatened, endangered, or special status species, and small impacts on habitat that was all previously disturbed, there are no significant impacts related to fish, wildlife, and plants as a result of these alternatives. 4.2.15 Table 4.2-3 Acres of Vegetation Impacted By Alternatives Acres Disturbed Acres Disturbed Terminal Vegetation Types Runway Alternative Alternative 1 and 2 Natural Community Aspen/Oak 0.0 ac 0.0 ac Grassland Hawthorne/Oakbrush Meadow Oakbrush Riparian Sagebrush Serviceberry/Grass Wetland Managed Vegetation Hay Meadow Seeded/Graded Total 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 1.5 ac 0.0 ac 0.1 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 1.5 ac 0.0 ac 0.1 ac 0.0 ac 0.0 ac 20.82 ac 0.0 ac 1.22 ac 0.0 ac 22.04 ac Source: Bio-Environs survey, 2015 Note: Impacts to vegetation from location and movement of construction equipment will be temporary and on predisturbed ground where outside the areas noted above. Areas impacted as a result of construction staging will be revegetated. No equipment or activities employed for staging of construction will occur in wetlands, Owl Creek, other aquatic resource features or natural plant communities. 4.2.2.4 Runway Alternative Airfield improvements associated with the Runway Alternative would result in land disturbing activities that would directly affect biologic resources. Direct impacts include piping of Owl Creek, disturbing natural vegetation, and altering landscaped plants. Managed areas that would be disturbed are primarily the Seeded/Graded areas and a small area of serviceberry/grass. There are no impacts to Hay Meadow and most off the other vegetation in the area. These impacts are described in Table 4.2-3. The Runway Alternative will impact Owl Creek by piping the area within the fence line. Piping consists of placing the channel and its flow within a culvert sized to carry calculated flows. Portions of Owl Creek are already piped within the fenced portion of the survey area. Piping can reduce debris and sediment that may enter an open channel at the piped section. The same effect is achieved with adequately vegetated streambanks that are stabilized with rooted plants. 4.2.16 Water quality will not be impaired where the pipe is placed except during the installation process, when sediment and debris may enter the channel and flow downstream. However, sediment and erosion control methods can reduce impacts during installation. Piping, conversely, will impact vegetation and change an open water system to a terrestrial system. With no access to water, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and invertebrates that once inhabited the area will move downstream or to another riparian system. Approximately 1.5 acres of the narrowleaf cottonwood/alder community that contains no blue spruce would be removed because Owl Creek on the east side of ASE would be piped. Owl Creek’s associated riparian area would be removed, filled, graded, and seeded. The piping of Owl Creek would reduce the exposure of the area within the fence line to run-off, allowing generally reduced sedimentation and storm water impacts in this section of Owl Creek, while eliminating habitat for invertebrates. Due to the channelized nature of Owl Creek within the airport operations fence line, functions of the stream course are limited to the conveyance of waters that originate west of the area across ASE property to the Roaring Fork River. The piping of the creek within the fence will not impact this function as waters will not be obstructed except during construction. The natural or naturalized plant communities that will be disturbed will either be covered by 1) moving or expanding hard surfaces (this is considered to be removal of vegetation); 2) grading and seeding, or 3) trimming of trees and tall vegetation. The hard surface expansion areas will support no vegetation, and therefore, processes associated with carbon sequestration, pollination, wildlife habitat, and precipitation absorption will cease. The graded and seeded areas will be managed to ensure cover of bare ground. Carbon sequestration, precipitation absorption, and pollination processes will remain; however, minimal wildlife habitat will be available. Trimming of trees and tall vegetation, similar to trimming that occurs currently along Owl Creek on the east side of ASE, changes habitat structure and reduces some carbon sequestration. However, precipitation absorption will still occur. Construction impacts to biological resources are limited to those areas altered by removal of vegetation. Actions mentioned in Section 4.2.3 will minimize potential impacts to biological resources. Staging of construction should occur to reduce additional impacts to biological resources particularly vegetation. In addition, the activity and noise associated with construction may cause wildlife including birds to temporarily migrate away from the area. Construction impacts will change the physical landscape and alter plant and wildlife habitat. Disturbance to the managed plant communities will be a combination of removal, grading, and seeding. Interruption of ecological processes such as soil erosion prevention, precipitation absorption, and limitation of wildlife habitat will occur during construction. Some disturbance will be permanent, but other areas will be graded and seeded to account for the shift in the runway. Permanent disturbance where managed plant communities are removed total 22.04 acres. 4.2.17 Impacts to vegetation from location and movement of construction equipment will be temporary. Areas impacted as a result of construction staging will be re-vegetated. No equipment or activities employed for staging of construction will occur in wetlands, Owl Creek, other aquatic resource features or natural plant communities. No impacts on Federally-threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, or plants is expected. Furthermore, in 2015, the USFWS gave a determination of no concerns for this alternative (Appendix 2). On August 2, 2017, the FAA sent a letter of determination of No Effect on engendered or threatened species and requested written concurrence (Appendix 2). Because there would be no impacts to threatened, endangered, or special status species, and small impacts on habitats that were previously disturbed, there are no significant impacts related to fish, wildlife, and plants as a result of this alternative. An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses to resources that cannot be recovered or reversed. Irreversible is a term that describes the loss of future options. The features and characteristics of the development area are primarily predisturbed and are neither rare nor significant. No rare biological resources would be physically altered or destroyed. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 4.2.3 Mitigation and Minimization Although there would not be any significant impacts on biological resources, best management processes (BMPs) and conservation measures would be incorporated into project construction practices to minimize potential impacts to habitats and biota and may include: • • • • BMPs for erosion and sediment control, such as surface protection for slopes, sediment capture, and runoff management; Installation of silt curtains and berms, to the extent possible, to isolate the work area during fill placement to prevent temporary impacts on water quality in Owl Creek; Conducting all work in accordance with permit stipulations (i.e., USACE 404 Permit, Title 41, and State Consistency Determination); Fueling or servicing vehicles or equipment at least 100 feet from any wetlands or waters of the U.S. with the exception of low-mobility equipment; 4.2.18 • Scheduling in-water construction timing to avoid times when most vulnerable species are most likely be present. Mitigation options would be developed for impacts to wetlands associated with Owl Creek, as described in Section 4.14. 4.2.19 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.3 Climate Greenhouse gases (GHG) are those that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are produced both naturally and through anthropogenic sources, and they include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Research indicates that there is a direct link between greenhouse gas emissions and the combustion of fuel. Aircraft emit the same type of air pollutants as automobiles. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that global aircraft emissions account for about 3.5% of the greenhouse gases from human sources.1 In the United States, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data indicate that commercial aviation contributed 6.6% of total CO2 emissions in 2013, compared with other sources, including the remainder of the transportation sector (20.7%), industry (28.8%), commercial (16.9%), residential (16.9%), agricultural (9.7%) and U.S. territories (0.05%)2. The scientific community is developing ways to further examine the effects aviation has on the global atmosphere. The City of Aspen has adopted a program called the Canary Initiative and Canary Action Plan designed to quantify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Aspen's City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan in 2007, which includes a policy to reduce community GHG emissions by 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels. While the City of Aspen does not own or control ASE, nor is ASE in the city limits, visitors to the City do use ASE, which is why they have included aircraft and ground support equipment in their community inventory. ASE’s emissions from buildings and ground access vehicles delivering passengers to/from ASE are also included in the inventory, but not called out separately as airport emissions. Pitkin County is also currently working on a Climate Action Plan and Emissions inventory that also includes ASE. 1 FAA 1050.1E Change 1, Guidance Memo #3. GHG allocation by economic sector. Environmental Protection Agency (2015). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html#fullreport 2 4.3.1 4.3.1 Affected Environment Pitkin County has been preparing inventories of CO2 emissions associated with ASE since 2008 and has actively coordinated with the City of Aspen Canary Initiative on emissions inventories and actions that can be taken to reduce emissions. The most recent airport-wide emissions inventory, following the Airport Cooperative Research Program Report 11 guidance,3 was prepared for the year 2014. Table 4.3-1 lists the 2014 emissions inventory, and shows that total airport-related emissions were approximately 62,326 metric tons of CO2. Of the total airport-related emissions, aircraft represented 83% of total emissions (with the landing and take-off cycle (LTO)4 representing 17.8% and cruise representing 65.6%). The second biggest source of emissions was airline ground support equipment, followed by building energy use (facilities/stationary sources). The FAA’s EDMS tool was used to quantify aircraft emissions for 2015. That quantification found that in 2015, aircraft LTO emissions represented 14,199 metric tons of CO2. The 2014 inventory (Table 4-3.1) reflected an estimated LTO emissions calculated based on the percentage of total airport dispensed fuel to LTO in year 2011. In 2014, there was approximately 5.4 million gallons of Jet A dispensed. This fuel dispensed represents about 51,974 metric tons of CO2. Thus, the greenhouse gas emission in the LTO cycle in 2014, as reflected below in Table 4.31, represents 30% of total aircraft-related greenhouse gases with 70% occurring at cruise. In 2011, and assumed for 2014, aircraft operating in the LTO modes represented 21% of the total aircraft greenhouse gas emissions. This increase in emissions in the LTO is associated with an increase in the operational efficiency of aircraft as they fly between airports and is not a function of ASE’s operating conditions. The most recent greenhouse gas inventory prepared by the USEPA for the United States is for the year 2014. Total US greenhouse gas emissions are noted to be 6,870 million metric tons.5 In the context of total US emissions, the total airport-wide emissions associated with ASE are 0.0009%. 3 ACRP Report 11 Guidance on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2009. The LTO cycle captures aircraft operating below 3,000 feet and includes taxi, takeoff, climbout, and approach. 5 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014 4 4.3.2 Table 4.3-1 Total Airport Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory (2014) User/Source Category Airport-owned/controlled Facilities/Stationary Sources Ground Support Equipment Ground Access Vehicles Subtotal Airlines/Tenants/Aircraft Operator-owned/controlled Aircraft Estimated LTO (taxi, approach, takeoff, climbout) Residual/Cruise/APU Sub-total Aircraft Ground Support Equipment Ground Access Vehicles Stationary Sources Subtotal Public-owned/controlled Passenger Vehicles (off-airport roads) Rental Car Travel (off-airport roads) Hotel Shuttles (off airport roads) Subtotal Total 2014 CO2 (tons/year) 1,350 256 131 1,736 11,059 40,915 51,974 6,295 23 Unknown 58,292 561 1,731 6 2,298 62,326 Source: Synergy Consultants, Inc., March 2015. To equalize the evaluation, the quantity of fuel dispensed in 2015 was obtained to enable a comparison of emissions in the LTO to total aircraft emissions. In 2015, a total of 6,064,282 gallons of Jet A was dispensed and 29,663 gallons of AvGas, resulting in 14,199 tons of CO2 per year for the LTO cycle (compared to 11,059 for 2014). Aspen has experienced notable changes in its air temperature over the last 50 years, making air quality and climate change an important local issue. These changes could affect the ski season and quality of life in the Aspen area. Over the last 50 years, the City of Aspen notes that the frostfree summer period has increased by 27 days from 73 days a year to an average of 109 days per year. In addition, the number of days per year where the temperature falls below zero has dropped by 12 days over the last 50 years. The last freeze comes earlier and earlier each year and the first freeze in the fall arrives 20 days later than it did 50 years ago. Continued increases in 4.3.3 greenhouse gas emissions is projected to potentially end the skiing industry in Aspen in 2100.6 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences There are no significance thresholds for aviation GHG emissions, nor has the FAA identified specific factors to consider in making a significance determination for GHG emissions. There are currently no accepted methods of determining significance applicable to aviation projects given the small percentage of emissions they contribute to global levels. There is a considerable amount of ongoing scientific research to improve understanding of global climate change. Using the modeling effort documented in Section 4.1 Air Quality, the greenhouse gas emissions were calculated for the same future No Action and With Project scenarios. Table 4.3-2 lists the resulting emissions, which exclusively reflect aircraft in the LTO cycle. It is important to note that in this case, the No Action Alternative would result in the loss of commercial jet service at ASE and as a result aircraft emissions from larger aircraft would not occur. However, it is likely that passengers that would not be served in the No Action would drive from other airports to ASE generating greenhouse gas emissions not reflected in this evaluation. 6 City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, 2008 Annual Air Quality and Temperature Report of the City of Aspen; www.aspenpitkin.com/pdfs/ depts/ 44/ 2008airrpt .pdf 4.3.4 Table 4.3-2 Summary of Aircraft Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons per year) Year/Scenario 2015/Existing Conditions 2023 No Action With Terminal Alt 1 or Alt 2 Project-related change (Alt 1 & 2) 2028 No Action – Loss of Jet Service With Terminal Alt 1 or Alt 2 Project-related change (Alt 1 & 2) With Airfield Improvements Project-related change (change denotes loss of jet air service) Project related change to 2015 existing conditions With COMBINED Terminal and Airfield Improvements Project-related change (change denotes loss of jet air service) Project related change to 2015 existing conditions 2033 No Action Loss of Jet Service With Terminal Alt 1 or Alt 2 Project-related change (Alt 1 & 2) With Airfield Improvements Project-related change (change denotes loss of jet air service) Project related change to 2015 existing conditions With COMBINED Terminal and Airfield Improvements Project-related change (change denotes loss of jet air service) Related change to 2015 existing conditions CO2 14,199 14,711 14,684 -27 12,860 12,841 -29 14,370 +1,510 +171 14,347 +1,487 +148 11,117 11,103 -14 16,743 +5,626 +2,544 16,714 +5,597 +2,515 Source: BridgeNet Consulting, May 5, 2017. 4.3.5 4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action, the proposed projects would not occur. Therefore, no project-related construction would occur, or the associated construction greenhouse gas emissions. However, total airport activity is expected to continue to evolve over time. As is shown by comparing the 2015 emissions to the future No Action emissions noted in Table 4.3-2, aircraft greenhouse gas emissions in the LTO cycle are expected to increase slightly between 2015 and 2023 (from 14,199 in 2015 to 14,711 in 2023), but begin decreasing from 2028 through 2033 with the No Action. However, in the context of total airport-related emissions and worldwide emissions, these changes are not substantial. In addition, the No Action would result in a significant curtailment of commercial air service over time as airlines retire aircraft that meet the current wingspan limitation at ASE. 4.3.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 With implementation of the proposed terminal improvements, there would be construction emissions, and then upon completion of the project, operating emissions. The following paragraphs discuss these emissions. Construction Emissions: The same methods and input assumptions described in Section 4.1.3.2 were used to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions. The evaluation shows that the total quantity of greenhouse gas emissions to complete construction of a replacement terminal would be approximately 5,340 metric tons of CO2. Assuming 50% of the emissions occur in a peak construction year, those emissions would be 2,670 metric tons of CO2. Operational Emissions: Once construction is completed, aircraft would taxi to a location that is about 193 feet less on average than the current terminal location. This lower taxi distance would produce 27 to 29 metric tons less of CO2 on an annual basis over the timeframes evaluated. There would also be a decrease in the energy use per square foot based on increased efficiencies of the new terminal. However, since there would be an increase in the overall square footage, the change in energy use and thus greenhouse gases related to the terminal would not result in a significant change. 4.3.2.3 Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative airfield evaluation identified emissions associated with construction of the project and operation of the proposed runway improvements. Construction Emissions: Construction of the airfield improvement projects would generate about 5,385 metric tons of CO2 emissions, which is expected to occur between 2023-2027. Assuming 50% of the emissions occur in a single year, approximately 2,693 metric tons of CO2 would be 4.3.6 emitted during the peak construction year. Operational Emissions: Once construction is completed, the airfield operation will change slightly, including a slight change in aircraft moving around on the airfield. The airfield changes would result in an increase of about 160 feet in taxi for aircraft in addition to a change in aircraft fleet mix as described in Chapters 1 and 2, including the addition of newer generation regional jets. As noted in Table 4.3-2, the proposed airfield projects would increase emissions relative to the No Action by 1,510 metric tons of CO2 in 2028 and 5,626 metric tons of CO2 in 2033. It is important to note that, while this increase might appear substantial, it does not capture that when comparing the two scenarios (No Action to With Project), the No Action condition essentially reflects a loss of commercial airline service to ASE, which has notable other consequences as reflected in this EA. Those passengers that would not be served by flights to ASE would fly to another nearby city (likely Denver) and drive to Aspen. In addition, the tools available to examine greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft do not reflect the programs and policies that have been adopted to reduce greenhouse gases from aviation nor do they include the aircraft that is expected to operate at Aspen (the Bombardier CS100 series aircraft). The commercial airlines have adopted a policy referred to as carbon neutral growth post 2020 that is focused on international aviation, but which will have some influence over emissions from domestic activity.7 The airlines have committed to reducing their fuel use and associated greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5% per year through 2020, and then to achieve carbon neutral growth post 2020. Bombardier has noted that the CS100 series aircraft are expected to consume 20% less energy that existing aircraft serving the same flight mission.8 Thus, the With Project emissions for that aircraft in the evaluation performed for this EA are likely overstated by 20%. Per the Air Transport Action Group “The new…. Bombardier C Series aircraft use less than 3 liters of jet fuel per 100 passenger kilometers. This matches the efficiency of most modern compact cars.”9As noted earlier, the FAA has not adopted a threshold of significance relative to greenhouse gases. However, in the context of the construction and operational project-related emissions and total US greenhouse gas emissions, total airport related emissions with the proposed airfield improvements are very small and thus not expected to be significant. 4.3.2.4 With Project Combined Terminal and Runway Alternatives The With Project combined terminal and airfield projects evaluation identified emissions associated with construction of the two projects (2018-2022 for the terminal and 2023-2027 for the airfield projects) and the operational emissions with both projects commissioned. 7 International Air Transport Association (IATA), http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2009-06-0803.aspx 8 http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/multimedia-gallery/details.bombardier-aerospace-cseriescustomers-operators-cs100.html 9 http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html 4.3.7 Construction Emissions: Completion of the combined terminal and airfield improvement projects are not expected to overlap. Therefore, the combined analysis will be the same as the individual analyses above. Operational Emissions: Once construction is completed, both projects will slightly change the distance, somewhat offsetting one another. The airfield project will have a notable effect on the aircraft fleet operating at ASE, which will have the biggest effect on greenhouse gas emissions. As noted in Table 4.3-2, the proposed combined terminal and airfield projects would increase emissions relative to the No Action by 1,487 metric tons of CO2 in 2028 and 5,597 metric tons in 2033. Similar to the prior section that discusses the airfield project alone, with both the terminal and airfield projects, it is important to note that the comparison of the With Combined Projects to the No Action reflects that in the No Action, a significant curtailment of the commercial airline service would occur. As was noted earlier, the assumptions in the modeling likely overstate by 20% the emissions from with CS100 series aircraft that would be expected to operate at ASE. In the context of the construction and operational project-related emissions and total US greenhouse gas emissions, total airport related emissions with the proposed combined terminal and airfield improvements are very small and thus not expected to be significant. 4.3.3 Mitigation and Minimization As described in Section 4.3.2.4, the two proposed projects are not expected to produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. Pitkin County has implemented actions at ASE designed to reduce energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions, and with the proposed projects, expects to continue to reduce energy use. In addition, ASE staff have been actively working with the City of Aspen Canary Initiative to identify measures in which ASE can contribute to regional greenhouse gas reduction. Pitkin County anticipates voluntarily implementing actions, which may include: • • • • Improvements related to updated building codes: New terminal will meet current building code (which will be substantially more energy efficient than the 1971 terminal that it will replace); Development of key partnerships: The County is exploring potential partnerships with Rocky Mountain Institute (as part of the design committee); Integration of energy efficient design: Consideration of energy efficiencies in building design, and when selecting materials and energy sources (i.e., renewable and geothermal energy sources); Incorporation of airside improvements: Improve airside geometry (i.e., ramp configuration), which currently has sloping pavement – making this flat will improve push in and push out of aircraft; 4.3.8 • • Sustainable Construction Management Plan: Use of energy-efficient methods throughout the construction period; and Incorporation of energy efficient lighting: The County strives to maximize the use of natural lighting, LEDs and other energy reducing technologies in the terminal and other airport facilities. In addition, Pitkin County will explore obtaining FAA Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) funding to help incorporate energy efficiency elements into the new terminal, including but not limited to preconditioned air and ground power units. The installation of preconditioned air and ground power to enables airlines to reduce their use of auxiliary power units, which would contribute to reducing aircraft energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. They can also consider other grants to assist with energy efficiency projects such as under Section 512 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (FRMA) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (Section 138 of the Airport Improvement Program), as well as potential local grants such as the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE). Funding to support energy efficient, airport power sources may be available through the FAA Airport Improvement Program, and Airport Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) grants may also be available. 4.3.9 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.4 Coastal Resources Coastal Resources include all natural resources occurring within and near coastal waters and shore lands. Effects on coastal resources are assessed based upon requirements defined in the Coastal Resources Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection. The Pacific Coast is the closest coast to the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, and is located approximately 700 miles away. Because the state of Colorado is not within a Coastal Zone Management Zone, neither of the Terminal Alternatives nor the Runway Alternative would adversely impact coastal zone resources or coastal barriers. 4.4.1 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.5 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (recodified and renumbered as section 303[c] of 49 U.S.C.), from here on referred to as Section 4(f), provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of National, State, or Local significance or land from a historic site of National, State, or Local significance, as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such project includes all possible planning to minimize impact. The project also needs comply with Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund which applies to publicly owned land if the property was acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation Fund program. 4.5.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for Section 4(f) resources includes the area directly affected by the projects (the disturbance footprint), as well as the area within the 65 day-night average noise level (DNL) and greater noise contour. The closest Colorado State Park to ASE is the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, located about 40 driving miles east of Aspen. In addition, the White River National Forest lies east of ASE on the eastern side of the Roaring Fork River. There are also several areas of designated open space near ASE. Cozy Point South Open Space, located east of Highway 82 and Brush Creek (3 miles north of ASE), consists of 129 acres of land. Cozy Point Open Space, located west of Highway 82 and Brush Creek (3 miles north of ASE), includes 205 acres of open space land. Both open space parcels are located north of the Bluffs and ASE. The closest school is the Colorado Mountain College on the eastern side of Highway 82 (approximately 0.5 miles east of ASE). The nearest site that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is the Airport Ranch, located on the western edge of the ASE fence line, on ASE property (see Section 4.8). The North 40 neighborhood owns and/or operates three parks that are located east of the Airport Business Center across Highway 82. The largest of these parks, North 40 Park, is privately owned and operated by the North 40 HOA; therefore, this park is not considered a Section 4(f) resource. Section 4(f) only applies to publicly owned parks. The two smaller parks, Children’s Memorial Park and Chuck Brandt Park, are located on the far east side of the North 40 development approximately 0.2 miles east of ASE. These two parks are located on parcels that are owned by Pitkin County, but the parks are operated by the North 40 HOA. The three North 40 parks are also discussed in the compatible land use section of the EA (Section 4.9). The next closest public park/playground is Harmony Park on the east side of ASE in Burlingame (approximately 0.5 mile east of ASE). The closest golf course is the Maroon Creek Golf Course (1.1 miles south of ASE), however it is a privately owned and operated facility, so it is not considered a Section 4(f) resource. The closest public recreational use to the west side of ASE (nearest the Runway 4.5.1 Realignment project) is the Owl Creek Bike Path, which runs along Owl Creek Road on the western edge of ASE, and then crosses through ASE property on the south side of ASE. This path is owned and maintained by Pitkin County. The Airport Business Center (ABC) Trail is the closest Section 4(f) resource on the east side of ASE (nearest the Terminal Area Projects). The ABC Trail is located east of ASE, and is linked to Owl Creek Bike Path and ASE via two separate underpasses. The ABC Trail is a paved path that links to other trails and ultimately leads into the City of Aspen. There are additional bike paths (such as the Airline Trail) that lie west of ASE on the northern end. The trails can be seen in Figure 4.5-1. None of the recreation properties in Figure 4.5-1 are Section 6(f) properties (i.e. properties acquired or developed using funding assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund). There are five properties within Pitkin County that have used funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund including Iselin Park (2.7 miles away), Glory Hole Park (4.4 miles away), Aspen Trail System (4 miles away ), North Star Ranch (5.6 miles away) and Wingo Junction Train Crossing (16 miles away). However, none of these properties are within the study area; the closest being the Iselin Park, 2.7 miles away. Therefore, Section 6(f) is not discussed further. 4.5.2 Bru sh Cre ek Ro ad SOURCE : Google Map Data, 2016. White Horse Springs Airport Boundary 82 Starwood 15 Airline Trial Owl Creek Ranch Owl ad k Ro Cree Aspen Airport Business Center Airport Business Center Trial Owl Creek Bike Trial 33 82 N 0 Owl Creek Road Aspen 500’ 1,000’ 1,500’ 2,000’ 2,500’ Graphic Scale in Feet Figure 4.5-1 Bike Paths within Airport Vicinity 4.5.3 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences Based on the Affected Environment described above analyzed under Section 4(f) and 6(f) requirements, the following sections describe the anticipated environmental impacts, if any, for each of the alternatives. There are three “uses” of Section 4(f) resources that are considered: • Physical Use: Actual physical taking of a Section 4(f) property, physical occupation of all or portion of the property, or alteration of structures or facilities located on the property. • Temporary Use: Temporary use of a Section 4(f) resource that is adverse. • Constructive Use: Direct or indirect impacts that substantially impair the activities, features and/or attributes of a Section 4(f) resource. This means that the value of the Section 4(f) resource, in terms of its prior significance and enjoyment, is substantially reduced or lost as a result of the proposed project. 4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative: Because there would be no direct impacts related to the No Action, no historic properties, public recreational resources, or other Section 4(f) lands would be directly affected. However, the No Action Alternative would result in a change in noise due to a change in fleet mix over time. As shown in Table 3-1 (Alternatives), jet air carrier aircraft will be phased out over time. This would alter the fleet mix, with a slow phase out of CRJ-700 aircraft. In the future, air carrier operations will be limited to turboprop activity, paired with an increase in GA charter jet operations to account for the reduction in service via the air carriers. However, as discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, there would not be any significant impacts to Section 4(f) resources as this area is already subject to aircraft noise. 4.5.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2: Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 both contain the same disturbance footprint on the east side of the airport, which is an entirely pre-disturbed site. No historic sites, schools, or other Section 4(f) resources would be impacted. The closest recreational resource to the terminal improvements is the Airport Business Trail, which runs along the eastern side of Highway 82 and is connected to ASE via an underpass. Neither this trail nor the underpass would be affected by the Terminal Alternatives. The site plans for the terminal alternatives involve creating a better link to this underpass to allow better pedestrian access to the terminal in the future. Therefore, improvements associated the terminal alternatives could result in a benefit to Section 4(f) resources. During construction of the Terminal Alternatives, temporary impacts could occur to the underpasses that access the terminal from the Airport Business Trail. However, these would be temporary and not significant. 4.5.4 4.5.2.3 Runway Alternative Owl Creek Bike Path is the closest Section 4(f) resource to the proposed runway improvements and would need to be slightly relocated as part of the project. The Runway Alternative would require approximately 1,657 linear feet of the Owl Creek Bike Path to be shifted to the west by between 13 feet and 58 feet (Figure 4.5-2). Construction associated with the relocation of the trail would result in a temporary impact. ASE conducted coordination with users/owners of the bike path and found that the relocation of the bike path would not constitute a negative effect on the bike path, its uses, or its users (See letter in Appendix 4). As shown in Table 3-1 (Alternatives), the shift in the runway to meet FAA design standards would allow D-III aircraft to fly into ASE. This change in fleet mix would comprise a slow phase out of CRJ-700 aircraft, which would likely be replaced by a mix of next generation regional jets such as the CS100. Additionally, the analysis accounts for some 737 operations. Noise contours would shift slightly due to the change in fleet mix and the 80-foot runway shift, resulting in the 65 DNL noise contour being over areas of Airport Ranch, a historically eligible property on the west side of ASE. The Airport Ranch is currently on ASE property and subject to the noise and activity associated with airport use, and the slight change in the noise contours would not result in significant impacts to this resource, as described in Section 4.8. Further, changes in noise levels wouldn’t be considered new intrusions as there is already current air traffic noise. The 65 DNL noise contour already encompasses portions of the Owl Creek Bike Path. Because this bike path is currently subject to this level of noise associated with ASE, the slight shift in noise would not substantially impair the use of this resource. Additionally, as stated above, ASE conducted coordination with owners of the bike path and found that the relocation of the bike path would not constitute a negative effect on the bike path, its uses, or its users (See letter in Appendix 4). During construction, there would be temporary access restrictions to Owl Creek Bike Path during construction of the project and throughout the relocation of the section of bike path. It is anticipated that the bike path will be shut during construction of a retaining wall, but there is likely room in the CDOT ROW to either build a temporary bike path or allow users to use the road for a small section to minimize impacts. Construction is estimated to be about 6-9 months but with phasing and temporary routing, the bike path and/or road should be able to remain open during the majority of this time to minimize impacts. While Owl Creek may be closed for minor durations, these impacts would be temporary and would not be significant. Additionally, adequate notice will be provided prior to closure of the trail. Therefore, there would not be any significant impacts on any Section 4(f) resources as a result of this alternative. 4.5.5 The FAA has determined that the proposed project will result in a de minimis impact to the Owl Creek Bike Path. A de minimis impact is one that, after taking into account any measures to minimize harm (such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation or enhancement measures), results in a determination that the project would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes qualifying the resource for protection under Section 4(f). The FAA has informed Pitkin County of the intent to make a de minimis impact determination. The public is encouraged to provide comments to the FAA on the proposed de minimis finding. The FAA will make a final determination after considering comments from Pitkin County and the public and this determination will be included in the Final EA. 4.5.3 Minimization and Mitigation: While there are no mitigation measures specifically implemented for this resource, best management practices, such as including a better link to trails as a result of the proposed projects, would be employed to reduce overall impacts of the project. Additionally, as noted above, the Owl Creek Bike Path and Road relocation will be phased to minimize closures of the bike path to allow access during the construction. 4.5.6 . . .. ,..JPERIMETER ROAD BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT -, 'r uu?u?I?j I ??unnln?hlnwuln?.1. Li" ..1- 4w - . O-WL ROAD BIKE PATH .. . ?9 REALIGNMENT I O. FUTURE FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RAIL CORRIDOR . . . . . . . ROADWAYSETBACK POTENTIALTRAIL COUNTY AIRPORT -PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Figure 4.5-2 Bike Path and Owl Creek Road Relocation 4.5.7 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.6 Farmlands Farmlands are defined as those agricultural areas considered important and protected by Federal, state, and local regulations. Important farmlands include all pasturelands, croplands, and forests considered to be prime, unique, or of statewide or local importance. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), a subtitle of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, was passed by Congress with the intent to “...minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses...” (P.L. 97-98, Sec. 1539-1549; 7 U.S.C. 4201, et seq.). Consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) can be necessary to determine if the FPPA applies to any land to be converted from non-agricultural use as a result of the proposed action. As defined in FPPA, “farmland” includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. It is important to note that the FPPA states that farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can include forest land, pastureland, cropland, but not land committed to water storage or development. 4.6.1 Affected Environment To determine whether prime or unique farmland soils or farmland soils of statewide or local importance are present in the proposed project area, data was downloaded from the 2016 USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey Geographic Database. Figure 4.6-1, Farmlands Soil Survey, shows that soils in the project area are classified as having no association with farmlands. The study area is defined as the area of disturbance for the projects. According to the NRCS soil survey, none of land within the project area is considered to be protected farmland. 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences According to the NRCS soil survey, land located within the proposed project area is not considered to be prime or unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance. Therefore, none of the alternatives would have an adverse impact on farmlands. 4.6.3 Minimization and Mitigation No prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide or local importance would be affected as a result of the Proposed Action. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.6.1 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1200' AY HW 82 HIG LEGEND STUDY AREA FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE POTENTIAL TRAIL Prime Farm Lands (None within study area) Statewide Importance Farm Lands (None within study area) AREA1.dwg 4 Figure 800' 1ST 400' SITE 200' D:\cad-e\ASPEN\C-1 0' Xref N Local Importance Farm Lands (None within study area) Dollard-Rock outcrop shale complex 25 to 65 percent slopes Jerry-Millerlake loams 6 to 25 percent slopes Jodero loam 1 to 12 percent slopes Kobar silty clay loam 1 to 6 percent slopes Kobar silty clay loam 6 to 12 percent slopes Kobar silty clay loam 12 to 25 percent slopes Morval loam 1 to 6 percent slopes Morval loam 6 to 25 percent slopes Tooirh trenstC -amboh trdisR-ockoucto rpcompelx6o t65pecrent Uracca moist-Mergel complex 1 to 6 percent slopes Uracca moist-Mergel complex 6 to 12 percent slopes Uracca moist-Mergel complex 25 to 65 percent slopes RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK Figure 4.6-1 FarmlandsSoilSurvey 4.6.2 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.7 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention Hazardous materials, also referred to as dangerous goods, are any solid, liquid, or gas that can harm people, other living organisms, property or the environment. These materials may be radioactive, flammable, explosive, toxic, corrosive, a biohazard, an oxidizer, an asphyxiate, a pathogen, an allergen or may have other properties or characteristics that deem it hazardous in specific circumstances. Four primary federal laws have been passed governing the handling and disposal of hazardous materials, chemicals, substances, and wastes. The statutes most relevant to airports and the FAA in proposing actions to construct and operate facilities and navigational aids are:     The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (as amended by the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992), governs the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments The Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA or Superfund), provides for consultation with natural resources trustees and cleanup of any release of a hazardous substance (excluding petroleum) into the environment. The Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) keeps detailed information on businesses dealing with hazardous materials, water discharge, Superfund sites, toxic releases and air emissions. Handling and disposal of hazardous materials is strictly regulated by federal, state and local agencies. Solid Waste is defined by the implementing regulations of RCRA generally as any discarded material that meets specific regulatory requirements, and can include such items as refuse and scrap metal, spent materials, chemical by-products, and sludge from industrial and municipal waste water and water treatment plants (see 40 CFR § 261.2 for the full regulatory definition). Pollution prevention describes methods used to avoid, prevent, or reduce pollutant discharges or emissions through strategies such as using fewer toxic inputs, redesigning products, altering manufacturing and maintenance processes, and conserving energy. The Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§13101-13109) requires pollution prevention and source reduction to reduce the impact waste has on the environment while in use and after disposal. 4.7.1 4.7.1 Affected Environment Hazardous Materials: According to the EPA, there are no Superfund sites or EPA Cleanups on ASE property.1 However, there are a few sites located on and near ASE that are permitted as small generators of hazardous wastes.2 Small hazardous waste generators are expected to generate less than 100 kilograms of hazardous material per month. These generators are identified as low risk and generally include materials, such as fuel, oil, paint, pesticides, and fertilizers. The one actively permitted small generator on ASE property is the Aspen Base Operation, which is located near the Fixed Base Operator. No other hazardous waste sites have been identified. Solid Waste: ASE generates municipal type solid waste and other wastes associated with the operation and maintenance of general aviation aircraft. Aspen’s waste management system separates waste streams so that materials that can be recycled are captured and remaining materials are properly disposed. The Pitkin County Landfill is located at mile marker 32 along Colorado Highway 82 in nearby Snowmass, between the Aspen Village and Brush Creek traffic signals. This facility accepts both municipal solid waste and non-municipal solid waste (such as construction and demolition waste). Rio Grand Place Recycling center is located next to the skate park, off Rio Grand Place, in Aspen. There are also waste management transfer stations in Basalt and Glenwood Springs, approximately 15 and 27 miles away respectively. Pitkin County residents receive free indoor compost collection bins from the city of Aspen. Evergreen Events offers curbside collection of organic materials. In 2013, Colorado outlawed illegal electronic waste, defined as items that plug in for power or use batteries, as these items can leak toxic materials. A Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan for the Roaring Fork Valley was created in April 2016 for Pitkin County and the City of Aspen. This report indicated that the existing solid waste facility had a remaining lifespan of about 15 years.3 This area could be expanded but only in a limited capacity. The plan included several preliminary options for increasing recycling diversion from the waste stream, and will be creating a 10-year strategy for recommendations. There are also several down valley landfills, several of which are in Glenwood Springs. ASE also has an existing Sustainable Construction Management Plan that addresses reducing waste, particularly construction/demolition waste. 1 Environmental Protection Agency, https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/cimc/f?p=CIMC:73::::71:P71_WELSEARCH:CO%7CState%7CCO%7C%7C%7Ctrue%7Ctrue %7Ctrue%7Ctrue%7Ctrue%7Ctrue%7C%7C-1%7Csites%7CN%7Cbasic, accessed July 2016. 2 Environmental Protection Agency, Enviromapper, https://map11.epa.gov/myem/efmap/index.html?ve=13,39.19002151489258,-106.81817626953125&pText=Aspen,%20CO, accessed July 2016. 3 Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan, Phase 1, prepared for Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, Weaver Consultants Group/LBA Associates, April 13, 2016. 4.7.2 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences The sections below explain what, if any, environmental consequences are anticipated as a result of each alternative. Recommendations to prevent or mitigate these temporary impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.3. 4.7.2.1 No Action Alternative This alternative would not require any disruption of land or soil and would not generate hazardous wastes or additional pollution. This alternative also would not lead to a change in volume of the existing solid waste. 4.7.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 Hazardous Materials: As stated above, there are no hazardous waste sites (such as Superfund or other hazardous waste clean-up sites) on ASE property. The terminal alternatives would occur on pre-disturbed land with no known hazardous waste sites impacted. There is one small hazardous waste generator on ASE property. Small hazardous waste generators are expected to generate less than 100 kilograms of hazardous material per month. These generators are identified as low risk; however, these sites would not be impacted by the Terminal Alternatives. Construction activities can sometimes generate hazardous wastes and some construction materials consist of hazardous substances, such as fuel, oil, lubricants, paints, solvents, concretecuring compounds, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. The contractor would be required to implement proper practices that would minimize or prevent the release of hazardous substances into the environment. Any hazardous waste materials generated during construction of the terminal alternatives would be sent to an appropriately permitted facility. Pollution Prevention: One concern for hazardous materials are associated with construction, when subsurface contamination may be encountered as part of construction or post-construction operations. ASE implements several best management practices to address pollution prevention initiatives. These include maintaining and updating a site-specific spill prevention control and countermeasure plan, storm-water pollution control plan, and properly handling and storing hazardous materials. Waste material, such as chemicals, petroleum-based products, and solid and liquid waste, would be stored in areas specifically designed to prevent discharge into storm water runoff. Storage areas used for toxic materials can be designed with full enclosure in mind. For example, a dike could be built to prevent potential spills from spreading outside the storage area. In addition, construction equipment maintenance would be performed in a designated area. Other control measures, such as drip pans to contain petroleum products would be used during the project. Any spills would be cleaned up immediately and disposed of properly. These construction impacts would be temporary and not significant. 4.7.3 Solid Waste: There would be an increase in square footage intended to match current passenger needs. The alternative itself would not result in additional waste creation because it will match the existing passenger demand. The Terminal Alternatives would not create additional solid waste streams in the long term. Construction activities would create temporary increases in construction and demolition waste. However, this increase would be short-term and would not put undue strain on land disposal services, as the facility still has a 15-year lifespan. These construction activities would be temporary, non-significant and reduced through best management practices. Additionally, use of ASE’s Sustainable Construction Management Plan would help reduce the temporary construction solid waste impacts. Pitkin County provides large recycling containers for the collection of cans, bottles, office paper, and newspapers inside ASE buildings and this would be extended into the new terminal building. The staff at ASE is responsible for the collection of the recyclable materials. Solid waste at ASE is collected by a private company contracted by the County. It is disposed of in the Pitkin County Landfill, located roughly four miles north/northwest of ASE. 4.7.2.3 Runway Alternative As stated in the Terminal Alternatives, the Runway Alternative would occur on pre-disturbed ground, and contains no known hazardous material sites. ASE improvements would not result in notable increases in the generation or handling of hazardous materials or solid wastes. There is a potential for a temporary increase of solid waste as a result of construction of the proposed action. Construction activities would be temporary and non-significant in nature, and would not put undue strain on the landfill, particularly due to use of ASE’s Sustainable Construction Management Plan, the purpose of which is to reduce construction impacts, including the generation of solid waste and pollution prevention. There is also a potential for removal of fill from the site to account for compliant safety areas. Per the Sustainable Construction Management Plan, the contractor could work to find suitable re-use for this fill in the area. If such a re-use is not found, the contractor would likely need to truck it to a disposal site down valley. 4.7.3 Mitigation and Minimization The Terminal Alternatives and the Runway Alternative would not generate hazardous materials, nor would they create hazardous waste. ASE implements several best management practices to address pollution prevention initiatives. These include maintaining and updating a site-specific spill prevention control and countermeasure plan, storm-water pollution control plan, and properly handling and storing hazardous materials. 4.7.4 No significant adverse impacts related to solid waste are expected, as the impacts on construction waste are temporary. However, because the landfill is expected to reach capacity within 15 years, it is important to examine ways to reduce the amount of construction waste generated by the project. As stated above, ASE has a Sustainable Construction Management Plan with a goal that includes a reduction in the amount of construction waste generated at ASE. This plan would be implemented during construction to reduce the temporary construction impacts such as pollution prevention, and to address both solid waste and best management practices for hazardous wastes. If the landfill is unable to accept construction waste, the contractor would need to truck the materials to another facility, such as the Waste Management facility in Carbondale. 4.7.5 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.8 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) govern the preservation of historic and prehistoric resources, encompassing art, architecture, archaeological, and other cultural resources. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of an undertaking on properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or that are eligible for listing on the NRHP before a project or a permit may be approved. The responsible Federal agency first determines whether it has an undertaking that is a type of activity that could affect historic properties. Historic properties are properties that are included in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. If the undertaking has the potential to affect historic properties, the Federal agency then defines the Area of Potential Effect (APE) in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The APE is then reviewed to identify any potential historical resources. If no historic properties are present, then the Federal agency submits this information to the SHPO for their concurrence. Additional analyses are required if historic properties are identified to determine if the undertaking will impact the property. 4.8.1 Affected Environment For this project, the APE generally follows the ASE property boundary and is specially focused on the eastern terminal area and the western edge of the existing runway. The project area initially included some ASE-owned parcels on the east side of Highway 82. However, due to scope refinements, no project activities are currently proposed for these parcels and they are considered outside the APE. An archaeological survey was conducted on the parcels prior to scope refinements and has been included in Appendix 3 for informational purposes only. Figure 4.8-1 illustrates the APE with an overlay of the expected projects. 4.8.1 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.8.2 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT 225' 450' 900' 1350' � D AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) 307.0ACRES FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION � SUPPORT AREA --- AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE EXCESSIVE SLOPE VISUAUNOISE BUFFER RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 4.8-1 Area of Potential Effect (APE) 4.8.3 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A records search of the NRHP indicated that there are 36 historically significant sites within Pitkin County1. The Maroon Creek Bridge is the closest National Register-listed historic resource to the APE. This bridge spans Maroon Creek approximately one mile southeast of the project area. The majority of the other 35 sites are located within the City of Aspen proper, south of ASE property, and all are located outside the project area. In addition to the records search, a Cultural Resources Survey was completed in September 2015 to encompass the entire ASE property. The 2015 Cultural Resources Survey reviewed all properties at ASE including buildings, hangars, and offices related to operations at ASE. The National Register-eligible Airport Ranch (5PT.538) was the only historic property identified within the study area. The Airport Ranch, which was determined eligible in 1988, consists of approximately 463 acres, and retains its nine contributing buildings and structures. Its boundaries are the ASE boundary to the east, the 7,800-foot contour line to the west, Owl Creek Road to the South, and a row of trees to the north. The Airport Ranch is located on the west side of ASE property. The ranch is outside the secured area fence, which surrounds the perimeter separating ASE from the ranch property, and therefore, is located outside the APE. No other properties were found to meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation within the APE, and none are over 50 years old or possess architectural or historical significance. Most of ASE property is pre-disturbed, and previous archeological surveys have not identified any sites that are eligible for the National Register (See summary in Appendix 3). Previous surveys of ASE indicated that there were no archaeological resources of concern. 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences 4.8.2.1 No Action The No Action Alternative would result in no development activities. Therefore, no direct impacts relative to archaeological, architectural, cultural, or historic sites would occur. 4.8.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 With Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2, the existing terminal would be torn down. As stated in the Cultural Resources Survey, none of the existing buildings that would be affected by the terminal area projects are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. All terminal projects occur on the east side of ASE and would not affect the Airport Ranch, which is on the west side of ASE property. The FAA issued a No Historic Properties Affected finding on November 17, 2016. “National Register of Historic Places: Weekly List Actions". National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved on June 16, 2016 .https://www.nps.gov/nr/nrlist.htm 1 4.8.5 The Colorado SHPO requested additional information on the Airport Ranch in relation to the proposed projects. The FAA provided this information in an updated No Historic Properties Affected finding on January 31, 2017. The SHPO concurred with the finding in a letter dated February 6, 2017. Construction impacts are distinguished from other impacts as those short-term sources of potential effects, such as noise, air quality, access, and vibration, which would only occur during the construction phase of the proposed project. There are no known historic or archeological resource sites that would be affected by such construction impacts. The closest resource (Airport Ranch) is not considered sensitive to potential impacts from noise or air quality. If any unanticipated discoveries occur during construction activity, work in that area will stop immediatelyand both the FAA and the Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation will be contacted. 4.8.2.3 Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative shifts the runway and nearby Owl Creek Road. However, it would not impact the closest historic resource, Airport Ranch, which is outside the disturbance footprint for this project (See Figure 4.8-1). The 80-foot lateral shift of the runway would cause a shift in noise contours 80 feet closer to the Airport Ranch. However, since Airport Ranch is currently on ASE property and it is subject to the noise and activity associated with that use, it would not change the character of the property. Further, changes in noise levels wouldn’t be considered new intrusions; as current air traffic noise already exisits. This means there would be no significant impact relative to historic properties. The FAA issued a No Historic Properties Affected finding on November 17, 2016. The Colorado SHPO requested additional information on the Airport Ranch in relation to the proposed projects. The FAA provided this information in an updated No Historic Properties Affected finding on January 31, 2017. The SHPO concurred with the finding in a letter dated February 6, 2017. If any unanticipated discoveries occur during construction activity, work in that area will immediately stop and the FAA and the Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation will both be contacted. 4.8.6 4.8.3 Minimization and Mitigation No significant adverse effects on historical, architectural, cultural, or archaeological resources that are listed on the NRHP, or are eligible for listing on the NRHP, have been identified for any of the proposed alternatives. As such, no mitigation is necessary for these resources. The inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or cultural resources is always a possibility. In such case, the FAA’s standard protocols for the treatment of unanticipated discoveries during construction would apply. These protocols include measures for stopping construction if discoveries are made; having qualified archaeologists or other appropriate professionals examine the discovery; and consultation by the FAA with the SHPO, federally recognized tribes, and other parties as relevant to the specific nature of the discovery. During construction, the Airport Ranch will be avoided and identified as a protected area to ensure no staging or disturbance will occur to this area. 4.8.7 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.8.8 4.9 Land Use Aviation-related land use planning is integral to safe, sustainable operations. Ensuring compatibility requires an analysis of how the airport functions within the community and how the community can be impacted by the airport. Section 1502.16(c) of the CEQ Regulations requires the discussion of environmental impacts including “possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned.” The FAA requires airport operators to ensure that actions are taken to establish and maintain compatible land uses around airports. Note that the study area analyzed for land use in this environmental assessment encompasses a larger area than the direct disturbance in order to incorporate local City of Aspen and Pitkin County land use planning considerations. 4.9.1 Affected Environment The proposed projects would occur almost entirely on ASE property. The only work off ASE property is along Owl Creek to the northeast (which is located within Colorado Department of Transportation [CDOT] right-of-way). 4.9.1.1 Existing Land Use The major land uses in the ASE environs include government/institutional (primarily ASE itself), open space/recreational, agricultural, and residential uses. Much of the area surrounding ASE is developed. The Airport Business Center (ABC), a mixed-use commercial/light industrial/residential complex, is located directly east of the ASE terminal area. The closest school to ASE is the Colorado Mountain College (CMC), which is located directly across Highway 82 in the North 40 Subdivision. There is a large area of open space associated with the North 40 residential development immediately east of ASE, which provides a buffer between ASE and residential uses of the North 40 development and other residential developments farther east. The North 40 development is the closest residential development to ASE and it includes deed 72 deed restricted year-round residences. In Summit County, deed restrictions have been established to further the County’s goals related to providing affordable housing and workforce housing. The North 40 HOA also owns and/or operates three parks. North 40 Park, the largest of the three parks, is owned by the North 40 HOA and is located east of the Airport Business Center across Highway 82, approximately 650 feet east of the commercial aircraft parking apron. Two smaller parks, Children's Memorial Park and Chuck Brandt Park, are located on the far eastern edge of the North 40 development. The White River National Forest lies approximately 1.5 miles east of ASE on the eastern side of the Roaring Fork River. In addition, there are several areas of designated open space near ASE. Large tracts of land used for agriculture and low-density residential are located to the north and northeast of ASE. Residential developments to the north of ASE include the Brush Creek Village Subdivision, Woody Creek, and the W/J Subdivision. 4.9.1 Large residential lots account for most of the land use to the west and southwest of ASE. South of ASE are the Buttermilk Ski Area, the Maroon Creek Club, the Aspen Municipal Golf Course, and the City of Aspen itself. Immediately south of the runway on ASE property is a segment of the Owl Creek bike path, which is owned and maintained by Pitkin County. The City of Aspen recently constructed a new trail, which runs parallel to, and along the east side of, Owl Creek Road from the Buttermilk Ski Area to a point just south of the ASE Operations Center, where it intersects with Owl Creek Road. This trail is maintained by the City of Aspen. See Figure 4.9-1 for existing land use patterns surrounding ASE. 4.9.2 Legend G Fire Stations Land Use Study Area 2016 Airport Property Aspen City Limits Generalized Land Use Agricultural/Vacant Commercial/Office Employee Housing G Open Space/Recreation Public/Quasi-Public Woody Creek Subdivision Residential Starwood G White Horse Springs W/J Subdivision North 40 Airport Business Center Colorado Mountain College G Cozy Point Ranch G Brush Creek Village Owl Creek Ranch ® Buttermilk ski area 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.9-1 Generalized Land Use Map 4.9.3 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.9.1.2 Existing Zoning The study area straddles the jurisdictions of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, both of which administer their own zoning regulations. Figure 4.9-2 illustrates both jurisdictions’ zoning patterns in the area surrounding ASE. The City and County zoning regulations include aggressive growth management programs establishing an annual limit on the number of development rights issued for new residential dwelling units and commercial square footage. Both jurisdictions also have a long history of staunchly defending their planning and zoning regulations. Future development in the area is primarily guided by the physical limitations of the area surrounding ASE, the ownership patterns, the existing land uses, and the current land use plans and zoning ordinances of both jurisdictions. 4.9.1.2.1 Pitkin County Zoning Most of the land surrounding ASE, and all the ASE property, is under the jurisdiction of Pitkin County. The county zone districts found in the area surrounding ASE include: • RS-20 – Resource (20-acre minimum lot size) • AR-10 – Agricultural Residential (10-acre minimum lot size) • AR-2 – Residential (two-acre minimum lot size) • AH - Affordable Housing (6,000-square-foot minimum lot size) • AH/PUD – Affordable Housing (3,000-square-foot minimum lot size) • Ski-Rec – Ski-Recreation • PUB – Public • P-I – Public Institutional (governmental, civic and educational use, humanitarian, health care, and other non-profit public purposes) • B-2 – General Business (ABC) • I – Industrial (ABC) The entire ASE property is encumbered by five different zone districts: PUB, P-I, AR-2, AR-10, and RS-20. The PUB zone district designation is limited to parcels that were zoned prior to the 2006 Pitkin County Land Use Code amendment, and is no longer used as a zone district designation. Properties that retain the PUB zoning designation, which will continue to govern these lands, include ASE’s main facilities; the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority bus maintenance facility; and the City of Aspen Snow Storage Site. 4.9.5 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.9.6 Legend Land Use Study Area Airport Property Aspen City Limits Generalized Zoning RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW COMMERCIAL OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Woody Creek Subdivision Starwood White Horse Springs W/J Subdivision North 40 Airport Business Center Cozy Point Ranch Brush Creek Village Owl Creek Ranch ® Buttermilk ski area 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.9-2 Generalized Existing Zoning 4.9.7 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Ski-Rec zone district encompasses the base area of the Buttermilk Ski Area southwest of ASE. The Ski-Rec zone district requires the preparation of a master plan prior to issuance of development permits. The master plan dictates the permitted uses and other standards and limitations for development. The current Buttermilk Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (Buttermilk Master Plan) was adopted in December of 2013 Several planned projects under the Buttermilk Master Plan were recommended, but none of these changes are located within the project area. Just north of the Buttermilk Ski Area parking lot is the Stapleton Property, a large parcel that was previously leased by ASC and used for overflow parking. As part of the Owl Creek Road relocation project, the property was condemned and portions were conveyed to Pitkin County and CDOT. The condemnation decision included limitations on how the property can be used. The area north of the relocated Owl Creek Road (the ASE side of Owl Creek Road) is limited to airport uses and open space. The remainder of the property was reserved for the relocation of Owl Creek Road and Buttermilk Road as well as other transit and recreation parking, open space, and wetland mitigation. The B-2 zone district encompasses most of the ABC, which is located directly across Highway 82, east of the existing passenger terminal area. There is little potential for any significant new development that would impact ASE operations or the proposed projects within the ABC since nearly all of this area has already been developed. Redevelopment could occur within the ABC; however, such redevelopment would most likely be of a similar character given the current zoning limitations and the private covenants that were established when the ABC was originally developed. The large area of AH-PUD zoning located across Highway 82 from the commercial terminal and the GA aircraft apron is the North-40 subdivision. This subdivision includes a neighborhood of deed-restricted housing units; CMC; a soccer field; and a large undeveloped lot. The undeveloped lot is located along Highway 82 between CMC and the Fire Station, and represents the most significant development potential in the area surrounding ASE. The property has been considered for several potential commercial or institutional uses over time, but its future remains uncertain. 4.9.1.2.2 City of Aspen Zoning The area southeast of ASE is, for the most part, within the City of Aspen. The following zone districts are located within the City of Aspen, close to ASE: • C - Conservation • RR – Rural Residential • OS – Open Space • P PD – Park Planned Unit Development (Maroon Creek Club Golf Course and Aspen Municipal Golf Course) • OS PD – Open Space Planned Unit Development (associated with Maroon Creek Club) • R/MFA PD – Residential Multi-Family (Maroon Creek Club) 4.9.9 • • • • AH PD – Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (Maroon Creek Club) AH PUD – Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development WP PD – Wildlife Preservation (Maroon Creek Club) SCI PD – Service/Commercial/Industrial (Pro-Build Site) The zone district labels that are followed by a “PD” indicate that they were either approved as a Planned Development subject to a master plan or are contained within a Planned Development Overlay and may require the development of a master plan prior to issuance of a building permit. As a result, the development potential of a property for which a master plan or Final PD Development Plan has been approved may be largely governed by the specific provisions of the final planned development approval documents. Most of the land within the nearby portion of the City is fully developed, approved for development, or in the process of being developed. The principal project in this area is the Maroon Creek Club (MCC), an upscale golf course/residential project, which was approved in the early 1990s and is in the development phase. It is located south of ASE and east of the Buttermilk Ski Area and Highway 82. Most of the land for the MMC project is zoned P PD and OS (open space) for the golf course. The City of Aspen Municipal Golf Course is zoned P PD and is in the very southeast corner of the study area. Just southeast of ASE is an area zoned C for “conservation.” This district is intended to conserve open space and to accommodate very low-density residential development. The Burlingame Seasonal Housing/Music Associates of Aspen (MAA) Affordable Housing Project is located within the City of Aspen and was approved by the City in 1999. This subdivision is the closest residential area to the south end of the runway. When this project was approved, the City required that these units be constructed to maintain an interior sound level of 40 dB(A) and that proof of this sound level be provided prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for any of the structures. In September 2000, several of the units were tested for sound attenuation based on single event noise that was assumed to be in the 75 dB(A) range. The tests found the interior noise levels to be below the required 40 dB(A). The Annie Mitchell Housing Project is also located within the City of Aspen, directly across Highway 82, southeast of the ASE terminal building. The property was approved for 40 affordable housing units, which have all been constructed. It appears that no avigation easement was recorded for this property. 4.9.10 The Pro-Build Site consists of two parcels with a combined area of approximately 4.7 acres. The site is directly across Highway 82 from the ASE employee parking lot. The site currently contains a lumberyard and a building materials facility. The City of Aspen purchased the property with the intent of potentially combining it with the adjacent Burlingame Seasonal Housing (Parcel C) for a future affordable housing project potentially containing 100 or more units. That project has since been put on indefinite hold, and the City currently has a long-term lease with Pro-Build to allow the existing lumber yard/building materials uses to continue until 2025. The property was annexed by the City of Aspen in 2011, zoned SCI, and approved as a PD. Since PD approval has been granted for the existing use on the property, any change in use would require a PD amendment with a public hearing including the required notice. 4.9.1.3 Avigation Easements An avigation easement is a property right acquired from a landowner which protects the use of airspace above a specified height and may impose limitations on the use of the land subject to the easement. The easement protects ASE’s right to discharge noise, vibrations, and other such effects over the land subject to the easement. The protections include impacts associated with any aircraft currently operating at ASE as well as any other aircraft that may subsequently be permitted to operate at ASE. Typically, these agreements also include a provision that precludes the grantor of the easement from opposing any future improvements or expansion at ASE based on the adverse effect from such improvements. In recent years, the County has sought avigation easements in association with development applications both in the County and in the City of Aspen. Figure 4.9-3 shows avigation easements near ASE and Table 4.9-1 provides a list of properties for which avigation easements have been granted. 4.9.11 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.9.12 Legend Land Use Study Area Airport Property Aspen City Limits Recorded Avigation Easement Unrecorded Avigation Easement Woody Creek Subdivision Starwood W/J Subdivision White Horse Springs Cozy Point Ranch Brush Creek Village Owl Creek Ranch ® Buttermilk ski area 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.9-3 Avigation Easement Map 4.9.13 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Table 4.9-1 Recorded Avigation Easements Grantor Date Document Bidgle LLC (North 40) Brush Creek Ranch (Koutsoubos) Buttermilk Meadows Subd. (Tiehack Partners) Buttermilk Ski Area Base Casden, Alan City of Aspen (Burlingame/West Buttermilk Parcel) Doremus, Jeanne & Andrew Hunter, Robert & Patricia Knyper, Mel Music Associates of Aspen, Inc. (MAA) Pearce Equities (Maroon Creek Golf) Placer Enterprises Placer Enterprises (Woods Lot Split) Virginia Aspen Corp. W/J Enterprises W/J Homeowners Association Wildcat Ranch Ziff, William 8/9/1999 5/28/2014 BOCC Res. #23-99 BOCC Res. #99-97 BOCC Res. #232-00 Reception #611166 5/10/2000 BOCC Ord. #20-00 5/27/1993 5/10/2000 7/14/1992 8/9/1999 8/23/1993 2/28/2001 3/3/2001 5/20/1981 BOCC C. #93-80 BOCC Ord. #27-00 BOCC C. #51-92 BOCC C. #109-99 BOCC C. #109-93 BOCC Ord. #09-01 BOCC Ord. #98-17 4/29/2001 7/15/1992 BOCC Res. #98-217 BOCC C. #57-91 BOCC C. #61-92 Source: Pitkin County Community Development Department 4.9.1.4 Future Land Use Planning Several documents address future land use within the area surrounding ASE. These plans include the West of Maroon Creek Master Plan (WOMP), 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), the Highway 82 Corridor Plan, the Woody Creek Master Plan, and the Owl Creek Master Plan. The following paragraphs provide a brief understanding of the key policies in each of these documents relative to the future development potential of the lands in the area surrounding ASE. Although there are large areas of vacant or agricultural lands located within the vicinity of ASE, the potential for substantial new development within the study area (under current zoning) is not significant due to several factors. First, the terrain in some of the areas is very steep or is contained within the Roaring Fork River Valley. Second, significant portions of these areas are already developed to their maximum allowed density, and further development would require rezoning. Up-zoning is very rare in Pitkin County and would most likely be opposed by the community. 4.9.15 In addition, the Pitkin County Land Use Code (Section 7-90-20) includes criteria to analyze land compatibility near ASE to prevent the development of incompatible land uses. Pitkin County has an aggressive growth management program, limiting the number of development rights that can be issued in a single year. While development rights can be obtained through various exemptions from the growth management program, these exemptions are subject to review by the County and issues associated with potential conflicts with ASE and its continued safe operation would be considered. West of Maroon Creek Master Plan (WOMP) The WOMP was adopted in 2013 and covers the area from the Maroon Creek Bridge to the north end of ASE property. The intent of the WOMP is to take the vision, philosophy, and policies from the AACP and create clear land use guidance for future uses and decisions regarding the location and scale of development. The WOMP seeks to preserve the scenic quality of development within the planning area. Regarding future development at ASE, the Scenic Guidelines of the WOMP call for the use of lowprofile structures and earthen roofs. The guidelines also call for avoiding the use of landforms for screening that would result in a tunnel effect along the Highway, and maintaining as much existing vegetation as possible. The WOMP includes similar policy statements for the other activity nodes within the planning area. One of the land use policies included in the WOMP discourages the development of additional free-market, single-family and duplex homes in the Highway 82 corridor. This is consistent with the future use and operation of ASE. The WOMP also resulted in the extension of the Urban Growth Boundary to include all the PUB-zoned land within ASE property, including the entire runway/taxiway complex and related facilities. 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) The AACP provides broad, overarching guidance as it relates to the land contained within the area covered by the WOMP. The 2012 AACP continues to support the UGB, which was originally adopted in the 2000 AACP. The UGB is intended to control urban sprawl and is used to evaluate rezoning applications and other land use change requests. The general intent of the UGB is to discourage urban-level development outside of the boundary through control of the extension of services and other measures. Highway 82 Corridor Plan The Highway 82 Corridor Plan includes recommendations regarding the physical appearance of facilities and developments along the Highway. This plan calls for the creation of a set of landscaping guidelines for land along the side of the Highway. These landscaping rules include recommendations for site design, landscape plantings, and outdoor lighting. Any developments at ASE will need to be consistent with this Plan. 4.9.16 Airport Design Guidelines In 2014 ASE adopted the “Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Design Guidelines,” which contain much more detailed standards and recommendations for future landscaping on ASE property. ASE’s Design Guidelines should be the primary guide for assessing the compatibility of any contemplated landscape improvements for the land adjacent to Highway 82 along the length of ASE property. Woody Creek Master Plan The Woody Creek Caucus created the Woody Creek Master Plan with help from the Pitkin County Community Development Department. This Plan, which was adopted in 1991, is an amendment to the Down Valley Plan (adopted in 1987). However, this plan was not endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners. The Woody Creek Caucus submitted a plan amendment to the County for consideration, but the amendment was never adopted, and is, therefore, considered unenforceable. Noise is a concern with Woody Creek residents due to its close proximity to ASE and the departure flight path. The Woody Creek Master Plan aims to maintain Woody Creek as low-density residential area. The plan prohibits high-density housing development and does not allow changes in zoning that would result in increased density or population larger than the expectation under the current zoning. These plans are general recommendations to prevent a high-density land use that may be incompatible with ASE. Owl Creek Master Plan The Owl Creek Master Plan was adopted by the Pitkin County Planning Commission in September 2003 and applies to the Owl Creek Caucus Area. The Owl Creek Caucus Area includes most of the land to the west of ASE. The Plan essentially calls for the existing large lot and rural land use pattern to be maintained. There are no policy statements in the Plan directly related to ASE. The Plan also calls for rezoning most of the land within the Caucus to one of the large-lot, resource-preservation-oriented zone districts. This change in zoning would more accurately reflect the current land use pattern. In general, the Owl Creek Master Plan seeks to maintain the existing rural and low-density residential land use pattern, which is reasonably consistent with the continued operation of ASE. 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences Aircraft noise has historically been the primary driver for airport land use compatibility issues. Noise related impacts are included in Section 4.11. The analysis that follows is related to existing and future land use, zoning, and local land use compatibility. 4.9.17 4.9.2.1 No Action Alternative If the No Action Alternative were implemented, there would be no terminal improvements, no airfield improvements, and no land use changes. The No Action Alternative would not include acquisition of land or changes to land use or zoning. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no adverse impacts on land use compatibility surrounding ASE. 4.9.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 Similar to the No Action Alternative, neither Terminal Alternative would result in acquisition of land or impacts to land uses or zoning designations. Both Terminal Alternatives would include a relocated and expanded terminal facility, re-configured roadways and parking, and other associated projects. These improvements would be located entirely on pre-disturbed land on ASE property within the existing development area. Implementation of the terminal improvements would not result in the disruption of any communities, the relocation of residences or businesses, or result in any changes to existing or planned land uses. Impacts to surface transportation resulting from the Terminal Alternatives is discussed in Section 4.15. Both Terminal Alternatives include a revised site plan that provides more direct connectivity with the existing RFTA transit stops, which is a positive impact of the proposed terminal project. The terminal redevelopment project would require Location and Extent review pursuant to Section 2-30-30(h)(10) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The primary criteria for the Location and Extent review is conformance with the applicable comprehensive plan or master plan, which in the case of ASE, would include the 2012 AACP, WOMP, and the 2012 Airport Master Plan. All terminal improvements would conform with these land use plans. Construction of the alternatives would not result in changes to land use or zoning codes. Best management practices will be employed during construction. No impacts to land use compatibility are anticipated as a result of construction of the terminal alternatives. 4.9.2.3 Runway Alternative Runway Alternative includes shifting the runway 80 feet to the west and widening the runway from 100 to 150 feet. Projects associated with the runway alternative include the realignment of the perimeter road, Owl Creek Road and Owl Creek Bike Path, and the piping of Owl Creek. The Runway Alternative is located almost entirely on ASE property. However, it would require the slight relocation of Owl Creek Road and the Owl Creek Bike Path, which are located on CDOT property. The road relocation would occur within the CDOT right-of-way and would be considered a compatible land use. Realignment of approximately 1,657 feet of the bike path 13 to 58 feet west of the existing path would not be considered to have a negative effect on the bike path, its uses, or its users. The adjacent land on the west side of Owl Creek Road is owned by the City of Aspen and has been preserved through a conservation easement held by the Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT). 4.9.18 The conservation easement limits the uses of the City-owned parcel to agriculture, recreation, and open space, including the construction and maintenance of a public recreation trail (Buttermilk Connector Trail). The trail had been completed at the time this document was being prepared but would not be affected by the Runway Alternative. The conservation easement ensures that the future use of the City-owned parcel will remain compatible with ASE operations and with the proposed terminal and runway projects. Construction of the alternatives would not result in changes to land use or zoning codes. Best management practices will be employed during construction. No impacts to land use compatibility are anticipated as a result of construction of the Runway Alternative. 4.9.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Terminal or Runway Alternatives would produce significant impacts to land use. Therefore, no mitigation is required. However, all improvements would conform with local land use plans, zoning codes, and the Airport Design Guidelines. 4.9.19 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply Sections 1502.16(e) and (f) of the CEQ Regulations require that Federal agencies consider energy requirements, natural depletable resource requirements, and the conservation potential of alternatives and mitigation measures in NEPA documents. Additionally, consistent with NEPA and CEQ regulations, the FAA encourages the development of sustainable alternatives. The transportation system should be designed to include alternatives that are sensitive to the conservation of resources such as energy, pollution prevention, harmonization with the community environment, and to the concerns of the traveling public. FAA Order 1050.1F states that, while the FAA has not established a threshold for significance relative to natural resources and energy supply, the proposed action should be examined for the potential to cause demand to exceed available or future supplies of these resources. 4.10.1 Affected Environment Electricity service in the area is provided by Holy Cross Energy, and ASE purchases 100 percent renewable wind power. Water at ASE is provided by the City of Aspen through an 18-inch service line, except for the Airport Operations Center (AOC), where water is provided by the Borrego Water District. Except for the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), all buildings at ASE are serviced by, or can access, the sanitary sewer system that serves the general area including the Airport Business Center (ABC), other ASE facilities and surrounding commercial areas. The ATCT has an existing below-ground septic system. The Roaring Fork Valley is somewhat isolated and often natural resource materials need to be brought in from other locations. In 2015, a total of 6,064,282 gallons of Jet A was dispensed and 29,663 gallons of Avgas and in general is a relatively small amount compared to aviation nationwide. 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences Energy requirements associated with airport improvements fall into two general categories: 1) changed demand for stationary facilities (e.g. airfield lighting and terminal building heating); and 2) the movement of air and ground vehicles, which can alter fuel consumption. To analyze potential impacts on natural resources and energy supply, the usage of electricity, water, and fuel was evaluated to determine potential impacts on supply and capacity as a result of the Terminal Alternatives and Runway Alternative. 4.10.1 4.10.2.1 No Action Alternative There would be no significant impacts to natural resources or energy supply as a result of the No Action Alternative. The outdated terminal’s energy use could negatively affect ASE in the future by continuing to operate on old, more energy intensive systems, which means less efficiency and higher costs. The No Action would result in no development activities and there would not be an increase in consumption of natural resources, energy, or fuel in order to maintain the airfield in its current configuration. However, this alternative would restrict newer generation aircraft from flying into ASE. Generally, the newer generation aircraft are becoming more fuel efficient; subsequently, this alternative would prevent the newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft from flying into ASE. However, this is not expected to be significant. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in significant impacts to natural resources or energy supply. 4.10.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 Construction of the Terminal Alternatives would require the use of building materials and water. Materials would be sourced locally, if possible. However, due to the remote nature of the valley, the proposed improvements could result in minor increases in fuel consumption for those materials that must be transported into the valley. This increase would be short-term, temporary, and relatively small compared to the overall amount of resources available. The use of fuel to transport materials in combination with fuel used to power construction vehicles is not anticipated to exceed the existing capacity or future availability of fuel in the area. Both Terminal Alternatives are assumed to be the same size (around 140,000 square feet), and would require similar resources for construction and operation. The proposed terminal improvements represent an increase in square footage compared to the existing terminal. In general, it is assumed that larger square footage would require additional energy for heating, cooling and lighting. However, in this case, the existing terminal is old and relies on outdated energy systems and technology. It is anticipated that, while the overall energy consumption of the proposed larger terminal might increase, it could be partially offset by more efficient technology. The efficiency of the terminal would be improved by incorporating state of the art technology and building innovations. In terms of overall efficiency, best management practices identified in Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) literature1 would be considered in future design of the terminal. 1 Turner, W.D., M. Verdict, B. Yazdani, H. Huff, and K. Clingenpeel, ACRP Research Results Digest No. 2: Model for Improving Energy Use in U.S. Airport Facilities, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 4.10.2 These practices include:     Reducing solar heat gain and lowering cooling demand by making exterior surfaces more reflective Using window films or other retrofit shade devices to reduce solar heat gain and improve occupant comfort Increasing levels of insulation Monitoring and managing exterior openings to reduce air movement and heat or cooling losses. With the construction of the new terminal, aircraft would taxi to a location approximately 193 feet closer on average than the current terminal. Due to the increased efficiencies expected by a new building, paired with ASE’s commitment to purchasing renewable wind power, any potential increase in energy use is not expected to exceed existing or future available resources. Furthermore, materials would be locally sourced, if possible. Therefore, the Terminal Alternatives are not expected to result in any significant impacts to natural resources or energy supply. An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses to resources that cannot be recovered or reversed. During the construction of the Terminal Alternatives, natural and human-made resources would be expended. However, the resources expended (e.g., fossil fuels, electricity, construction materials) would be used in relatively small quantities and are not in short supply throughout the region or globally. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 4.10.2.3 Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative would require the relocation of runway and taxiway lights, but would not change energy consumption on the airfield. The shift of the runway and taxiway 80 feet to the west would result in slightly longer taxi distance (160 feet on average for total taxi distance). However, this increase in taxiing distance would not significantly impact use of fuel, nor would it affect National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the area (see Section 4.1 Air Quality). The Runway Alternative would use building materials and water during the construction phase. Similar to the Terminal Alternatives, materials would be locally sourced, if possible, but would need to be transported in, if necessary. Due to the remote nature of the valley, the transportation of the materials could result in an increase of fuel consumption. The increase in fuel consumption would be short-term, temporary, and relatively small compared to the overall amount of resources available. 4.10.3 The use of fuel to transport fill material in combination with fuel used to power construction vehicles is not anticipated to exceed the existing capacity or future availability of fuel in the area. No known natural gas, geothermal, or other energy resources would be affected as a result of the Runway Alternative. The Runway Alternative would not substantially change the use of aviation fuel consumption at ASE. It would allow for newer generation aircraft to use the Airport in the future, and it is predicted that over time these aircraft would be more efficient than the existing aircraft. Therefore, there would not be a significant increase in use of aviation fuel at ASE related to this project. The Runway Alternative would not significantly increase the use of natural resources or energy in the area. Furthermore, materials would be locally sourced, if possible. Therefore, this alternative is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to natural resources or energy supplies. An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses to resources that cannot be recovered or reversed. During the construction of the Runway Alternative, natural and human-made resources would be expended. However, the resources expended (e.g., fossil fuels, electricity, construction materials) would be used in relatively small quantities and are not in short supply throughout the region or globally. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 4.10.3 Minimization and Mitigation Because there would be no significant impacts to natural resources or the energy supply, no mitigation measures would be required. However, ASE has a Sustainable Construction Management Plan that will be used to minimize impacts relative to natural resources and energy supply. This includes looking seeking out local suppliers for resources and implementing other measures to reduce fuel and energy use. In addition, Pitkin County will explore obtaining FAA Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) funding to help incorporate energy efficiency elements into the new terminal, including but not limited to preconditioned air and ground power units. The installation of preconditioned air and ground power to enables airlines to reduce their use of auxiliary power units, which would contribute to reducing aircraft energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, ASE will consider applying for additional energy efficient grants such as under Section 512 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (FRMA) and Energy Efficiency in Buildings (Section 138 of the Airport Improvement Program), as well as potential local grants such as the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE). 4.10.4 4.11 Noise and Compatible Land Use To determine what, if any, impacts relative to noise could occur, studies of noise and compatible land use are done as part of the EA. Determining the Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) provides a means of measuring and mapping the potential impacts from airport noise relative to the land uses surrounding an airport. At the time this EA began, FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures was in effect and required use of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0d, to generate aircraft noise exposure contours. This Environmental Assessment was initiated previous to the FAA requirement of using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) for noise and air quality analysis. The use of INM for this EA is approved by FAA. The DNL is the metric used in noise analyses. DNL is a cumulative sound level that provides a measure of the total sound energy during a specified time-period. DNL logarithmically averages the sound levels at a location over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB weighted penalty added to all sounds occurring during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. The 10-dB penalty represents the added intrusiveness of noise that occurs during sleeping hours and because ambient sound levels during nighttime hours are typically lower than during daytime hours. Estimates of noise impacts resulting from aircraft operations can be interpreted in terms of the probable effect on human activities associated with specific land uses. Suggested guidelines for evaluating land use compatibility with noise exposure was developed by the federal government and adopted by the FAA. The FAA’s INM, Version 7.0d, was used to generate aircraft noise exposure contours.1 These contours were used to determine potential noise impacts for each of the With Project Alternatives. The INM produces noise contours, which consist of computer-generated lines connecting points of equal noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. FAA Order 1050.1F, which replaced FAA Order 1050.1E, states the 65 DNL is the required metric to analyze and determine if there is a significant impact. A significant impact is defined as an increase in noise of 1.5 dB or more to a noise-sensitive land use at the 65 DNL or greater contour. 1 Note: This Environmental Assessment was initiated previous to the FAA requirement of using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) for noise and air quality analysis. The use of INM for this EA is approved by FAA. 4.11.1 4.11.1 Affected Environment Analysis of the existing noise environment is based upon 2015 calendar year annual operational conditions. The development of the baseline conditions uses data from a variety of sources. The sources for this report include: • • • Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) tower counts (OPSNET), FAA Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC), and Terminal Area Forecast Reports (TAF). The INM requires a variety of operational data to model the noise environment around an airport. These data include the following information, which are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs: • • • • • • Total Aircraft Activity Levels Aircraft Fleet Mix Categories Time of Day Runway Use Departure Climb Profile Flight Paths and Flight Path Utilization 4.11.1.1 Total Aircraft Activity Levels The total aircraft operational levels were derived directly from the FAA’s ATADS tower counts. The ATADS data showed a total of 39,224 annual operations for the 2015 base period, or an average of 107 operations per day (an operation is one takeoff or one landing). In Chapter 2, Table 2-3, Summary of Aviation Activity Forecasts, 2015 – 2033 shows general aircraft categories such as single engine, twin, jet, helicopter, etc. 4.11.1.2 Aircraft Fleet Mix Categories The Air Traffic Control categories are useful for air traffic purposes, but do not provide sufficient detail necessary for the noise analysis or the details that are often of interest to the general public. As a result, the breakdowns by aircraft fleet mix categories of aircraft operations are presented within this section. The categories are defined relative to type of aircraft (i.e., jet or propeller) as well as size and noise characteristic. The breakdown by these categories was determined from the different sources of operational data described above with the primary source being the ATADS. Table 4.11-1 presents a more in-depth operational breakdown of the different types of aircraft for existing conditions (2015). It is not possible to definitively categorize all of the operations into unique groups. For example, some general aviation propeller operations are actually unscheduled commuter propeller flights. 4.11.2 Similarly, some air taxi operations are small single-engine piston aircraft that may be categorized as general aviation piston, or vice versa. But these generally define the categories of operations that occur at ASE and will be used within this report. 4.11.1.3 Time of Day In the DNL metric, any operations that occur after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:59 a.m. are considered more intrusive and their noise levels are penalized by adding 10 dBA, which is an effective doubling of the levels. Aircraft rarely operate during nighttime hours at ASE; the percentage of nighttime operations is less than one percent. 4.11.1.4 Runway Use Another important consideration in developing the noise exposure contours is the percentage of time each runway is used. Wind speed and direction dictate the runway direction an aircraft uses. At ASE, due to the mountainous terrain, aircraft arrive and depart in the same direction, arriving on Runway 15 and departing on Runway 33. 4.11.3 TABLE 4.11-1 DETAILED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ASSUMPTIONS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS (2015) Source: BridgeNet International, November 2016 4.11.4 4.11.1.5 Departure Climb Profile The aircraft departure stage length is the distance the aircraft flies from ASE to its first destination. The stage length of a flight can be used as a rough surrogate for the aircraft departure weight. Generally, heavier aircraft climb at a slower rate, and thus the noise levels under the flight path are likely to be louder. The rate of climb of an aircraft is called the departure climb profile. The stage length assumption is used to determine the rate of climb of each of the different aircraft operating at the airport. The various stage length assumptions are associated with commercial jet operations and not for other categories of aircraft, which means the categories listed below all correlate to commercial service at ASE. The different stage lengths used in the INM model are listed below. Air carrier operations at ASE typically fall in the Stage Lengths 1 and 2 categories. Stage Length 1: Stage Length 2: Stage Length 3: Stage Length 4: Stage Length 5: Stage Length 6: Stage Length 7: 0 to 500 nautical miles flight distance 500 to 999 nautical miles flight distance 1000 to 1499 nautical miles flight distance 1500 to 2499 nautical miles flight distance 2500 to 3499 nautical miles flight distance 3500 to 4499 nautical miles flight distance +4500 nautical miles flight distance The INM noise model contains different departure climb profiles for each of the aircraft contained in the model. These climb profiles define the rate of climb, speed, and engine thrust based upon the weight of the aircraft. Typically the flight distance stage length is used to assign the departure climb profile using flight distance data. However, flight distance does not always correlate to the departure climb profile. 4.11.1.6 Flight Paths and Flight Path Utilization The FAA and ASE have established paths for aircraft arriving and departing from ASE. These paths are not precisely defined ground tracks, but represent a path along the ground over which aircraft generally fly. The identification of the location and use of the flight tracks is based upon the FAA’s radar data. A full year of actual radar data were used in the development of the INM flight paths. The flight paths used in the noise model are derived from all the actual flight paths flown throughout the base period study year. As with the runway use, aircraft arrive and depart over the same geographic area, arriving from the north and departing to the north. In the INM noise model, a flight path consists of a backbone or center flight path, and the dispersion or spread of all flights that use that backbone. A computer program was used to develop the INM flight paths from the actual radar flight track data. The program first assigns each aircraft operation to an air traffic control procedure. The software then calculates the average path of all the aircraft that flew those procedures. 4.11.5 Figure 4.11-1 shows the baseline DNL contour for existing conditions (2015) and the associated land uses within the contour; 182 acres are in the baseline 65 DNL contour. For existing conditions, no noise-sensitive land uses are located within the 65 DNL contour. 4.11.2 Environmental Consequences The following sections provide the analysis for the No Action and With Project Alternatives for the terminal and runway improvements. In addition to the normal DNL analysis, for the Terminal project, single event noise exposure was analyzed in relation to the proposed noise wall, as the noise wall would primarily help with single events such as aircraft engine ground run-ups (i.e., when the engine is checked by advancing the throttles). Noise contours were generated for existing (2015) and future (2023 and 2028) conditions and out year (2033) for the No Action and With Project. The year 2023 represents the opening year of the terminal project. The year 2028 represents five years thereafter, and includes regular operation of the terminal facility and the opening year of the runway alternative. The year 2033 represents regular operation of the relocated runway. 4.11.6 Legend Noise Contours DNL_65 Aspen City Limits Airport Property Generalized Zoning RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW COMMERCIAL ® OPEN/REC 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-1 Existing Conditions 65 DNL (2015) Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.11.2.1 No Action Terminal Alternative The future year 2023 was used to model potential effects for the opening year of the terminal project. The No Action Terminal Alternative would not result in operational changes at ASE; therefore, there would be no changes to the average annual noise contours. Similarly, the Terminal Alternatives would not result in operational changes at ASE; therefore, the DNL noise contours for the No Action and Terminal Alternatives are the same. Table 4.11-2 presents an indepth operational breakdown of the forecasted fleet mix for both the No Action and Terminal Alternatives. Figure 4.11-2 shows the DNL contour for the No Action and Terminal Alternatives (2023) and the associated land uses within the contour. There are 165.2 acres in the 65 DNL contour. For the No Action, no noise-sensitive land uses are located within the 65 DNL contour. Using the threshold of significance in FAA Order 1050.1F, this action would not increase noise by 1.5 dB or more for a noise-sensitive area at the 65 DNL or higher. There are no homes or other noise sensitive uses located in the 65 DNL. 4.11.9 TABLE 4.11-2 DETAILED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ASSUMPTIONS FOR FUTURE YEAR NO ACTION & ACTION (2023) 2023 No Action and With Project: Terminal Aircraft Category ICAO Code Description INM Type Daily Arrivals Day Night Daily Departures Day Night 13.23 13.72 Annual Operations Air Carrier Operations - (wingspan less than 95') Regional Jet CRJ7 Bombardier CRJ-700 CRJ701 0.48 10,012 Air Carrier Operations ( Total) 10,012 GA and Air Taxi Aircraft Business Jet BE40 CL30 C501 C510 C525 C25B C560 C650 C680 C750 EA50 E135 CRJ2 FA50 F900 G150 GALX GLF4 GLF5 HA4T H25B ASTR LJ35 SBR1 Raytheon/Beech Beechjet 400/T-1 Bombardier (Canadair) Challenger 300 Cessna Citation Mustang Cessna Citation Mustang Cessna CitationJet/CJ1 Cessna Citation CJ3 Cessna Citation V/Ultra/Encore Cessna III/VI/VII Cessna Citation Sovereign Cessna Citation X Eclipse 500 Embraer ERJ 135/140/Legacy Bombardier CRJ-200 Dassault Falcon/Mystère 50 Dassault Falcon 900 Gulfstream G150 1126 Galaxy/Gulfstream G200 Gulfstream IV/G400 Gulfstream V/G500 Hawker 4000 BAe HS 125/700-800/Hawker 800 IAI Astra 1125 Bombardier Learjet 35/36 North American Rockwell Sabre 40/60 BEC400 CL600 CNA501 CNA510 CNA525C CNA55B CNA560 CNA650 CNA680 CNA750 ECLIPSE500 EMB135 EMB14L FAL50 FAL900 G150 G200 GIV GV HK4000 HS1258 IA1125 LEAR35 SABR80 0.89 4.18 0.03 0.12 0.42 5.60 1.12 0.37 1.22 1.60 0.13 0.28 0.03 0.53 0.73 0.24 0.48 3.38 0.72 0.09 1.84 0.32 1.81 0.04 Gulfstream Jetprop Commander 1000 Beech 200 Super King Raytheon 300 Super King Air Beech 60 Duke Beech F90 King Air Beech King Air 90 Cessna Conquest Mitsubishi Marquise/Solitaire Fairchild Swearingen SA-226 Swearingen Merlin 4/4A Metro2 AC95 BEC190 BEC300 BEC60 BEC90 BEC9F CNA441 MU2 SAMER3 SAMER4 0.01 0.52 0.50 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.73 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 4.18 0.03 0.12 0.42 5.61 1.12 0.37 1.22 1.60 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.53 0.73 0.24 0.48 3.38 0.72 0.09 1.84 0.32 1.81 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Business Jets Operations ( Total) Twin Turbo Engine AC95 BE20 BE30 BE60 BE9L BE9T C441 MU2 SW3 SW4 653 3,048 23 88 309 4,097 817 270 888 1,171 91 210 21 389 535 173 349 2,470 526 65 1,341 230 1,324 30 19,119 0.01 0.52 0.50 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.73 0.01 0.02 0.12 6 377 365 47 76 16 529 10 14 86 Twin Turbo Engine Operations (Total) 1,526 Single Turbo Engine Operations (Total) 917 Twin Piston Engine Operations (Total) 1,926 Single Piston Engine Operations (Total) 3,614 Helicopter Operations (Total) 453 Military Local (Total) 30 Military Itinerant (Total) 107 Totals 37,704 4.11.10 Legend Noise Contours DNL_65 Aspen City Limits Airport Property Generalized Zoning RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW COMMERCIAL ® OPEN/REC 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-2 Future Year No Action & Terminal Alternatives 65 DNL (2023) Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.11.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 For the Terminal Alternatives, the location of the terminal and apron would change and there would be an addition of a noise wall/berm on the ramp between the aircraft parking area and the North 40 community. The location where the aircraft taxi and park will change. As with the No Action Terminal Alternative, there would be no operational changes, and there would be no significant noise impacts. Section 4.11.2.1 details the DNL results of the No Action and Terminal Alternatives for future year 2023. The inclusion of a noise wall in the Terminal Alternatives advocates for the completion of a noise analysis to determine the potential benefits of the noise wall. The purpose of the noise wall is to reduce single-event noise for the residences close to ASE on the other side of Highway 82. The analysis was conducted during the day using a steady, continuous sound of an auxiliary power unit (APU) modeled using the Lmax metric. Lmax is the maximum noise level an aircraft generates, for an aircraft. In this case, the Lmax metric represents the steady-state sound heard from the APU. This analysis used a single event metric, Lmax, to analyze the noise; there is no FAA-defined threshold of significance for use of this metric. Because no areas that would receive benefits relative to noise are within the 65 DNL noise contour, the noise wall may not be eligible for federal funding. However, because there would be single event benefits to residences, it was determined to keep this as a potential project. Funding would be examined if the project moved forward. While there is not a defined threshold of significance in FAA Order 1050.1F, the FAA does have thresholds for reduction of interior noise levels of homes exposed to aircraft noise events at 65 DNL or higher. For homes in an airport-sponsored residential sound insulation program, the goal is to reduce the interior noise level by 5 dBA and that standard can be a guide to determine an appropriate wall height for mitigation. The noise wall analysis was computed using an acoustical planning and modeling program called SoundPLAN (Version 7.4), created by Braunstein & Berndt GmbH. The aircraft noise modeling took topography into account and assumed hard ground surfaces throughout the study area. The noise wall is to mitigate aircraft ground operations, which are primarily from aircraft parked on the ramp running APUs to provide power to the aircraft systems when the engines are off. The APU is a small jet engine, typically mounted in the tail, which can power systems on the ground instead of spooling up an engine. While there is potential to have ground power and preconditioned air integrated as part of the new terminal, there would be potential benefit from GA aircraft on the apron, which have limited future capability to have in ground power or preconditioned air options due to varied parking locations/snow removal issues on the GA apron. The parameters for the wall height were based on an APU mounted on a tail that would sit approximately 10 – 12 feet above the ground. This height was chosen because it represents the highest an APU will typically be located on an aircraft tail for the business jet fleet mix operating at ASE now and in the future. 4.11.13 The following parameters should be used in the design of the noise wall. The noise wall may be a combination of earthen berm and constructed wall. • • • • The total structure (wall and/or earthen berm) needs to be approximately 12 – 14 feet tall; high enough to break the line of sight between the aircraft APU and the community in the North 40 area, assuming a structure with a second story. The wall can be constructed of earth, wood, or concrete or some combination. The wall must have a minimum density of 20 kilograms/square meter. The structure must be approximately 600 linear feet long. It should run from the north intersection of W Airport Rd and Airport Road to the rental car parking lot at Atlantic Aviation. Table 4.11-3 shows the Lmax noise levels (dbA) related to the noise wall, and Figures 4.11-3 and 4.11-4, show the noise contours with and without the noise wall for each height (10 feet and 14 feet, respectively). There were five wall heights analyzed; each of the wall heights resulted in a reduction of the noise at the homes in the North 40 area. The smallest reduction was 2.9 dbA using a 10-foot wall; the largest reduction was 5.7 dbA using a 14-foot wall. Using the abovereferenced residential sound insulation guidelines of a 5 dbA interior reduction goal, the 14-foot wall would provide the most benefit for homes in the North 40 community. Table 4.11-3 Noise Wall Analysis, LMAX DBA Noise Wall 1st Floor 2nd Floor Existing Worst Existing Worst Case Noise Case Noise Level Level None 46.0 46.1 10-foot Wall 43.1 43.1 11-foot Wall 42.4 42.4 12-foot Wall 41.7 41.7 13-foot Wall 41.1 41.0 14-foot Wall 40.4 40.4 1st Floor Noise Reduction With Wall 2nd Floor Noise Reduction With Wall N/A 2.9 3.6 4.3 5.00 5.6 N/A 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.0 5.7 Source: BridgeNet International, 2016. The proposed alternatives would result in short-term noise increases from construction activities, but these are expected to be short term, and not significant. 4.11.14 Legend With 10ft. Noise Wall (45 dBA) With 10ft. Noise Wall (50 dBA) Existing (45 dBA) Existing (50 dBA) Aspen City Limits Airport Property 45 Receptor Location 45 50 50 ® Proposed Noise Wall 0 200 400 800 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-3 10-ft. Noise Wall Project Contours Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Legend With 14ft. Noise Wall (45 dBA) With 14ft. Noise Wall (50 dBA) Existing (45 dBA) Existing (50 dBA) Aspen City Limits Airport Property 45 Receptor Location 50 45 50 ® Proposed Noise Wall 0 200 400 800 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-4 14-ft. Noise Wall Project Contours Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.11.2.3 No Action Runway Alternative Similar to the No Action Terminal Alternative, the No Action Runway Alternative results in no operational changes. However, a change in noise would occur due to a change in fleet mix over time. As shown in Table 2-3, Summary of Aviation Forecasts, 2015-2033, the No Action would result in the phasing out of jet air carrier service over time as aircraft are being retired. As that table shows, the fleet mix would change due to a slow phase out of CRJ-700 aircraft, to be replaced by a mix of turbo props with a number of operations being diverted to GA business jets that would still meet the wingspan restriction in the future. For the No Action Runway Alternative, 2028 was used to model potential effects for the initial year of operation for runway improvements. For each of the future year No Action Runway analyses, the runway use and time of day remains the same; the only operational change is the fleet mix. Future Year 2028 – No Action Runway The first year of implementation assumes air carrier operations will be split 50/50 between CRJ700 and turbo prop aircraft. A general change in fleet mix over time is expected as older aircraft are retired, and the business jet fleet is all Stage 3. For this scenario, the modeling assumed 15 percent of air carrier operations would be conducted by general aviation business jets and 85 percent of the remaining air carrier operations conducted by aircraft with a wingspan less than 95 feet. Table 4.11-4 shows the aircraft fleet mix by aircraft type for the future year 2028 - No Action. Table 4.11-8 shows the number of acres in the DNL noise contours while Figure 4.11-5 shows the DNL noise contour for the first year of implementation (2028) for the No Action. There are 163.9 acres in the No Action (2028) 65 DNL noise contour. There are no noise sensitive uses in the 65 or greater DNL contour. Out Year 2033 – No Action Runway The out-year conditions assume a general change in fleet mix over time as older aircraft are retired. This condition assumes the business jet fleet is all Stage 3 and all CRJ-700 aircraft would be phased out. In this scenario, turbo propeller aircraft conduct air carrier operations, with 15 percent conducted by general aviation business jets and the rest of air carrier operations conducted by turbo props with wingspans less than 95 feet. Table 4.11-5, shows the aircraft fleet mix by aircraft type for the No Action out year (2033). Table 4.11-8 shows the number of acres in the DNL noise contours while Figure 4.11-6 shows the DNL noise contour for the Out Year (2033) No Action. There are 162.3 acres in the No Action (2033) 65 DNL noise contour. There are no noise sensitive land uses located within the 65 or greater DNL contour. 4.11.19 TABLE 4.11-4 DETAILED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ASSUMPTIONS NO ACTION (2028) Source: BridgeNet International, November 2016 4.11.20 Legend Noise Contour DNL_65 DNL_70 DNL_75 Aspen City Limits Airport Property Generalized Zoning RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW COMMERCIAL ® OPEN/REC 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-5 Future Year (2028) No Action Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE 4.11-5 DETAILED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ASSUMPTIONS NO ACTION (2033) Source: BridgeNet International, November 2016 4.11.23 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.11.24 Legend Noise Contours DNL_65 DNL_70 DNL_75 Aspen City Limits Airport Property Generalized Zoning RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW COMMERCIAL ® OPEN/REC 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-6 Out Year (2033) No Action Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.11.2.4 Runway Alternative Noise changes for the Runway Alternative would result from a change in fleet mix and a shift in the runway location 80 feet to the west. As shown in Table 2-3, Summary of Aviation Forecasts, 2015-2033, the shift in the runway to meet FAA design standards would allow full D-III aircraft to fly into ASE. Therefore, the fleet mix as represented in that table would change, with a slow phase out of CRJ-700 aircraft. The CRJ-700 would likely be replaced by a mix of next generation regional jets such as the CS100. Additionally, the analysis here accounts for a number of 737 operations. Discussions with air carriers have indicated that the 737-MAX could potentially operate out of ASE with the runway relocation, but would likely operate under payload restrictions in certain conditions. While no air carrier has officially expressed interest in operating the 737-MAX out of ASE, it is a potential condition that the EA will address. Therefore, this EA will discuss the modeling assumptions for inclusion of a conservative fleet mix, including a number of operations by the 737-MAX in the future conditions (With Project). The INM program does not contain noise profiles for new generation aircraft, including the Bombardier CS100 and Boeing 737-MAX; therefore, FAA-approved substitution aircraft were used to more accurately model noise. The INM contains a standard substitution for the Boeing 737MAX, which is the 737-700. For the new Bombardier CS100 regional jet, this analysis will use a Boeing 737-700 with a 4-dB reduction to the standard arrival and departure Noise Power Distance Curve (NPD) noise data. This configuration was approved by the FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy. A description of the substitution approval and process can be found in Appendix 5. The proposed alternatives would result in short-term noise increases from construction activities, but these are expected to be short term, and not significant. First Year of Implementation – 2028 The first year of implementation assumes a phase-in of regional jets with a wingspan greater than 95 feet. For this scenario, the modeling assumed continued use of turboprops, a reduction in the CRJ-700 (as it starts to be phased out of the fleet), and a small number of narrow-body commercial jet (Boeing 737-MAX). Table 4.11-6 shows the detailed aircraft fleet mix for the future year (2028) Runway Alternative. Table 4.11-8 shows the number of acres in the DNL noise contours while Figure 4.11-7 shows the DNL noise contour for the first year of implementation (2028) – Runway Alternative. Compared to the 2028 No Action, there would be an increase in the 65 DNL contour of 7.6 acres for a total of 171.4 acres. Using the threshold of significance in FAA Order 1050.1F, this action would not increase noise by 1.5 dB or more for a noise-sensitive area at the 65 DNL or higher. There are no homes or noise sensitive land uses located in the 65 or greater DNL contour. 4.11.27 TABLE 4.11-6 DETAILED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ASSUMPTIONS WITH PROJECT RUNWAY (2028) Source: BridgeNet International, November 2016 4.11.28 Legend Noise Contours DNL_65 DNL_70 DNL_75 Aspen City Limits Airport Property Generalized Zoning RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW COMMERCIAL ® OPEN/REC 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-7 Future Year (2028) With Project Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Out Year – 2033 The out year conditions assume a small number of turboprops will still be flying, with the majority of air carrier operations using new generation regional jets with wingspans greater than 95 feet and a small number of narrow-body commercial jet operations. Table 4.11-7 shows the detailed aircraft fleet mix for the out year (2033) – Runway Alternative. Table 4.11-8 shows the number of acres in the DNL noise contours while Figure 4.11-8 shows the DNL noise contour for the out year (2033) – Runway Alternative. Compared to the 2033 No Action, there would be an increase in the 65 DNL contour of 12.6 acres for a total of 174.9 acres. Using the threshold of significance in FAA Order 1050.1F, this action would not increase noise by 1.5 dB or more for a noise-sensitive area at the 65 DNL or higher. There are no homes or noise sensitive land uses located in the 65 or greater DNL contour. 4.11.31 TABLE 4.11-7 DETAILED AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ASSUMPTIONS WITH PROJECT RUNWAY (2033) Source: BridgeNet International, November 2016 4.11.32 Table 4.11-8 Summary of Noise Exposure in Acres DNL 2015 2023 2028 Existing No Action No Action Terminal Runway and and With Out Year Terminal Terminal 65 DNL 182.0 165.2 163.9 70 DNL 77.5 69.9 70.2 75 DNL 28.9 25.4 25.6 2028 With Runway Project First Year of Implementation 171.4 72.6 27.2 2033 No Action Runway Out Year 162.3 69.9 25.5 2033 With Runway Project Out Year 174.9 80.6 30.7 Source: BridgeNet International, 2016 4.11.33 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.11.34 Legend Noise Contours DNL_65 DNL_70 DNL_75 Aspen City Limits Airport Property Generalized Zoning RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOW COMMERCIAL ® OPEN/REC 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Aspen/Pitkin County GIS/Mapping Department Figure 4.11-8 Out Year (2033) With Project Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.11.3 Minimization and Mitigation The alternatives presented in this report do not increase the population or noise sensitive uses within the 65 DNL noise contour. Since there is not an increase of noise sensitive uses within the 65 DNL noise contour, there is no required mitigation. Additionally, the project includes a noise wall to help reduce existing single event noise from the general aviation apron. This would reduce single-event noise for the residences on the other side of Highway 82. 4.11.4 Additional Considerations In May 2017, the FAA’s WSA OSG determined that ASE air traffic control’s (ATC) techniques of modifying an aircraft’s flight path while on the LINDZ EIGHT departure procedure was not in line with FAA rules and regulations. As a result, the FAA suspended the technique causing an increase in separation distances between arriving aircraft, which has decreased the number of operations per hour. Though ASE is able to accommodate the same number of flights on a daily basis, the flights are now spread out throughout the day. Though this is slightly different from what was analyzed in this EA, it would not result in a change in the impacts disclosed since the total number of daily operations have remained the same. The FAA is working diligently to return ASE to preMay 2017 operational rates and conditions with the publishing of a VFR Departure Procedure, the COZY ONE, in October of 2017 and amending ATC techniques. During the fall of 2017, the FAA will begin developing Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures in order to increase operational efficiency and safety. This review process could take up to two years to complete and will consider the proposed actions included in this EA. Any changes to existing published procedures or any new procedures identified as part of this process will be analyzed in a separate NEPA document. 4.11.37 4.12 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Children’s Health and Safety Airport activity can impact the growth, movement, and development patterns of communities. In this section, socioeconomic conditions are evaluated to determine the potential impacts of the proposed terminal and runway projects. Potential impacts associated with children’s health and environmental justice are included in this discussion. Socioeconomic Environment. A socioeconomic analysis evaluates how elements of the human environment such as population, employment, housing, and public services might be affected by the proposed action and alternative(s). Environmental Justice. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from a proposed project. Meaningful Involvement means that people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health and their concerns are considered in the decision-making process. Executive Order 12989, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations, requires Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice impacts into their planning processes. Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks. Pursuant to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, agencies are encouraged to identify potential impacts and ensure that their policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children. 4.12.1 Affected Environment Aspen is both a mountain town and resort destination, which is reflected in its continued economic growth and investment in tourism and travel. According to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, tourism is a large economic generator in Pitkin County, comprising 33.8% of the County’s employment base; retail makes up 9.1%. Because of the high dependence on tourism activities, the area depends on transportation, including ASE, to provide access for the tourist population. 4.12.1.1 Demographics 4.12.1.1.1 Existing Population Table 4.12-1 below shows population data for the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County, and compares these populations to the State of Colorado and Western Slope Region. Based on data maintained by the Colorado State Demography Office (SDO), the combined full-time resident population of Aspen and Snowmass Village was approximately 9,962 in 2015. 4.12.1 The population for all of Pitkin County was estimated at 17,845. The racial composition for Pitkin County in 2015 from the Colorado State Demography Office is American Indian non-Hispanic (0.4%), Asian nonHispanic (1.6%), Black non-Hispanic (0.6%), Hispanic (9.9%), White non-Hispanic (87.5%). 1 Figure 4.12-1 shows the average annual growth rate for Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County as well as the Western Slope region and the State of Colorado. The growth rate for the City of Aspen (1.3%) and Pitkin County (0.8%) remains below the 2.0% historic growth limit objective identified in past planning documents for the City and County. 2 The average annual growth rate for Snowmass Village was higher than the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the State of Colorado. However, given the relatively small population of Snowmass Village, this translated to a population increase of just over 1,000 people over the 15-year period. The population of Aspen and Pitkin County can be described as stable and aging. Nearly 47% of the County’s population is 45 or older. Table 4.12-1 Population Data (2000-2015) 2000 2005 2010 2015 Aspen 5,914 6,399 6,659 7,099 Snowmass Village 1,822 2,278 2,826 2,863 Pitkin County 15,764 16,136 17,156 17,845 Western Slope 467,910 502,992 552,463 564,885 4,338,831 4,662,534 5,050,332 5,456,584 Colorado Source: Colorado SDO Estimates 1 2 Colorado State Demography Office, Population Forecast by County, Age, Race and Gender (2015). City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993 and 2000. 4.12.2 Figure 4.12-1 Annual Growth Rate (15-Year Average) 1.6% Colorado 2% Historic Growth Limit 1.3% Western Slope 0.8% Pitkin County 3.4% Snowmass Village 1.3% Aspen 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% Source: Colorado SDO Estimates 4.12.1.1.2 Population Projections Table 4.12-2 shows population projections for Pitkin County at 5-year increments from 2020 to 2035, which spans the 20-year planning period this EA analyzed. The Colorado SDO prepares these projections, which were last done in 2015. The SDO calculates projections based on average annual growth rate estimates for each 5-year increment. Figure 4.12-2 plots these growth rates and illustrates that they are generally less than the 2.0% growth limit objective found in past planning documents and greater than the historic rate of growth that occurred from 2000 to 2015. Table 4.12-2 Population Projections (Pitkin County), 2020 to 2035 2020 2025 2030 2035 19,351 21,456 23,668 25,877 Source: Colorado SDO 4.12.3 Figure 4.12-2 Estimated Growth Rate vs Historic Growth Objective (Pitkin County) 2.5% 2.1% 2.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 1.… 1.7% (Average Annual Percent Change) 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2015-2020 2020-2025 SDO Estimate 2025-2030 2030-2035 Historic Growth Objective Source: Colorado SDO Based on a 2015 population of 17,845, it is anticipated that Pitkin County’s population will grow by just over 8,000, or 45%, over the 20-year planning period. This includes anticipated growth within the municipalities of Aspen, Snowmass Village, and the portion of the Town of Basalt located within Pitkin County. 4.12.1.1.3 Households and Income Table 4.12-3 shows the household data for Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, and Snowmass Village. The housing vacancy rate for the Aspen/Snowmass Area reflects the dominance of second homes especially when compared to the statewide rate. The annual vacancy rate nationwide was 2.1% in 2014 3, compared to 36.3% in Pitkin County, 40.0% in Aspen, and 43.0% in Snowmass Village. In 2014, a combined total of 8,401 housing units were within the City of Aspen and Snowmass Village, 4,970 of which are occupied by permanent residents. 3 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics, 2010-2014. 4.12.4 Table 4.12-3 Regional Household Data (2014) Household Population Persons Per Household Total Housing Units Aspen 6,798 1.88 6,021 3,613 2,408 40.0 Snowmass Village 2,879 2.12 2,380 1,357 1,023 43.0 Basalt 3,919 2.41 1,941 1,626 315 16.2 17,573 2.10 13,168 8,388 4,780 36.3 5,235,736 2.49 2,273,441 2,099,694 173,747 7.6 Geographic Area Pitkin County Colorado Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units Vacancy Rate Source: Colorado SDO - Vintage 2014 Note: Numbers for Pitkin County, other than persons per household, include Aspen, Snowmass Village, and part of Basalt. 4.12.1.1.3.1 Affordable Housing Inventory Due to the extraordinarily high property values in Pitkin County, particularly in the resort communities of Aspen and Snowmass Village, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have historically sought to provide enough affordable housing to accommodate a substantial percentage of the workforce.2 As of 2016, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) maintains an inventory of 2,931 affordable housing units, including deed restricted units owned and/or managed by other entities. 4 Of these units, 55% are ownership units and 45% are rental units. There are also additional employee housing units in the community provided by employers, not included in this inventory. The Aspen Skiing Company provides approximately 600 seasonal beds in units throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. The Town of Snowmass Village Housing Office manages an additional 423 units. The combined affordable housing units managed by APCHA and the Town of Snowmass Village represent over 25% of Pitkin County’s total housing stock of 13,168 units and nearly 40% of the occupied housing units within the County. Since the units owned by the Aspen Skiing Company are not deed restricted and can be sold or used as free-market units, they are not included in the affordable housing inventory. Residential development in Pitkin County has been recovering in recent years from the economic downturn of the late 2000s. Table 4.12-4 shows the number of residential building permits issued each year since 2010 by the City of Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County, including remodels and new dwelling units. The development economy had still not rebounded in 2011 when the number of permits issued decreased by 28%. However, since 2011 the number of permits has increased each year. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Policy Study: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines, February 2016. 4 4.12.5 Table 4.12-4 Residential Building Permits (Annual) Geographic Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Aspen 299 273 259 292 337 362 1,822 Snowmass Village 126 25 77 96 113 102 539 Pitkin County 102 79 81 121 111 115 609 TOTAL 527 377 417 509 561 579 2,970 Source: City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County Building Departments. Note: Numbers include remodels as well as new housing units. 4.12.1.1.3.2 Income Table 4.12-5 below provides household income data for Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County for 2015. The median income for Pitkin County was $71,196 as of 2015. Snowmass Village currently has the highest median income in the study area at $75,596. However, the household size in Snowmass Village is slightly larger than in Aspen, which might account for part of the median income difference. 4.12.6 Table 4.12-5 Household Income Estimate (2015) Pitkin County Households Aspen Percent Households Snowmass Village Percent Households Percent Income Levels Less than $10,000 337 4.5% 155 3.6% 182 5.6% $10,000 to $14,999 278 3.7% 103 2.4% 175 5.4% $15,000 to $24,999 481 6.4% 389 9.0% 92 2.8% $25,000 to $34,999 596 7.9% 176 4.1% 420 12.9% $35,000 to $49,999 917 12.1% 605 14.0% 312 9.6% $50,000 to $74,999 1,290 17.0% 871 20.2% 419 12.9% $75,000 to $99,999 945 12.5% 482 11.2% 463 14.2% $100,000 to $149,999 1,337 17.7% 814 18.8% 523 16.1% $150,000 to $199,999 601 7.9% 297 6.9% 304 9.4% $200,000 or more 788 10.4% 427 9.9% 361 11.1% 7,570 NA 4,319 NA 3,251 NA Total households Dollars Persons Per Household Median household income Mean household income Value Dollars 2.10 Value Dollars Value 1.88 2.12 $71,196 $70,258 $75,596 $120,810 $129,115 $109,776 Source: US Census Bureau American Fact Finder 5-Year Dataset (2011-2015) While the median income within the region is relatively high, the cost of living is also very high, which makes many families vulnerable to changes in the economy. Housing cost is also significantly higher than in other parts of Colorado. Table 4.12-6 shows the percent of homeowners and renters who are spending more than 35% of their income on housing costs. More than one-third of Pitkin County homeowners fall into this category, which places the County 15th in the State. Most financial planners recommend that mortgage payments not exceed 30% of income. 4.12.7 Table 4.12-6 Owners/Renters Spending More than 35% of Income on Housing Costs Geographic Area Mortgage Owners Estimate (%) Renter-Occupied Units Statewide Rank (of 64) Estimate (%) Statewide Rank (of 64) Colorado 24.3 n/a 42 n/a Pitkin County 34.2 15 31.9 29 Eagle County 31.2 25 34.7 47 Garfield County 37.8 5 42.1 2 Gunnison County 28.6 27 39.7 30 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/census-acs/american-community-survey-data/#american-community-survey-data-for-colorado 2015 US Census Bureau data indicates that 8.6% of Pitkin County families with dependent children are living below the poverty threshold. 5 Poverty in the traditional sense is not a particularly pressing issue within the study area. However, being able to afford adequate housing is a significant and growing issue especially for young families in the region. 4.12.1.2 Economy The economy of Pitkin County, particularly in the upvalley communities of Aspen and Snowmass Village, relies heavily on tourism for employment, earnings, and business growth. Table 4.12-7 shows employment and payroll data for Pitkin County broken down by business sector for 2014, which is the most current data available. The total economy generates more than $610 million in annual payroll. The business sectors most reliant on tourism (accommodations and food service; arts, entertainment and recreation; and retail trade) comprise 10,557 (62.5%) of the total jobs. This reliance on tourism also means the area depends on transportation, including ASE, to provide access for the tourist population. 5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 4.12.8 Table 4.12-7 Pitkin County Employment and Payroll (2014) Business Sector Total for all sectors Number of Establishme nts 1,576 16,880 First-quarter Payroll ($1,000) 167,158 Annual Payroll ($1,000) 610,653 Paid Employees Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 4 16 82 371 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 2 19 d d Utilities 2 19 d d 166 528 7,187 35,757 Manufacturing 16 132 1,194 5,833 Wholesale trade 15 43 541 3,014 231 1,544 13,831 52,610 Transportation and warehousing 22 222 2,058 6,724 Information 27 164 3,379 12,717 Finance and insurance 59 234 6,614 25,151 Real estate and rental and leasing 223 959 8,837 42,789 Professional, scientific, and technical services 241 669 10,213 47,247 10 382 4,283 23,538 103 829 7,037 33,782 27 418 4,131 17,035 Health care and social assistance 70 731 11,285 47,083 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 50 3,303 S 71,519 Accommodation and food services 170 5,710 45,686 143,327 Other services (except public administration) 133 956 10,190 40,435 5 2 S 154 Construction Retail trade Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services Educational services Industries not classified d: Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies. S: Withheld because estimate did not meet publication standards. 16: Based on 2013 data. 19: Based on high end of range for "a" reporting (0 to 19 employees) used when other data must be withheld due to disclosure. 3303: Derived by subtracting employees in all other sectors from total and cross checked with US Census Bureau Economy-wide Key Statistics for 2012 (2012 Economic Census of the United States). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 County Business Patterns. 4.12.9 Much of the tourism business in Aspen and Snowmass Village is linked to the ski industry, though summer activities such as hiking and camping in the surrounding White River National Forest are a growing component of the tourism economy. Special events such as the Jazz Aspen/Snowmass, Aspen Food and Wine Classic, the Aspen Music Festival, and the Aspen Film Festival also contribute significantly to the tourism economy. 4.12.1.2.1 Tourist Activity Skier Visits: Skiing, snowboarding, and the appeal of mountain recreation is a fundamental driver of the Aspen/Snowmass Area economy, either directly or indirectly. The number of annual skier visits to the Aspen/Snowmass Area has remained relatively stable over the past 30 years. There were close to 1.5 million skier visits at Aspen Skiing Company’s four mountains during the 2015-2016 ski season. According to Economics Research Associates 6, this translates to approximately 200,000 individual skiers coming to the area on an annual basis, in addition to local skiers. As illustrated on Figure 4.12-3, Skier visits to the Aspen Skiing Company’s four resorts in the Aspen/Snowmass area has been increasing steadily since the 2011-12 ski season. Over the four years from 2012 to 2016, skier visits increased 16.2%. 6 Economics Research Associates (ERA), The Aspen Economy; prepared for the City of Aspen, Pg. 20, October 2008. 4.12.10 Figure 4.12-3 Source: Aspen Skiing Company, 2016 The Aspen Skiing Company conducts an annual skier survey that provides detailed information on a variety of travel and lodging behaviors. In their 2015-16 skier survey, approximately 80% of skiers visiting the Aspen/Snowmass Area as part of an overnight trip stayed in rented accommodations as opposed to a home owned by a friend or family. Other Tourism: There are numerous other events and recreational opportunities in the Aspen/Snowmass Area on a year-round basis. Some examples include the Aspen Music Festival, Aspen Food and Wine Classic, Aspen Film Festival, and Jazz Aspen/Snowmass. Little data is available to quantify the number of visitors these other events contribute to the overall tourism economy annually. Many visitors also come to the Aspen/Snowmass Area for the outdoor recreational opportunities available within the White River National Forest and on other nearby public lands. Table 4.12-8 shows the recent trend in visits to the White River National Forest. The data for this table came from a visitor survey that the Forest Service conducts every five years. The last survey was conducted 2012. During the five years between 2007 and 2012, visitation increased by 55%. Skier visits are included in the “Day Use Developed Site Visits” category. 4.12.11 Most of the increase comes from non-skier activities including hiking and camping, which occur primarily during summer months. This fact, along with the growing number and popularity of special events in the Aspen/Snowmass Village Area, helps explain why summer lodging occupancy has been increasing in recent years. Occupancy data shows July has been the peak month for four of the last six years. More information regarding lodging occupancy is provided later in this section. Table 4.12-8 White River National Forest Area Annual Visitation Visits (1,000s) Visit Type 2007 Total Estimated Site Visits1 Day Use Developed Site Visits Overnight Use Developed Site Visits General Forest Area Visits Designated Wilderness Visits2 Total Estimated National Forest Visits3 Special Events and Organized Camp Use 4 Change 2012 10,837 14,224 31.3% 8,536 9,387 10.0% 209 172 -17.7% 1,858 4,170 124.4% 233 496 112.4% 7,903 12,287 55.5% 19 47 141.9% Source: US Forest Service, 2012 Notes: 1. A Site Visit is the entry of one person onto a National Forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period. 2. Designated Wilderness visits are included in the Site Visits estimate. 3. A National Forest Visit is the entry of one person into a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period. A National Forest Visit can be composed of multiple Site Visits. 4. Special events and organizational camp use are not included in the Site Visit estimate, only in the National Forest Visits estimate. Forests reported the total number of participants and observers so this number is not estimated; it is treated as 100% accurate. 4.12.1.2.2 Retail Sales Tax Revenue Retail sales, for which the growth trends can be inferred from retail sales tax revenues, are another valuable indicator of economic conditions. The County’s retail sales tax revenue has been increasing in recent years as shown in Figure 4.12-4. Total sales tax collections declined by 17.3% from 2008 to 2009 due to the recession. However, between 2009 and 2015, sales tax revenues increased at an average annual rate of approximately 6.2%, and in 2013, once again exceeded the revenues generated in 2008. The 2016 budget also projected a sales tax revenue increase of 4.5%. The County is forecasting an annual increase in sales tax revenues of 3.5% for budget years 2017 through 2020 in the most recent report. Sales tax revenues are highly dependent upon the tourist economy, for which ASE is a significant driver. 4.12.12 Figure 4.12-4 County Sales Tax Revenue in $ Millions 10 6.54 6.73 7.19 7.81 8.21 8.58 6.08 4 5.72 6 6.92 8 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2 0 2008 Actual Collections Projected Budget Total General Fund Share Source: Pitkin County 2016 Budget Report 4.12.1.2.3 Lodging Much of the information in this section comes from a study prepared by DestiMetrics, LLC on behalf of Stay Aspen Snowmass. 7 DestiMetrics is an organization that specializes in providing market data and advice to tourism-dependent businesses in the North American mountain travel industry. This is the third such study that DestiMetrics has prepared for the Aspen/Snowmass lodging market, though for the prior two versions, completed in 2009 and 2012, the company was known as MTRIP, LLC. The current version was completed in May 2015. The City of Aspen conducted an analysis of the existing lodging inventory within the City limits in 2013. 8 The City’s report shows a slightly higher occupancy rate compared to the data provided by DestiMetrics. The analysis in this EA used occupancy data provided by DestiMetrics for several reasons. First, the data in the City’s report is limited to the City of Aspen and does not provide comparable data for Snowmass Village. Next, the occupancy data in the City’s report was obtained from The Rocky Mountain Lodging Report. This report provides data on hotels throughout Colorado, but does not include timeshare condominiums, which constitute a significant percentage of the Aspen/Snowmass Village lodging inventory. Also, the Rocky Mountain Lodging Report states that it does not survey every hotel in Colorado or Aspen. The DestiMetrics analysis incorporates hotels, condominiums, bed and breakfast facilities, and other short-term vacation rentals and is focused exclusively on the lodging inventory in Aspen and Snowmass Village. 7 DestiMetrics LLC, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May 2015. 4.12.13 The DestiMetrics study provides an inventory and analysis of short-term rental units and pillows in Aspen and Snowmass Village as of May 31, 2015 (see Tables 4.12-9 through 4.12-12 on the following pages). The term “pillows” or “pillow count” represents the number of people that be accommodated, which is helpful when considering the actual capacity of a given lodging facility or in the lodging market as a whole. The inventory includes hotel/lodge units, condominiums, private homes (handled by a property management company), and bed and breakfast units (one property). Rental-by-Owner (RBO) units are units rented for short-term use directly by the property owner through one of several direct channels, where no professional lodging or property management company is involved in the rental process that were inventoried separately and are not included in the overall units/pillows counts identified in Tables 4.12-9 through 4.12-12. RBO units are addressed later in this section. Fractional ownership units are included in the units/pillows counts in the DestiMetrics study. Existing Lodging Inventory: There are currently 3,891 units, offering a total of 17,200 pillows, in the Aspen/Snowmass Area per the 2015 DestiMetrics report. Table 4.12-9 breaks down the units and pillows by location. Aspen lodging properties provide 54% of the total short-term rental units, while Snowmass provides 46% of the total units. The available pillows are more evenly distributed between the two communities. Table 4.12-10 below compares the inventory of lodge units and pillows for 2009, 2012, and 2015. The current inventory contains 64 fewer lodge units and 276 fewer pillows as compared to the inventory identified in the 2009 MTRIP report. However, the RBO market has more than offset this reduction. Additional information regarding the RBO market is provide later in this section. Table 4.12-9 Lodge Units/Pillow by Location Unit and Pillows by Location Aspen Units by Location 2,091 Pillows by Location 8,663 Note: Above tables include Fractional Ownership units but not RBO units/pillows Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May, 2015. Snowmass 1,800 8,537 All 3,891 17,200 Table 4.12-10 Combined Units & Pillows Comparison 2009, 2012, & 2015 2009 2012 2015 Units 3,955 4,115 3,891 Pillows 17,476 18,857 17,200 Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May, 2015. Table 4.12-11 breaks down the existing lodge unit inventory by type. A similar breakdown for the existing inventory of lodge pillows is provided in Table 4.12-12. Comparing this information reveals that traditional hotel/lodge rooms make up the bulk of the lodging units (51.7% of the total compared to 45% for condominiums). However, the reverse is true for pillows with condominiums providing 55% of the total and traditional hotel/lodge rooms providing only 38% of pillows. 4.12.14 Table 4.12-11 Lodge Units by Type/Location Hotel/Lodge Condominium Private Home Bed and Breakfast All Aspen 1,178 839 64 10 2,091 Snowmass Total 835 2,013 916 1,755 49 113 0 10 1,800 3,891 Private Home Bed and Breakfast All Note: Above tables include Fractional Ownership units but not RBO units/pillows. Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May, 2015. Table 4.12-12 Lodge Pillows by Type/Location Hotel/Lodge Condominium Aspen 3,644 4,401 592 26 8,663 Snowmass Total 2,946 6,590 5,009 9,410 582 1,174 0 26 8,537 17,200 Note: Above tables include Fractional Ownership units but not RBO units/pillows. Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May, 2015. Historic Occupancy: As shown in the tables above, the Aspen/Snowmass Area has a substantial inventory of lodge units and pillows. Figure 4.12-5 below shows monthly occupancy from 2005 to 2016 for both Aspen and Snowmass Village. For several years prior to the economic downturn of the late 2000s, occupancy rates in Aspen had been approaching “practical capacity” for many holidays and weekends during peak winter and summer months. Practical capacity has been approximated at 90% of total capacity during holidays and other peak times and 80% of total capacity for all other times. From 2008 to 2009, occupancy rates dropped dramatically in both Aspen and Snowmass Village. Since then, occupancy rates for the peak months have been generally increasing. While occupancy rates have been improving, winter rates in Aspen have not yet reached the levels experienced during the pre-recession years from 2005 to 2008. Winter occupancy rates in Snowmass Village are at or slightly above where they were prior to the recession. However, occupancy rates in Snowmass Village are significantly lower than in Aspen, particularly during nonpeak months. Except for the month of July in Aspen, when the 2016 rate exceeded 88%, occupancy rates in both Aspen and Snowmass Village remain below practical capacity. While there appears to be some room for visitor growth in both communities, the data shows that Snowmass Village has more capacity for growth than Aspen. 4.12.15 Figure 4.12-5 Aggregate Occupancy Rate for Aspen and Snowmass Aspen 12 Year Monthly Total Aggregate Occupancy Rate 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 (M-D) Snowmass 12 Year Monthly Total Aggregate Occupancy Rate 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 (M-D) Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May, 2015. 4.12.16 Potential Future Lodging Capacity: Several resort lodging projects have been approved for development in Aspen and Snowmass Village that have yet to be built. The units and pillows associated with these projects are not included in the existing lodging. Table 4.12-13 shows the units and pillows associated with approved-unbuilt projects and is intended to provide a sense of the number of additional pillows that could be added to the lodging inventory in the coming years. Except for the Aspen Club project, which is currently under construction, it is unknown when these units and pillows will become available. While there are other lodging projects currently under review by the City of Aspen, the units and pillows for these projects were not included in Table 4.1213 because there is no guarantee that these projects will be approved. Table 4.12-13 Potential Future Lodge Units/Pillows by Location (Short-term Rentals) Property Name Property Type Location Units Pillows Status Hotel/Lodge Aspen 14 30 Approved Timeshare Aspen 20 140 Approved Molly Gibson Redevelopment* Aspen Club Sky Hotel Redevelopment* Hotel Aspen Remodel* Hotel/Lodge Aspen 14 54 Approved Hotel/ Lodge Aspen 9 18 Approved Base 1 Lodge Hotel/Lodge Aspen 36 72 Approved Lift 1 Lodge Hotel/Lodge Aspen 84 168 Approved Limelight Hotel Hotel/Lodge Snowmass 102 204 Approved Condo/Timeshare Snowmass 11 34 Approved 290 720 Viceroy Annex** Total * Numbers for units and pillows reflect new or additional units and pillows. ** Based on 50% units with 2 beds and 50% with 1 bed. Source: City of Aspen Staff and Online Records Archive; Town of Snowmass Village Staff. The approved projects represent a 7.5% increase in lodging units and 4.2% increase in pillows over the current inventory. RBO Market: Due in part to the efforts of internet companies like HomeAway, AirBnB, VRBO and others, the RBO market has surged in recent years. RBO units are short-term units that are rented to transient guests by the owner through one of several direct channels, but where no professional lodging or property management company is involved in the rental process. The 2015 DestiMetrics report includes a cursory estimate of the number of RBO units and pillows in the Aspen/Snowmass area based on information obtained from HomeAway (see Table 4.12-14 below). This information shows that in 2015 there were approximately 790 units and 3,761 pillows provided by RBO units. 4.12.17 Table 4.12-14 RBO Inventory Compared to Traditional Lodging HomeAway Aspen Snowmass Traditional Market Units 790 3,891 Pillows 3,761 17,200 Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May, 2015. The RBO market is complicated and its effect on the traditional lodging market and the resort economy are not yet well understood. The RBO market is relatively new and market analysts, like DestiMetrics, have not yet compiled much data, especially multi-year data, which would allow for a better understanding of market trends and forecasting. This may be due in part to the fact that the owners of the units are often reluctant to share information for privacy and other reasons. In addition, many RBO units are occupied by their owners, either on a part-time or full-time basis, and may only be available for short-term rental sporadically. Consequently, it is difficult to determine the number of RBO pillows available on any given night. Given the large inventory of second homes in and around Aspen, the potential supply of RBO vacation rentals is significant. Presently, RBO units are generally viewed positively, and no plans to further regulate them exist at this time. Information obtained from AirBnB indicated that the number of active listings in Aspen and Snowmass Village reached 994 by November 2016. This represents an increase of 17% (more than 120 units) since the completion of the DestiMetrics inventory in May of 2015. 9 Figures 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 illustrate the trend in RBO property listings in Aspen and Snowmass Village over the two-year period starting in December 2014 and ending November 2016. Note that the data in Figures 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 represent all listings, including single rooms within a home or other unit, while the DestiMetrics inventory excludes individual rooms. The 120-room increase quoted above excludes the individual rooms to avoid overstating the growth in new RBO units. The green bars in Figures 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 represent an increase in the number of units listed over the course of the month while the red bars indicate a reduction. In addition to showing the overall growth in the RBO inventory, these figures illustrate that growth in RBO units in the Aspen area has been steadier than in the Snowmass Village area. In the Snowmass area, the number of units listed has grown dramatically since June of 2015. 9 AirDNA Market Reports for Aspen and Snowmass Village – 11/2016. 4.12.18 Figure 4.12-6 RBO Unit Listing Trends – Aspen Area Source: AirDNA Market Report for Aspen – 11/2016. Figure 4.12-7 RBO Unit Listing Trends – Snowmass Village Area Source: AirDNA Market Report for Snowmass Village – 11/2016. 4.12.19 While the RBO market is complicated and difficult to predict, it appears that RBO units have become more widely accepted, and that the number of available RBO units is growing substantially. Based on available data from DestiMetrics and AirBnB, as of May 2015, the RBO market represented 20% of the total short-term rental units in Aspen and Snowmass Village; by November 2016, the RBO market had grown to more than 23%. 4.12.1.2.4 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport ASE is the base for 82 general aviation aircraft and provides commercial passenger service, currently offering 22 flights daily by United, Delta, and American Airlines. On-airport services include scheduled passenger service, general aviation services, charter service, aviation fueling, aircraft maintenance, aircraft rental, flight training, and car rental. Atlantic Aviation is the onsite fixed-base operator. Flight Operations and Enplanements: As illustrated on Figure 4.12-8 commercial passenger enplanements have been increasing steadily since 2013 and there were approximately 247,780 enplanements in 2016. ASE managed approximately 40,322 total aircraft operations in 2016, including 9,227 air carrier operations, 10,063 air taxi operations, and 16,178 general aviation operations. 10 10 Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast Database - 2016. 4.12.20 Figure 4.12-8 2012 2013 2014 2015 247780 233,541 224,311 2011 206,686 221,256 2010 214,892 222,755 ANNUAL ENPLANEMENTS (Commercial Passenger Service) 2016 Sources: 2010 – 2013: Jviation Aviation Activity Forecast Update Chapter, ASE Future Air Services Study; 2014: ASE Passenger Report (2015); 2015: Mead & Hunt, Summary of Aviation Activity Forecast, 2015-2033; 2016: Federal Aviation Administration TAF Database. Employment: There are currently approximately 560 people who work at ASE. 11 These people provide services in administration, passenger terminal, security screening, rental car, on-airport parking, general aviation, aircraft fueling, aircraft maintenance, facility maintenance, airport operations, and emergency services. Employment includes full-time, part-time, and seasonal positions. Construction related employment associated with periodic capital improvements are not included in this total. Operating Revenues and Expenses: ASE’s operating revenues come from several sources, all of which are fees or rental income from various services or facilities provided on ASE property. 11 The State of Colorado, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports. 4.12.21 ASE receives no general fund money from Pitkin County or any other local government. A substantial portion of operating funds comes from airline landing fees and terminal rental fees. Other significant sources of revenue include general aviation landing fees, rental car concessions and space rental fees, public parking fees, and fuel flowage fees. Commercial airline service is directly or indirectly responsible for nearly 65% of ASE’s total annual operating revenue. In 2015, commercial airlines paid $3,203,121 in landing fees and terminal rental fees. Other revenues indirectly associated with commercial passenger service include public parking and rental car concessions and space rental fees. Most public parking and rental car use is by commercial airline passengers. These fees constituted an additional $2,398,000 in revenue in 2015. This number does not include fuel flowage fees, which are paid by both the commercial airlines and general aviation users. General aviation users and businesses paid nearly $2,000,000 in fees in 2015, including $1,611,758 in general aviation landing fees. Operating revenues for 2015 totaled $8,747,827, which was a slight reduction from 2014. Operating expenses for 2015 were $7,457,100, resulting in a surplus of $1,290,727. Table 4.12-15 compares total operating revenues and expenses from 2010 through 2015. As illustrated by Figure 4.12-9, operating revenues have been relatively stable during these years, at an average of approximately $8,500,000. Revenues have exceeded expenses every year over this period and surpluses have averaged approximately $808,000 annually. The revenue numbers do not include non-operating revenues, which for 2015 were approximately $545,000. Non-operating revenues vary from year to year and typically come from investment income and taxes from fuel sales. Table 4.12-15 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Operating Revenues vs Expenses (2010-2015) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Operating Revenues $8,066,101 $8,384,025 $8,457,726 $8,427,093 $8,925,744 $8,747,827 Operating Expenses $7,473,915 $7,267,991 $7,369,963 $8,394,562 $8,196,024 $7,457,100 $592,186 $1,116,034 $1,087,763 $32,531 $729,720 $1,290,727 Surplus Source (2010 - 2014): Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Compliance Activity Tracking System (CATS) Database (2010 - 2014) Source (2015): Leibowitz and Horton, Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Financial Implementation Analysis Re: Environmental Assessment Airport Improvements (11/30/2016) 4.12.22 Figure 4.12-9 Source (2010 - 2014): Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Compliance Activity Tracking System (CATS) Database (2010 - 2014) Source (2015): Leibowitz and Horton, Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Financial Implementation Analysis Re: Environmental Assessment Airport Improvements (11/30/2016) Capital Improvement Funds: ASE has made significant improvements to both airside and landside facilities over the years. These improvements contribute to the local economy by creating jobs in construction, engineering, and professional services and through the use of local construction materials. Most infrastructure improvements and maintenance is paid for with non-local funds. Funds for capital improvements come from several sources including the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program as well as FAA-approved Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs). In addition, the State of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) also provides grants for eligible capital improvements. The State’s contribution is typically a small fraction of the funds provide by the FAA. In 2015, federal and state grant funds for ASE totaled $3,075,667. This number varies from year to year depending on the specific projects to be funded. Over the six years from 2010 to 2015, ASE received over $30,000,000 in federal and state funds for capital improvement projects, infrastructure maintenance, and related engineering and planning studies. This includes approximately $18,500,000 received in 2011 and 2012 for the runway extension. 4.12.23 Current economic benefits to the community: Every five years the CDOT Division of Aeronautics analyzes the economic impacts of commercial and public-use general aviation airports throughout the state. The analysis measures these impacts in terms of jobs, payroll, and annual economic activity or output. The 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports provides the most recent analysis. Because commercial enplanements have increased at ASE since the study was conducted, the findings of the study should be considered conservative. Present-day economic annual impacts are likely to be higher than the figures reported in the 2013 Study. The methodology used in the State’s Economic Impact Study includes obtaining data related to the airports’ operation as well as visitor estimates, capital investments, and data from airport tenants. These data, which include wages, fuel sales, and rental car revenues, among many other economic factors, are referred to as the initial economic impacts. Initial economic impacts recirculate in the local economy, generating successive rounds of spending, employment and payroll in other sectors of the economy. Economic impacts are summarized by three factors: jobs, payroll, and output. Jobs include both fulltime and part-time positions. Part-time positions were translated into a full-time-equivalent metric (FTE). Payroll in the CDOT report includes wages and benefits for employees whose jobs are in some way supported by airport/aviation-related activities. Output represents total annual economic activity, sales, or spending within the community. For airports and tenants, output is commensurate with annual spending needed to support their operation; for visitors, output is the sum of all visitorrelated spending; and for capital improvements, output is the sum of all private, local, state, and federal related investment at the airport. Economic impacts are also categorized based on whether they relate to activities that take place primarily on the airport itself or to activities that occur off-airport. On-airport impacts include the employment that supports the administration, operation, and maintenance of the airport, as well as tenant businesses and investment in capital improvement projects. Off-airport impacts include spending on hotels, food/beverage, local transportation, retail goods, and recreation and entertainment by visitors who arrive via the Airport. Table 4.12-16 summarizes on-airport, offairport, and total economic benefits of ASE to the local economy, as reported in CDOT’s 2013 Study. The existing economic benefits summarized in Table 4.12-16 do not include local and state tax revenues. Visitors pay taxes on lodging, rental cars, restaurant meals, and other purchases. Workers whose jobs are supported by airports and visitor spending also pay sales tax and state income taxes. According to the 2013 Economic Impact Study, annual local and state taxes linked to the operation of ASE totaled $47.0 million in 2013. 4.12.24 Table 4.12-16 Annual Economic Benefit of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Jobs Payroll Output On-Airport (Annual Airport, Tenant, and Capital Improvement Impact) Initial 561 $39,836,000 $121,865,000 Multiplier 485 $19,660,000 $63,754,000 1,046 $59,496,000 $185,619,000 Total Off-Airport (Annual Visitor Economic Impact) Commercial Airline Visitors Initial 4,682 $134,432,000 $377,935,000 Multiplier 1,642 $60,393,000 $194,177,000 Total 6,324 $194,825,000 $572,112,000 General Aviation Visitors Initial 697 $19,772,000 $54,781,000 Multiplier 243 $8,912,000 $28,630,000 Total 940 $28,684,000 $83,411,000 8,310 $283,005,000 $841,142,000 Total Economic Impact Source: 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports, Colorado Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics. 4.12.25 4.12.2 Environmental Consequences 4.12.2.1 No Action Terminal Alternative The No Action Alternative would involve no changes to the terminal area. While the No Action would have no adverse impacts on children’s health, or environmental justice activities, there could be negative socioeconomic impacts since the Terminal would operate with continued spatial constraints, which could have a negative impact on tourism. 4.12.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 The proposed project includes replacement of the existing commercial passenger terminal to meet passenger and staff needs and a reconfiguration of the terminal area including roadways and parking. This EA evaluated two terminal replacement alternatives; however, the two alternatives are very similar. From the standpoint of socioeconomic, environmental justice and children’s environmental health and safety risks, there are no appreciable differences. Therefore, the following findings apply equally to both terminal replacement alternatives. Socioeconomic Environment. The new terminal and associated terminal area projects are not anticipated to have any negative direct or indirect socioeconomic impacts either during construction or following project completion. Access to businesses on the east side of ASE and at the Airport Business Center (ABC) could have temporary changes to traffic patterns due to construction; however, these changes would still provide access. Additionally, because the terminal would be completed in a phased approach, the existing terminal would remain open during construction of the new terminal. Therefore, any of the businesses within the terminal itself would not be significantly affected. Also, both Terminal Alternatives would induce temporary positive socioeconomic impacts within the region as a result of construction activity. These impacts would benefit Pitkin County and the Roaring Fork Valley during the multi-year phased construction process by increasing employment opportunities and expenditures on local services and materials. The terminal alternatives would also provide minor long-term positive socioeconomic impacts due to expanded concessions and increased visitor use. The proposed terminal replacement project may result in visitors and residents spending additional time at ASE. The proposed terminal alternatives would include increased concession space, which could also create positive economic benefits through increased passenger spending. Environmental Justice. Terminal replacement would not increase noise, rather it would result in only a slight change to the location of ground related noise due to the change in the air carrier aircraft apron parking configuration. Additionally, both Terminal Alternatives would include a noise wall that would help reduce the single event ground noise levels from Auxiliary Power Unit use on the general aviation apron area. For residents near ASE, this change would be positive. 4.12.26 Since the Terminal Alternatives are not expected to significantly increase the number of employees who work at ASE, no appreciable burden on the existing housing inventory is anticipated. Therefore, the Terminal Alternatives are not expected to result in any substantial negative or otherwise disproportionate impacts to any specific population groups. However, the community continues to struggle in the effort to provide affordable housing for the local workforce. Given the high cost of housing in Pitkin County, most new employees at ASE would either need to live in affordable housing or commute from down-valley. Redevelopment of the commercial passenger terminal is considered a public project, and the County will determine whether the projects need to provide affordable housing. Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks. There are no schools, parks, or playgrounds within the Study Area or within the 65 DNL or greater noise contour that might be affected by noise or other impacts associated with the proposed Terminal Alternatives (See Section 4.11). 4.12.2.3 No Action Runway Alternative For the No Action Alternative, the runway would continue to operate under the use restrictions described earlier. As a result, no commercial service jet aircraft would be able to operate in or out of ASE in the future due to the phasing out of existing regional jet aircraft, which have a narrower wingspan. This would likely result in a form of reduced commercial service to ASE. Some commercial service would likely continue in the future case, but it would need to be operated exclusively by turboprops. Socioeconomic Environment. The economy in the Aspen/Snowmass Village area relies heavily on tourism and the transportation network. Without regional jet service, some tourists will choose other resorts for their vacation destination. This is a concern for the out years, when advances in jet aircraft technology and manufacturing will make air travel more convenient and more comfortable for those resort communities where jet service is available. Table 4.12-17 compares the economic benefits associated with the No Action and With Project Runway Alternatives for the forecast years 2023, 2028, and 2033. This table highlights in red the potential lost economic benefit associated with the No Action Alternative as compared to the With Project Alternative. The numbers in Table 4.12-17 are based on the FAA-approved enplanement forecast and the estimate for visitor spending obtained from the 2013 CDOT Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports. That same report also found that 74.4% of commercial airline passengers who arrive at ASE are visitors. The numbers in Table 4.12-17 are conservative since they reflect per/visitor spending for 2013 and no adjustment has been made to reflect inflation to present day. 4.12.27 Table 4.12-17 Economic Benefits of New Visitors (Annual) 2023 No Action (Runway) Enplanement Increase (over 2015) Additional Visitors1 Annual Visitor Spending2 1 2028 No Action (Runway) With Project (Runway)3 2033 Reduction w/o Runway Project No Action (Runway) With Project (Runway) Reduction w/o Runway Project 29,612 25,319 62,599 37,280 47,495 99,718 52,223 22,031 18,837 46,574 27,736 35,336 74,190 38,854 $50,694,085 $43,344,710 $107,165,982 $63,821,272 $81,308,780 $170,711,631 $89,402,851 Enplanement increase, from the CDOT, Division of Aeronautics, 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports Based on estimate of visitor spending from the CDOT, Division of Aeronautics, 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports ($2,301/visitor) 3 First year of relocated runway implementation Note: all scenarios assume commercial passenger Terminal Redevelopment Source: TGMC, llc 2 Table 4.12 shows that by 2033 the No Action Alternative could translate to an economic loss of nearly $90 million annually for the communities within the region, as compared to the With Project Runway Alternative. This potential loss would have the greatest impact on tourism sectors of the economy including food services, lodging, arts, entertainment, recreation, and retail trade. Since retail sales tax is a major component of local government general fund revenues, government services and employment could also be affected. Therefore, the restriction of commercial jet service in the future could result in negative socioeconomic impacts to the area. Environmental Justice. Because the No Action Runway would result in no significant noise or relocation impacts, there would be no environmental justice impacts. The loss of commercial service will affect the entire tourism-based economy. Because it is expected to impact the entire tourism industry in the valley, it is not expected to disproportionately impact any minority or lowincome population. Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks. Because the No Action Runway would result in no significant noise or relocation impacts, there would be no impacts to children’s health and safety. 4.12.28 Construction Impacts: Construction impacts relative to the Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 would relate to the temporary economic benefit to the valley from construction activities. Each project would bring additional jobs and spending to the valley. A rerouting of traffic is expected to occur during construction to relocate the runway relocation during the piping of Owl Creek, but these impacts would be temporary and not significant. 4.12.2.4 Runway Alternative The Runway Alternative would eliminate the existing use restrictions by relocating the current runway 80 feet to the west, thus complying with FAA standards for the runway/taxiway separation. This alternative would likely have significant positive socioeconomic effects. The ability for commercial airlines to freely operate aircraft under this alternative would accommodate continued growth in tourism, which is the primary economic driver in the region. The community acknowledges that the existing regional jet service being provided at ASE has been a significant contributor to the success of the existing tourism economy. The proposed runway relocation would continue to support economic growth in the region consistent with community objectives. The proposed runway relocation can be thought of as a continuation of the status quo at ASE in terms of commercial passenger service since it would allow for regional jet service similar to the service currently being offered. Socioeconomic Environment. The Runway Relocation is not anticipated to have any negative direct or indirect socioeconomic impacts either during construction or following project completion. Businesses at ASE would not be negatively impacted by the project because no on-airport development areas or airport access would be affected. Traffic on Owl Creek Road from construction activities could be affected temporarily, but it would not affect any businesses. Also, the Runway Alternative would induce temporary positive socioeconomic impacts within the region due to construction activity. These impacts would benefit Pitkin County and the Roaring Fork Valley during the multi-year phased construction process by increasing employment opportunities and spending on local services and materials. The off-airport economic benefits of the runway relocation could be very substantial. The future enplanement estimates contained in the FAA-approved forecast (see Table 2-3) shows growth in commercial air service enplanements over the planning period (2015 – 2033). However, the growth in enplanements would also generate economic benefits as a result of the dollars spent in the local economy. Table 4.12-17 from the No Action Runway discussion shows the amount of money that would enter the local economy annually due to spending by the potential additional visitors generated by the proposed runway relocation project for each of the forecast years (not adjusted for inflation). 4.12.29 By 2028 the runway relocation could result in an increase of 46,574 annual visitors with an initial offairport economic benefit of approximately $107,166,000. By 2033 the initial economic benefit of the runway relocation could rise to nearly $170,712,000. These figures do not include the additional economic benefits created by the “multiplier effect” described earlier in this chapter in association with the current economic benefits of ASE. Impact of With Project Runway Alternative on Aspen/Snowmass Lodging: One question raised with respect to the potential growth in visitors associated with the runway relocation is how it will impact existing and planned short-term rental facilities in Aspen and Snowmass Village. As discussed earlier in this chapter, there is limited room to accommodate additional visitors in the existing lodging inventory based on historic occupancy data. However, additional lodging facilities, that have yet to be built, have received development approvals in both Aspen and Snowmass Village. In addition, there has been significant growth in the number of RBO units, which were not included in the DestiMetrics units/pillows counts. Table 4.12-18 shows the number of potential new lodging guests given these factors and the forecast enplanements associated with the proposed runway relocation alternative. Table 4.12-18 New Lodging Guests (Annual) Forecast Scenarios Enplanement Increase (Over 2015) Visitors1 New Lodge Guests2 2028 w/Project 62,599 46,574 27,944 2033 w/Project 99,718 74,190 44,514 Enplanement increase x .744, from the CDOT, Division of Aeronautics report, 2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports) 1 Visitors x .60, from Aspen's Lodging Sector- Lodging Demand and Economics Report (2013) Source: TGMC, llc 2 Since lodging capacity and occupancy are often referenced monthly, the new lodging guests have been assigned to the months of the year for comparison. This was done by combining the Aspen and Snowmass Village average monthly occupancy data for the last five full years (2011 - 2016). Table 4.12-19 shows the number of potential new lodge guests by month for the forecast years using this approach. 4.12.30 Table 4.12-19 New Lodging Guests by Month 2028 2033 January 3,430 5,465 February 3,520 5,608 March 3,511 5,592 April 1,214 1,934 May 780 1,242 June 2,372 3,779 July 3,412 5,434 August 2,982 4,749 September 2,192 3,492 October 1,238 1,972 November 789 1,257 December 2,504 3,989 Source: TGMC, llc To determine whether the new monthly lodge guests can be accommodated, the potential additional monthly lodging capacity associated with the approved/unbuilt lodging projects (see Table 4.12-13) and the existing RBO units was calculated. Due to the unpredictable nature of RBO units, the calculations used different assumptions for the capacity of these units versus the approved/unbuilt lodging units. Monthly Capacity for Approved/Un-built Lodge Pillows: To establish a monthly capacity for comparison, the total number of future pillows from Table 4.12-13 must be converted to a monthly capacity. In addition, the monthly capacity must be modified to reflect practical capacity. For this analysis, practical capacity was assumed to be 80% of total capacity on a year-round basis. This is a conservative estimate since practical capacity can be as high as 90% during peak periods. To determine the monthly capacity, the practical capacity is multiplied by a factor based on the average length of stay. According to the Aspen Skiing Company’s most recent On-mountain Survey, the average length of stay is seven nights. Based on a seven-night stay, the formula for determining monthly practical capacity for the potential future lodging units is as follows: Monthly practical capacity of future lodging pillows: (720 × .8) × 4.4 = 2,534 4.12.31 Monthly Capacity for RBO Pillows: The approach for calculating the capacity for RBO pillows is the same as described above for the approved/un-built lodge pillows except for using a practical capacity of 50% to account for the fact that the availability of RBO units tends to be more unpredictable and sporadic. Based on a seven-night stay, the formula for determining monthly practical capacity for the RBO units/pillows shown in the 2015 DestiMetrics inventory is as follows: Monthly practical capacity of future lodging pillows: (3,761 × .5) × 4.4 = 8,274 Combined monthly practical capacity = 10,808 pillows Comparing the combined monthly practical capacity with Table 4.12-19 shows that the capacity of the RBO units and the future lodging units is nearly double the number of potential new lodging guests, even for the peak months in 2033. The capacity of the RBO units alone significantly exceeds the potential new monthly lodge guests. Therefore, the proposed runway relocation would not exceed the future capacity of the Aspen/Snowmass Area lodging inventory and would not create development pressure for additional lodging units or pillows. Environmental Justice. Evaluating Environmental Justice determined whether the Runway Alternative would unequally distribute negative effects to special population groups. There would be no negative noise or relocation impacts on any population groups. The Runway shift would change the fleet mix to the newer commercial service aircraft, which are generally quieter than their CRJ-700 predecessors. Therefore, the Runway Alternative is not expected to result in any substantial negative or otherwise disproportionate impacts to any specific population groups within the Study Area. Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks. The Runway Alternative is not expected to result in any environmental health risks or safety risks for children. No schools, parks, or playgrounds are within the Study Area or within the 65 DNL or greater noise contour that might be affected by noise or other impacts associated with the Runway Alternative (See Section 4.11). Construction Impacts: Construction impacts relative to the Runway Alternative would relate to the temporary economic benefit to the valley from construction activities. Each project would bring additional jobs and spending to the valley. A rerouting of traffic is expected to occur during construction to relocate the runway relocation during the piping of Owl Creek, but these impacts would be temporary and not significant. 4.12.3 Mitigation and Minimization There are no significant impacts relative to the With Project Alternatives for either the Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 or the Runway Alternative. Therefore, no mitigation would be needed. Best management practices relative to construction road relocation or impacts on travelers would help minimize temporary impacts relative to construction. 4.12.32 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.13 Visual Effects The FAA defines visual effects as those impacts involving “light emissions; and visual resources and visual character.” 1 Light emissions include any light that radiates from a light source into the surrounding environment. Visual resources include natural or manmade landscape features that are visually important or have unique characteristics while visual character refers to the overall visual makeup of the existing environment. Visual effects deal broadly with the extent to which the proposed alternatives would either: 1) produce light emissions that create annoyance or interfere with activities; or 2) contrast with, or detract from, the visual resources and/or the visual character of the existing environment. While there are no federal thresholds of significance for visual effects, these impacts deal broadly with the extent of the contrast between development and the existing environment, and whether the surrounding communities object to this contrast. 4.13.1 Affected Environment ASE is in a historic mountain resort community that places strong value on visual quality and character. The notable scenic quality is the result of careful coordination of local development and natural landscape. Local ordinances, plans, and regulations guide the area’s landscape and visual character. For example, the entire airport property is situated within the Scenic View Protection Areas associated with Colorado Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road and the final design must meet the standards outlined in the Pitkin County Land Use Plan to protect these resources.2 The West of Maroon Plan (WOMP) is another important document that dictates local visual impacts, and the projects would need to meet requirements laid out in the WOMP. The projects must also meet the Airport Design Guidelines, which were developed tied closely to the WOMP. The Airport Design Guidelines state: “These guidelines are grounded in the belief that simple, strong design solutions that utilize indigenous materials and quality craftsmanship are the best way to create projects that honor the community’s values relative to architecture, site design and community planning…The guidelines encourage reintroduction of the native mountain landscape throughout the airport, and reap the resulting environmental benefits…The guidelines ensure the implementation of projects in a manner consistent with community values, which reflect high standards for quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability.”3 ASE is adjacent to Colorado Highway 82, which connects ASE to the City of Aspen. Pitkin county residences, businesses, and infrastructure extend along the highway up into the foothills above the highway. The natural scenery is characterized by grassland, meadows, clusters of Aspen trees, forests of pine and spruce, and rolling ski hills. Views from points surrounding ASE capture aesthetically pleasing vistas of Rocky Mountain peaks and natural landscapes. 1 Federal Aviation Administration Order 1050.1f, Effective 7/16/15, http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa_order_1050_1f.pdf 2 Pitkin County Land Use Code, Section 7-20-120. 3 Airport Design Guidelines, April 2014. 4.13.1 The valley’s general topography makes ASE slope an average of two percent consistently along the runway down valley, which affects how a building can fit into the landscape (Figure 4.13-1). Both alternatives take advantage of the existing topography at ASE by situating the proposed terminal facility to accommodate the steep site grades. Federally-required lighting for security, obstruction identification, and navigation are the primary sources of light emissions from ASE. Airport visual and electronic aids consist of instruments and equipment that assist pilots with navigation on the airfield and within the vicinity of ASE while in flight. The existing runway is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) owned by ASE. Runway 15 has Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights and a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights (MALSF) both owned by the FAA. The MALSF is an approach lighting system that stretches from the threshold of Runway 15 north, 1,400 feet along the extended centerline of Runway 15 and provides enhanced visual guidance to aircraft making a landing approach to ASE during periods of low visibility. Runway 33 is equipped with Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) which is owned by ASE. 4.13.2 Mead &Hunt r' r? "x #3101"! m" .- a W.- 'Ilma'? Inc. will mu3mm" .x 3' =3 - 152': mum minarl .. ?van - 2 .. .. ww?wMW/x? ?512-1? "Inn 3D Diagram A Airfieid-ro-Apron 3D Diagram Apron-io-Landside r" overall slap: of site [valley] 3D njagmm A a 3 7337 ft is an average 2% (see above) m?u . 1 3D Diagram Overaii Airport Topography Figure 4.13-1 Topography i AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.13.3 4.13.2 Environmental Consequences 4.13.2.1 No Action The No Action Alternative would not alter the existing lighting patterns or visual environment at ASE. 4.13.2.2 Terminal Alternatives To best evaluate potential impacts to visual quality, two terminal alternatives were developed with high level concepts for the visual rendering. These can be seen in Figure 4.13-2 (Terminal Alternative 1 – Ridge Concept) and 4.13-3 (Terminal Alternative 2 – Pavilion Concept). It is important to note that these alternatives represent a range of building alternatives for visual impact analysis. However, they do not represent final design. Final design will occur after the environmental assessment (EA) is completed, and final design elements will be reviewed relative to local standards prior to being constructed. 4.13.4 Mead &Hunt Innu-uh-ruul'lw u-w-u-v I ?m&mbmmunmuwrlm1n I I. Inna-runs!" ihpihll? mg- I ?ll??l?l?d?m?hnk? I Wm?rw-Frr-m?u mun-naut- Immuu-?uw-u-u. . . - . i ASPEHJPITHIH AIRPORT Figure 4.1 3-2 Terminal Alternative 1 - Ridge Concept I PROVE NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.13.5 I tmwmemwmm Iwwr?uw I MINIMUM mun-um winch-on moi-"m a .. i hmmu?rumm-jl I I: I I nu r-lruIn-nw Mead &Hunt i ASPEHIPITKIH AIRPORT Figure 4.13-3 Terminal Alternative 2 - Pavillion Concept I PROVE NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.13.6 Viewpoint selection criteria were developed. These criteria included visual areas of interest, vantage points from nearby neighborhoods, and viewpoints of high scenic value; they comprise differing angles and elevations surrounding ASE. Community input guided selection of the six viewpoints for visual analysis: Trentaz Road, McLain Flats Road, Colorado Highway 82 northbound, Buttermilk Road, Owl Creek Road, and Colorado Highway 82 southbound (Figure 4.13-4). Below are descriptions of each viewpoint and references to the associated Figures. Note that each Figure contains the No Action (top), Terminal Alternative 1 (middle), and Terminal Alternative 2 (bottom). Trentaz Road The Lower Trentaz Road observation point sits elevated with views out onto the Roaring Fork Valley. This location (Figure 4.13-5) was chosen due to its views of the surrounding environs, the Elk Mountains, the ski resorts of Snowmass, Buttermilk, and Aspen, and of ASE. This viewpoint was also used to model nighttime views (Figure 4.13-11). McLain Flats Road The McLain Flats Road observation point is located adjacent to Gavin Gulch and alongside numerous residential properties. This location (Figure 4.13-6) was chosen because it provides a view of the proposed terminal alternatives from the residential areas to the east. Colorado Highway 82 Northbound The Colorado Highway 82 Northbound observation point is located on the east side of ASE facing north. This location (Figure 4.13-7) parallels ASE property and was chosen due to its high use by both locals and tourists and its vantage point of the proposed project area. Buttermilk Road The Buttermilk Road observation point is located on the west side of the project area. This location (Figure 4.13-8) was chosen for its unobstructed viewpoint of the project area, and because it lies near locally popular and accessible walking and biking trails. Owl Creek Road This location is situated west of ASE along a paved two-lane road. The vantage point was chosen due to the clear view of the proposed projects from the west side looking east. The proposed terminal alternatives and runway alternative are clearly visible from the ground level, without obstructions (Figure 4.13-9). Colorado Highway 82 Southbound The Colorado Highway 82 Southbound observation point is located adjacent to the ASE airfield facing south towards the city of Aspen (Figure 4.13-10). This viewpoint was chosen as Colorado Highway 82 is the main artery connecting Aspen with Interstate 70, and it provides a direct view of the proposed project area. 4.13.7 SOURCE : Google Map Data, 2016. 6 View from CO-82 South Bound 1 View from Trentaz Road 2 View from McLain Flats Road 5 View from Owl Creek Road 4 View from Buttermilk Road 3 View from CO-82 North Bound N 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 Graphic Scale in Feet Figure 4.13-4 Visual Observation Points Future Potential Terminal Location 4.13.8 Common to both alternatives: Visual elements associated with both terminal alternatives include a relocated and expanded terminal facility, re-configured roadways and parking, an expansion of the air carrier apron, and a new noise wall located near the general aviation apron. Both Terminal Alternative visualizations also indicate the runway shift and widening, but the impacts of these projects are described in section 4.13.2.4 Runway Alternative. To reduce visual impact to the community, the design of the terminal facility would reflect the community vision, incorporating colors and textures that fit into the landscape visually and aesthetically by complementing the surrounding area. Landscaped areas and a potential green roof would provide aesthetic views from vantage points outside of the terminal. Sky-lights and large windows would optimize daylight within the terminal, and a large window would provide scenic views of Buttermilk Ski Area for travelers inside the terminal. Both site plans (Figure 3-3) are very similar in terms of visual effects. The greater expanse of pavement associated with roadway and parking reconfiguration would not have a significant impact on visual quality, as it would be similar to the existing visual character of ASE, and would not diminish the visual quality of the area. Existing trees would be kept to the extent possible to screen changes to the landscape from Highway 82. Light emissions associated with the proposed terminal area improvements would be similar to those of the existing terminal. Additional lights from the terminal facility or parking areas would be shielded per the Design Guidelines to minimize impacts. Therefore, the terminal alternatives would not result in significant adverse environmental light emissions impacts (Figure 4.13-11). Short-term, temporary visual impacts would occur during construction of the terminal area improvements. These impacts would include views of construction equipment, placement of fill, and construction related light emissions. 4.13.9 Terminal Alternative 1: This alternative comprises a “split-level” concept where terminal functions are generally located on a single level, and the split level provides an opportunity to fit within the existing grade (see Figure 4.13-1 and Figure 4.13-2). Situating the facility in this way accommodates the existing topography at ASE and reduces visual impacts. The design concept for this alternative would include a low profile roof that “hugs” the landscape to create a neighborhood scale, making it approachable from a user perspective. From the perspectives of the six identified viewpoints, one would see the angular, arching roof of the terminal facility and the re-located roadways. Views from higher elevations (i.e., Trentaz Road, McLain Flats, and Buttermilk) would be able to better see the broader expanse of the roof of the proposed new terminal (see Figures 4.13-5, 4.13-6, and 4.13-8). Views from lower elevations would show the change in lateral relocation north of the existing terminal (see Figures 4.13-7, 4.13-9, and 4.13-10). Improvements associated with this alternative would not significantly change the overall visual character of ASE. The visual perception of proposed terminal improvements would not block existing scenic views and would be inconsequential from the identified viewpoints. Therefore, significant visual impacts are not anticipated as a result of this alternative. Terminal Alternative 2: Terminal Alternative 2 combines a nested and two-story design concept that stacks the levels of the terminal facility. To minimize visual impacts, it incorporates a setback appearance to reduce visual intrusion within the landscape. Additionally, the stepped building footprint reduces the overall scale of the building (Figure 4.13-3). Views from higher elevations would show the terminal roof and re-located roadways (see Figures 4.13-5, 4.13-6, and 4.13-8). The roof design for Terminal Alternative 2 is flat, matching the topography of the adjacent airfield. The views from Colorado Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road would show the shift in location of the new terminal building north of the existing terminal facility (see Figures 4.13-7, 4.13-9, and 4.13-10). Similar to Terminal Alternative 1, this alternative would not impede any scenic views and would not diminish the existing character of the area. Temporary impacts to visual resources could result from construction activities. Construction equipment and associated materials would be visible from the viewpoints analyzed above. However, these impacts would not be significant and would be short-term. Therefore, this alternative would not have a significant impact on visual resources. 4.13.10 No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 ASPENFPITKIH AIRPORT Figure 4.1 3-5 Trentaz Road Alternatives I PROVE NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.13.11 Mead &Hunt No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 i ASPEHFPITHIH El?UllT?! AIRPORT Figure 4.1 3?6 McClain Flats Alternatives I PROVE NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.13.12 No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Figure 4.13-7 Colorado 82 North Bound Alternatives 4.13.13 Mead &Hunt No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 i ASPEHIPITKIH BOUNTY Figure 4.1 3?8 Buttermilk Alternatives I PROVE NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.13.14 Mead &Hunt No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 i ASFEHIPITHIH AIRPIJIIT Figure 4.1 3?9 Owl Creek Road Alternatives I PROVEM NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ., ix" I we: 4.13.15 -7 t. Mead &Hunt No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 i ASFEHIPITHIH AIRPIJIIT Figure 4.1 3?1 0 South Bound Alternatives I PROVEM NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Axe?W. ,4 "Wei?55 as? 4.13.16 -7 t. No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Figure 4.13-11 Nighttime View - Trentaz Road Alternatives 4.13.17 4.13.2.3 Runway Alternative Slight changes in views would result from an increase in the amount of pavement due to the widening of the runway. Potential runway pavement would be similar in appearance to the existing runway pavement. The visual perception of the proposed 50-foot increase in runway width would be inconsequential from the identified viewpoints. Therefore, the visual impact of the added pavement would not be significant. The re-located runway, equipment, and lighting would be similar in appearance to existing conditions. The appearance of the NAVAIDS and lighting would not change significantly and would be re-located to maintain a similar relationship to the runway. The potential new location of these elements would be closer to west side of ASE; therefore, these elements could be more visible to viewpoints west of ASE. However, because the visual character would not change drastically from existing conditions, these improvements are not expected to result in any significant impacts (Figure 4.13-11). Similarly, relocation of the perimeter road, Owl Creek Road, and Bike Path and the piping of Owl Creek would not result in significant impacts to visual character. The visual appearance of these elements would not change, and would therefore not have any significant impacts on the visual environment. Temporary impacts to visual resources could result from construction activities. Construction equipment and associated materials would be visible from the viewpoints analyzed above. However, these impacts would not be significant and would be short-term. 4.13.3 Minimization and Mitigation Measures There would be no significantly adverse impacts to the visual character or to visual resources as a result of the Proposed Action. Therefore, no mitigation is required. All final design would need to go through local approvals and meet local planning standards, including the Airport Design Guidelines and the Highway 82 Corridor Plan Standards, which would minimize any visual changes to the environment per those standards. 4.13.18 4.14 Water Resources (Including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers) Water resources, which include surface waters and groundwater, provide drinking water and support recreation, transportation and commerce, industry, agriculture, and aquatic ecosystems. Surface water, groundwater, floodplains, and wetlands do not function as separate and isolated components of the watershed, but rather as a single, integrated natural system. Disruption of any one part of this system can have consequences to the functioning of the entire system. Surface and Groundwater: Surface waters include streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, estuaries, and oceans. Groundwater is subsurface water that occupies the space between sand, clay, and rock formations. The term aquifer is used to describe the geologic layers that store or transmit groundwater, such as to wells, springs, and other water sources. The Clean Water Act (CWA), officially titled the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, contains broad legislation enabling development of water quality standards and management practices. This statutory authority is supported by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act that regulates water impoundment projects, and the Safe Drinking Water Act that regulates projects that might contaminate aquifers used as principal drinking water sources. Wetlands and Non-Wetland Water Features: Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and Department of Transportation DOT Order 5660.1A, Order on Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands, require Federal agencies to avoid and minimize the impact of construction projects on wetlands. Wetlands are defined as areas inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation or aquatic life requiring saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Waters of the US are within the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to the CWA. Waters of the US include waters that are used or could be used for interstate commerce. These include wetlands, ponds, lakes, territorial seas, rivers, tributary streams, including any definable intermittent waterways, and some ditches below the Ordinary High Water Mark. Manmade water bodies are also included, such as quarries and ponds no longer actively being mined or constructed. Wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows, riffle and pool complexes, coral reefs, sanctuaries and refuges are all considered special aquatic sites that involve more rigorous regulatory permitting requirements Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss; minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Based upon the available Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Pitkin County, Colorado, there are no Special Flood Hazard Areas, Floodway Areas, or Other Flood Areas on Airport property. Floodplains are those areas subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 4.14.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act describes those rivers protected as free flowing rivers, possessing “outstanding or remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values.” 4.14.1 Affected Environment 4.14.1.1 Surface and Groundwater Within the survey area, and as shown in Figure 4.14-1, Owl Creek runs from the southwest to the northeast on ASE property, crossing the runway and eventually discharging into the Roaring Fork River, which then flows into the Colorado River, a navigable water. Owl Creek is a non-wetland water feature also known as a “waters of the US.” Additional non-wetland surface waters include two small tributaries to Owl Creek and four ditches, also considered non-wetland water features. The ditches, a part of an irrigation system, are all controlled surface water features. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the western part of Pitkin County is located within the Colorado plateaus aquifers system, but this aquifer system does not lie beneath the study area. A surficial, mountainous aquifer associated with the Roaring Fork River underlies the study area just north of ASE and the City of Aspen. However, this area is not considered to be a major aquifer because the alluvium in the valley is thin, narrow, and discontinuous. In general, ASE property has a consistent gradual slope, following the grade of the Valley north toward the Town of Basalt. ASE’s storm water is conveyed east from ASE buildings, roads, and parking areas to a drainage swale along the west side of the Airport Frontage Road. The swale is a combination of open ditches and culverts under roadways. Storm water run-off collected on the east side of ASE eventually flows into the open meadow north of the fixed base operator (FBO) apron. The remaining water that does not percolate into this open meadow flows into the Owl Creek drainage; this creek eventually flows into the Roaring Fork River. The City of Aspen provides ASE’s water through an 18-inch service line. The service line is located in the road Right-of-Way (ROW) on the western side of Highway 82 from Owl Creek Road to BMC West. At BMC West, the line crosses under Highway 82 to provide service to the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) area. The line crosses under Highway 82 at the AABC gas station, and runs from ASE’s main entry to a point just east of the ATCT, where the service line terminates. With the exception of the ATCT, all buildings on the Airport are serviced by (or can access) the sanitary sewer system that serves the general area including the AABC, ASE, and surrounding commercial area. The ATCT has an existing below-ground septic system. 4.14.2 Several water wells and an aquifer associated with the Buttermilk Metropolitan water district used to be at the southern end of the project area. Since the runway extension in 2012, these wells have been capped and the residences were placed on City of Aspen water. Therefore, these wells are no longer active. A construction project in 2012 for the deicing ramp installed a system that captures the flows from the deicing operations and sends them to an underground collection tank. This collection system is only in operation during times when deicing is occurring. During warmer months, the water is diverted to a subsurface drainage system that sends the flows north to the area of the commercial ramp. From there the flows are piped towards the short-term parking lot and outfall into swales alongside the ASE frontage road, and then flow to the north toward Owl Creek. The majority of the glycol used for deicing is collected in the tank and any residual glycol that may enter the storm system would be very minimal. 4.14.1.2 Wetlands and Non-Wetland Water Features In 2015, a detailed site survey documented the presence of wetlands and water resources located on ASE property. Appendix 6 includes the detailed survey information and wetlands analysis, and Figure 4.14-1 illustrates the main water features, which are summarized below: Tributaries Tributaries 1 and 2, located on the Sardy homestead, are open channels with Tributary 1 (420 feet long) being dry and surrounded by grasses (Photograph 10 – Appendix 1). Tributary 2 is dry for approximately 40 feet ending in a dug out and ponded area with standing water approximately 3 feet wide and 6 inches deep (Photograph 11– Appendix 1). Ditches Four ditches (Ditch 1-4) identified in the northwestern portion of the survey area are part of the airport water system and convey hydrology to various sections of the northwest portion of airport property to irrigate ranching operations in the area. All of these ditches are associated with control features that can be used to calibrate or terminate flows within the ditches Ditch 1 (616 LF) is located near the western survey area boundary just north of Owl Creek in the northwestern portion of the survey area. This feature appears to deliver water to the irrigation system that serves the hay meadows in the northwest corner of the ASE property. Ditch 2 (1,306 LF) runs along the western edge of the irrigated hay meadow and appears to convey irrigation waters down gradient towards Owl Creek. 4.14.3 Ditch 3 (2,400 feet long) flows east from a headgated and culverted area at the crossroads of Owl Creek Road and an airport service road, then parallels the airport runways until it joins Owl Creek within the airport operations area. The upper portion of Ditch 3 supports hawthorn, narrowleaf cottonwood, willow, rushes, manna grass (Glyceria grandis) and sedge. This portion of the ditch is approximately 1 foot wide by 3 inches deep. The portion of Ditch 3 that parallels the airport runway supports cattail (Typha latifolia), manna grass, redtop, and other herbaceous species. This portion of Ditch 3 is 3 feet wide by 8 inches deep. Ditch 4 (306 LF) is a small ditch, 1 foot wide by 1 inch deep, that flows northeasterly from a headgate through a grassland/sagebrush area. A portion of this ditch is piped underground to join Ditch 3. Wetlands Based on the site visit in September 2015 and a wetland delineation that was verified by the USACE in September 2016, three wetland areas (identified as Wetlands A, B and C in the wetland delineation report) exist within the survey area. Associated with Owl Creek, Wetland A is approximately 3.0 acres at the northern end of the survey area (Photograph 8 – Appendix 1). Wetland A supports narrowleaf cottonwood, Bebb’s willow (Salix bebbiana), beaked sedge and manna grass. Wetland A includes 1,890 LF of Owl Creek, which is likely considered a water of the US and is regulated by the USACE. Wetland B is 0.05-acre of scrub-shrub wetland located along a ditch just north of the operations center. Wetland B includes a dominance of Booth’s willow (Salix boothii) and narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) with an understory comprised of wetland species such as creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), American brooklime (Veronica Americana). This wetland provides limited habitat and wetland functions due to size and the fact that the hydrology that supports this wetland is controlled as part of the airport water system and can be initiated or terminated based on airport water needs. Wetland C is an emergent wetland area located at the southern end of the runway. This area was identified in association with a previous runway expansion and bike path construction. The area totals 1.3 acres and is part of two branches of stream course that enter the area from the south. Drainage from this area is piped underneath airport facilities. Vegetation supported in Wetland C is comprised mostly of sedge species (Carex aquatilis, Carex nebrascensis) with the establishment of some cattail (Typha latifolia) (Photograph 12 – Appendix 1). Wetland C provides low habitat diversity, low habitat value for fish and wildlife, little in the way of flood protection, some water quality improvement, some bank stabilization, low food chain support, moderate maintenance of the hydrologic cycle, and low quality with respect to food production, educational research, recreation and heritage. 4.14.4 Finally, a small, constructed detention feature is located north of Wetland C (Photograph 14 – Appendix 1). This pond receives water from the wetland, which stores and releases the water to a culvert that likely follows in a northeasterly direction off the airport property. On September 20, 2016, the USACE issued a letter concurring with the wetland delineation performed in 2015 and issued a pre-jurisdictional determination that identifies wetlands and nonwetland water features within the survey area (Appendix 6). Three mapped wetlands exist within survey area, but no wetlands are located within the project area. 4.14.1.3 Floodplains According to FEMA’s floodplain maps, the 100-year floodplain from Owl Creek intersects ASE property; this floodplain is located on the northern side of the property as seen in Figure 4.14-2. Portions of this floodplain are located within the project area, relative to the Owl Creek areas within the airport fence line proposed for piping. 4.14.5 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.14.6 N 0' 225' ' 450' 900' COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 1350' POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING RELOCATED LOC/DME RELOCATED TERMINAL BALTIC AVE INTERSECTION NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER ILK RM AIL E T R T LBU P T TIA RLOO N E O T PO NECT N CO WETLANDS RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING RELOCATED ASOS RELOCATED PAPI OWL CREEK PIPING DITCH 3 Ow l R LEGEND F WETLANDS WETLANDS "B" WATERSOFTHEUS./.NON-WETLANDWATERFEATURE k ee a Ro r ive A' AY ' RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' Cr ri ng k or IW TAX D OA KR REE LC OW Xref D:\cad-e\ASPEN\C-1 SITE 1ST AREA1.dwg DITCH 4 RELOCATED MALSF OWL CREEK PIPING WETLANDS "A" DITCH 2 "C" DITCH 1 Figure 4 DITCH/NON-WETLAND WATER FEATURE AIRPORT RANCH STUDY AREA FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES A HW G I H FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT 2 Y8 FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 4.14-1 Wetlands & Water Features Near Airport 4.14.7 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT N 0' 225' ' 450' 900' COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 1350' POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING RELOCATED LOC/DME RELOCATED TERMINAL BALTIC AVE INTERSECTION NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER ILK RM AIL E T R T LBU P T TIA RLOO N E O T PO NECT N CO RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING RELOCATED ASOS RELOCATED PAPI D OA KR REE LC OW RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' OWL CREEK PIPING Y 'A A AXIW T ' Ow l Cr k ee OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED MALSF Figure 4 LEGEND OWLCREEKFLOODPLAN I AIRPORT RANCH OWL CREEK FLOODPLAIN STUDY AREA FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES WA H G HI FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT 2 Y8 FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 4.14-2 Owl Creek Floodplain 4.14.9 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.14.1.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers No wild and scenic rivers, as designated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, are located in the vicinity of ASE. Therefore, there would be no impacts relating to Wild and Scenic Rivers and this resource category is not discussed further. 4.14.2 Environmental Consequences 4.14.2.1 No Action Alternative This alternative does not include any development and therefore, would not adversely impact any wetlands, floodplains, or water resources. 4.14.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 The Terminal Alternatives include development within the entirely pre-disturbed terminal area on the east side. No wetlands, floodplains, or other water resources are included in this area. Therefore, neither of these alternatives would have any direct impacts on wetlands, floodplains, or other water resources. Both terminal alternatives would result in a slight increase in impervious surface on the east side, due to a larger terminal footprint and the larger apron size. Stormwater runoff from paved airport surfaces typically contains low concentrations of some metals, petroleum compounds, rubber compounds and glycol that has dripped from planes being deiced. Additionally, compounds used to melt ice and snow can be present in the stormwater runoff and can potentially impact groundwater quality. These alternatives would require a change to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for ASE in the project area to account for the increase in stormwater runoff and meet stormwater runoff requirements. A construction dewatering permit would be needed if any construction dewatering were to take place and the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the Airport would need to be updated. On occasion, ASE has had high BOD and COD at two of the outfalls. The Terminal Alternatives would result in a relocation of some of the impervious surfaces and a reconfiguration of the stormwater drainage that would help balance the drainage. The deicing pad runoff would continue to flow into an underground storage tank under the Terminal Alternatives, capturing the majority of glycol. Surface flows when deicing operations are not occurring will be captured in a subsurface drainage system that ties to a new trench drain and drainline that will also capture the flows on the commercial ramp. This storm water will flow to the north and be directed to a drainage feature that will be installed just south of where the existing terminal building sits. This drainage feature will need to meet the FAA wildlife Advisory Circular to not create a wildlife hazard. 4.14.11 This drainage feature will slow the storm water runoff flows down and provide a place for any sediment to settle. Then, the storm water will be directed to a drainage swale along the airport frontage road that will carry the runoff toward Owl Creek. Because the majority of the glycol used for deicing periods is collected in the tank, any residual glycol that may get into the storm system would be very minimal. Therefore, the Terminal Alternatives would not have any significant impacts on water quality and no impacts to wetlands. 4.14.2.3 Runway Alternative Ground water/Surface Water The Runway Alternative would slightly change the drainage patterns, but would not substantially change or impact the existing drainage system or the aquifers on or near ASE property. Since this project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations, it would not affect the concentration of this runoff. The Runway Alternative would require a change to the NPDES Permit for ASE due to a change in the amount of storm water runoff, a construction dewatering permit if any construction dewatering were to take place, and an update to the SWMP for ASE. Based on the thresholds of significance outlined in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, the Runway Alternative would not exceed water quality standards, contaminate public drinking water, or contaminate an aquifer used for public water. Wetlands and Waters of the US The Runway Alternative would not impact wetland areas, but 1,670 feet of Owl Creek, a nonwetland water feature also known as a water of the US, would be disturbed by piping (Figure 4.14-3). Sections of Owl Creek on either side of the runway within the study area would be impacted. These sections of Owl Creek are within a 100-year floodplain. Since Owl Creek is a water of the US, no wetlands would be impacted as a result of the Runway Alternative. At the time of the field study in 2015 and again during a site visit in 2016, the sections of Owl Creek located on either side of the runway had been disturbed and maintained to prevent wildlife hazards. On the west side of the runway, vegetation along Owl Creek is mowed giving the creek the appearance of a meandering ditch. On the east side of the runway within the study area, riparian plants, which include herbaceous species and cottonwoods, have been mowed and the trees trimmed. The surface water of the creek flows well below its floodplain. Piping of Owl Creek will result in the loss of open water and disturb vegetation, the consequences of which were described in Section 4.2.5. Since the piping of Owl Creek will reduce sedimentation and wildlife hazards, this is viewed as beneficial. 4.14.12 However, piping Owl Creek will also reduce access to 1,670 LF of Owl Creek. Organisms that cannot access the piped section of the creek are likely to migrate to habitat that is of better quality and adjacent to the piped section (see Section 4.2 Biological Resources). Open channel sections outside of ASE fenced area will be available to migrating organisms. The piping of Owl Creek would also protect the area within the fence line from stormwater runoff from the runway and taxiway. Relocating and widening the runway would alter the drainage and stormwater runoff slightly, but the design and permitting would account for this relocation and added impervious surface. As required by the CWA, the impact to Owl Creek will require a permit from the USACE and mitigation for this impact, as discussed in the mitigation section later in this chapter. Minimization as it relates to alternatives analysis is also included in Chapter 3, Alternatives. Impacts to Owl Creek warrant an Individual Permit, per discussions with USACE, due to the length of stream that will be placed in a culvert. However, there are potential stream habitat restoration projects in the area that would, through a stream functional assessment process, serve to mitigate the loss of the less than ideal quality of Owl Creek that is within ASE property. Further, the selection of the Runway Alternative via the Air Service Study, as described in Chapter 3, Alternatives, met the FAA standards at a minimum while avoiding all impacts to wetlands and minimizing impacts to Owl Creek. Two steps of avoidance and minimization are important to the process of permitting such a project, and having available mitigation sites and a process that allows assessment of the quality of Owl Creek speaks to the ability to issue an individual permit. 4.14.13 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.14.14 N 0' 50' 100' 200' 300' E T OR P AIR TY PER LIN O PR Y WA IWA TAX Y 'A ' 82 H HIG l Creek Ow RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' RELOCATED ASOS RELOCATED PAPI OWL CREEK PIPING Ow l k ee Cr OWL CREEK PIPING Xref D:\cad-e\ASPEN\C-1 SITE 1ST AREA1.dwg LEGEND WETLANDS RELOCATED MALSF SoucrBe oi:Envo rin2s015 STUDY AREA FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK Figure 4.14-3 Owl Creek Piping Detail 4.14.15 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Floodplains The Runway Alternative would result in direct impacts to the existing Owl Creek floodplains with the piping of Owl Creek. The Runway Alternative would be designed to maintain the conveyance and storage capacity of the existing FEMA floodplain. Coordination with FEMA will be maintained throughout the project to avoid and minimize impacts to floodplains. Impacts to designated floodplains were examined based on the thresholds of significance for floodplains. The threshold of significance for floodplains is discussed in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, which states that floodplain impacts would be significant pursuant to the NEPA if it results in notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Despite the proposed floodplain modifications within the project study area, the existing drainage patterns downstream of ASE (i.e., Roaring Fork) will not be changed as a result of the proposed project. Because of this, all floodplain related modifications would be limited to within the defined project study area. However, these changes would not result in significant impacts to the floodplain because they would not result in (1) a considerable probability of loss of human life, (2) likely future damage associated with the encroachment that could be substantial in cost or extent, or (3) a notable adverse impact on the floodplain’s natural and beneficial floodplain values. 4.14.3 Minimization and Mitigation Waters of the US and wetlands are regulated by the USACE with oversight from the US EPA. For a project to be permitted, it must be demonstrated that, to the extent practicable, steps must be taken to avoid impacts, minimize impacts, and provide compensation for unavoidable impacts. While no impacts to wetlands will occur as a result of the No Action, Terminal Expansion Alternatives, or Runway Alternative, the piping of Owl Creek warrants permitting through Section 404 of the CWA. When water features are piped, fill materials are typically placed under the pipe within the original creek bed, and this action constitutes a discharge regulated under Section 404. ASE has taken steps to avoid impacts to wetlands and waters of the US by selecting alternatives that do not impact the three wetlands identified in the survey area. The minimization effort relative to the alternatives analysis is included in Chapter 3, Alternatives. ASE further minimized impacts to waters of the US by selecting the Terminal Alternatives and Runway Alternative with the smallest impacts to Owl Creek. Only sections of Owl Creek within the fenceline that pose wildlife hazards to ASE and that were previously managed to reduce vegetative cover will be piped. The discharge of fill material to Owl Creek warrants some type of mitigation. Mitigation will be finalized during the permitting efforts, but could include improvements to a degraded stream system in ASE’s vicinity. Improvements can include streambank stabilization, improvement of riparian habitat, and instream improvements among other means of stream restoration. Several stream systems are within the vicinity of ASE and include, but are not limited, to the Roaring Fork River, Brush Creek, Maroon Creek, and Hunter Creek. 4.14.17 Additionally, to avoid adverse impacts to the floodplain, the Runway Alternative would require design of the piping of Owl Creek to maintain flood storage capacity on ASE property. Best Management Practices (BMP) would be employed in the implementation of the Terminal Alternatives and the Runway Alternative to avoid impacts to water resources and to meet the federal, state, and local stormwater requirements. All necessary permits and approvals for the project would be obtained before construction activities take place. BMPs could include:      Erosion and sediment control, such as surface protection for slopes, sediment capture, and runoff management; Installation of silt curtains and berms, to the extent possible, to isolate the work area during fill placement to prevent temporary impacts on water quality in Owl Creek; Conducting all work in accordance with permit stipulations (i.e., USACE 404 Permit, Title 41, and State Consistency Determination); Fueling or servicing vehicles or equipment at least 100 feet from any wetlands or waters of the US with the exception of low-mobility equipment; and Scheduling in-water construction to avoid times when most vulnerable species are most likely be present. Mitigation for water quality impacts could include flow control and treatment BMPs in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Flow control BMPs are methods to reduce or prevent development-related increases in stormwater runoff at or near the source of the increases. Source control and runoff treatment BMPs are methods of reducing pollutants from entering the stormwater runoff and treating pollutant runoff as part of the storm drainage system. For example, stormwater pollution and erosion would be prevented by implementing measures including sedimentation basins, silt traps, catch basins, and drip pans and following the NPDES permit. The contractors would implement BMPs following FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, to avoid and minimize risk of impact to any surface water resources adjacent to the proposed project area during the construction phase. 4.14.18 4.15 Traffic Study Congestion levels generally worsen when vehicle volumes exceed roadway capacity or in the event of an incident. In addition, construction has the potential to increase congestion and reduce capacity. The traffic study records the analysis of potential impacts each of the proposed projects relative to traffic on and near ASE (signal at Baltic Avenue and highway CO-82). 4.15.1 Affected Environment The transportation network in the vicinity of ASE consists of arterial highway CO-82, Owl Creek Road, and ASE access roads. Highway CO-82 runs north/south and is the primary access to both ASE and the City of Aspen. Owl Creek Road provides access west of ASE to Snowmass Ski resort. The intersections in the vicinity of ASE consist of a signalized intersection at Baltic Avenue and CO82 and a non-signalized intersection at Service Center Road and CO-82. In addition to the two intersections, a slip-lane ramp connects W. Airport Road to CO-82 southbound towards Aspen. Level of service (LOS) is related to the delay per vehicle in terms of number of seconds, as seen in the table from the Highway Capacity Manual, (Table 4.15-1). As of 2015, the intersection at Baltic Avenue and CO-82 operates at a LOS D with an overall delay of 40.7 seconds per vehicle. LOS D is considered the existing condition. Table 4.15-1 Level of Service Level of Service A B C D E F Control Delay Seconds/vehicle ≤10 >10-20 >20-35 >35-55 >55-80 >80 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. 4.15.2 Environmental Consequences The following sections discuss the analysis for the No Action and Development Alternatives for the terminal and runway improvements. The primary metric used to assess traffic conditions surrounding ASE was the performance of the signalized intersection at Baltic Avenue and CO-82. As stated above, as of 2015, the intersection operates at a LOS D with an overall delay of 40.7 seconds per vehicle. The traffic analysis relied on traffic volume and traffic forecast data for CO-82 from the CDOT and traffic counts provided by Pitkin County. The analysis also used ground vehicle movement data calculated from a curbfront user survey and forecasted enplanements (see Appendix 7). Data entered into Highway Capacity Software, a traffic simulation program, centralized information to evaluate the performance of the Baltic Avenue and CO-82 intersection based on standards set by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 4.15.1 Traffic analysis was performed under the assumption that no changes would be made to the overall layout of the transportation network beyond minor geometric reconfigurations of intersections and airport roadways to accommodate future traffic and the relocation of the terminal and associated roadways. It was also assumed that trips originating at ASE and turning onto CO-82 southbound would be split 50/50 between the existing intersection at Baltic Avenue and the slip-lane on-ramp. The results of a study done by Jviation as part of the Master Plan indicated 54 percent of the traffic was assumed to head up-valley to Aspen and the rest of the traffic heads down-valley. To determine potential impacts from terminal and runway improvements, passenger forecasts (developed as part of a 2015 ALP Update) were used to project ground vehicle movements that can be attributed to ASE users (see Appendix 7 - Traffic). These ground vehicle movements each represent a roundtrip vehicle movement, which is a trip to ASE to drop-off the passenger and a trip from ASE back to the vehicle’s origin. Ground vehicle movements were developed relative to the estimated number of annual enplanements for each project and the No Action. These ground movements were evaluated for annual, peak month, and peak hour vehicle trips. Table 4.15-2 below presents the ground vehicle movements that can be attributed to ASE users for the various passenger enplanement levels. Table 4.15-2 Ground Vehicle Movements Vehicle Type 2016 Actual Projected Passenger Enplanements Total Annual Vehicles Peak Month Average Day Peak Hour 15.7% 1/30 15.9% 2028 No Action Runway (Out Year Terminal) 258,860 2028 Runway With Project – First Year of Impl. 296,140 2033 No Action Out Year 233,541 2023 No Action and With Project Terminal 263,153 281,036 2033 Runway With Project Out Year 333,259 177,965 200,531 197,259 225,668 214,158 253,954 27,941 931 148 31,483 1,049 167 30,970 1,032 164 35,430 1,181 188 33,623 1,121 178 39,871 1,3299 211 Note: Vehicle movements each represent a roundtrip movement, which is a trip to the airport to drop off a passenger and a trip from the airport back to the vehicle’s origin. Sources: Projected Passenger Enplanements 2015 ALP Update – Forecast Chapter, Jviation 2015, Mead & Hunt Peak Month and Peak Hour percentages – 2008 Airport Master Plan Update. Vehicle Movements, Mead & Hunt 2016. 4.15.2 Table 4.15-3 below presents the forecast LOS and average intersection delay for each of the alternatives. An impact to surface transportation was identified if traffic conditions (LOS) for the intersection were degraded substantially relative to existing conditions. Table 4.15-3 Intersection Performance by Year 2016 Actual Forecast LOS Intersection Delay (seconds/vehicle) Change 2023 No Action and With Project Terminal D 40.7 D 45.8 +0 seconds 2028 No Action Runway (Out Year Terminal) D 49.1 2028 Runway With Project – First Year of Impl. D 50.1 +1 seconds 2033 No Action Out Year D 52.4 2033 Runway With Project Out Year D 61.1 +8.7 seconds Source: Mead & Hunt, 2016. 4.15.2.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in a substantial change to the traffic conditions. As previously shown in Table 4.15-2, vehicle movements would increase in the future due to the anticipated projected growth at ASE that would occur with or without the proposed projects. As described in Chapter 2, while No Action relative to the runway would not change the overall number of operations expected at ASE, the total number of enplanements would reduce compared to Runway Alternative. The No Action would represent a reduction in enplanements compared to Runway Alternative due to the reduction in commercial jet service, as the CRJ-700s are slowly phased out of the commercial fleet over time. As the CRJ-700s are phased out, they would be replaced with turboprops and other GA jets that fit within the wingspan restriction, reducing the overall enplanements compared to Runway Alternative in both the 2028 and 2033 scenarios. As seen in Table 4.15-3, the intersection at Baltic Avenue and CO-82 would continue to operate at LOS D in 2028 and 2033. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no significant effect on traffic conditions. 4.15.2.2 Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2: As noted above, a slight increase in enplanements is expected as part of normal growth which would be the same for both the No Action and Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2. The 2028 No Action is considered to be the out year for the Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 With Project. 4.15.3 The potential impacts of the No Action and the Development Terminal Alternatives would be the same since the proposed terminal improvements would not have any impact on the number of enplanements forecast at ASE. Similar to the No Action Alternative, vehicle movements would increase in the future due to more enplanements; however, these increases are expected to occur whether or not the terminal improvements are implemented. The intersection at Baltic Avenue and CO-82 would continue to operate at LOS D. Minor modifications to the surface traffic routing at ASE could occur with implementation of the Terminal Alternatives, but the airport roads would tie into existing intersections and would not substantially alter the traffic accessing ASE or CO-82. There would be short-term impacts to traffic relative to construction activities. Construction activities are generally temporary in nature and could include short-term impacts. Implementing either Terminal Alternative would result in temporary changes to surface transportation traffic patterns, specifically airport access roads during construction. Because parking would be undersized, it is anticipated that either more people will use rideshare, public transit, shuttles or taxis to the Airport, which is a goal of the community. This should not substantially impact traffic (though it may have a small reduction in trips), it could add to circling time if people who wish to park cannot find a spot. Routes used for the transportation of materials or construction equipment on the surface roads to the Airport would be selected to minimize impacts to the local surface transportation network. Additionally, the contractor would use standard construction traffic techniques to maintain traffic during construction and follow the ASE Sustainable Construction Management Plan for ASE. Overall, implementation of the Terminal Alternatives would not have a significant effect on surface transportation in either 2023 or in the out year of 2028. 4.15.2.3 Runway Alternative The proposed Runway Alternative would have a higher number of enplanements compared to the No Action Alternative at ASE due to an expected reduction in seats in the No Action Alternative. Over time, while the total number of operations would stay the same, enplanements would be higher than the No Action due to the phasing out of commercial aircraft in the No Action scenario. These enplanements would represent additional trips compared to the No Action on the roadways and intersections on and surrounding ASE; however, these trips would represent the same number of trips as under the existing forecasts. The potential impacts of these additional trips are described below for the year of implementation (2028) and out year (2033). Additionally, the Runway Alternative would result in a long-term relocation of Owl Creek Road. However, this relocation is within the existing CDOT right of way and would not result in any significant impacts from this relocation. 4.15.4 Construction activities are generally temporary in nature and could include short-term impacts. The Runway Alternative would result in temporary changes to the traffic patterns on Owl Creek Road during construction. However, these impacts would be temporary and not significant. Routes used for the transportation of materials or construction equipment on the surface roads to the Airport would be selected to minimize impacts to the local surface transportation network. Additionally, the contractor would use standard construction traffic techniques to maintain traffic during construction and follow ASE’s Sustainable Construction Management Plan. Year of Implementation – 2028 In 2028, the Runway Alternative would result in an increase in enplanements compared to the No Action (which shows a reduction in enplanements due to loss of jet commercial service), and therefore, an increase in passenger trips over the No Action. These passenger trips are anticipated to result in an average 1,181 daily vehicle trips including 188 peak-hour trips. With the runway project implementation scenario (2028) the Baltic Avenue and CO-82 intersection would continue to operate at an LOS D with an average delay of 50.1 seconds per vehicle. Because the LOS remains the same in both the No Action and With Project scenarios, the implementation of the runway improvements would not have a significant impact on the surrounding surface transportation network. Out Year – 2033 In 2033, the Runway Alternative would result in an increase in enplanements compared to the No Action (which shows a reduction in enplanements due to loss of commercial jet service), and therefore, an increase in passenger vehicle trips compared to the No Action. These passenger trips are anticipated to result in an average 1,329 daily vehicle trips including 211 peak-hour trips. With the runway project implementation scenario (2033), the Baltic Avenue and CO-82 intersection is forecast to operate at an LOS E with an average delay of 61.1 seconds per vehicle. An LOS E reflects an intersection that operates at capacity and is considered typical for an urban, crowded four-way intersection where major traffic movements conflict with turns. Although the LOS will decrease in relation to the No Action (2033) scenario, the intersection will still function. Therefore, it can be determined that the proposed runway improvements would not have a significant impact on the surrounding surface transportation network. 4.15.3 Minimization and Mitigation Because the proposed actions would not result in a significant impact to surface transportation, no mitigation measures would be implemented. A long-term plan is ready to develop an additional intersection to the south of Baltic Avenue, which can be developed earlier than planned if the growth occurs outside the forecast assumptions within this study. 4.15.5 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.16 Cumulative Impacts CEQ’s regulations for implementing NEPA define cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR §1508.7). NEPA requires that cumulative effects be evaluated along with the direct and indirect effects of the Alternatives. The level of analysis and scope of cumulative effect assessment are typically commensurate with the potential impacts, resources affected, project scale, and other factors. As with direct and indirect effects, the No Action Alternative serves as the baseline against which to evaluate cumulative effects. In this section, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are discussed. The focus of the cumulative impact analysis will be on those resources that are either directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed projects. 4.16.1 Affected Environment 4.16.1.1 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects To adequately understand the potential environmental affects related to cumulative impacts, it is important to document the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. For purposes of the proposed projects, the review of past projects follows the desk reference guidance, “Present impacts of past actions that are relevant and useful are those that may have a significant causeand-effect relationship with the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action and alternative(s).” Present actions are those that are occurring in the same general time frame that could have cumulative impacts on elements such as traffic or noise. Reasonably foreseeable projects include actions that are not remote or speculative (generally meaning they are included in planning documents). In addition to the runway extension project, most of the past projects relate to traffic improvements on Highway 82, housing/affordable housing and alternative transportation (bike paths, transit linkages). Past Projects           ASE Runway Extension RFTA BRT System RFTA Bus Lane Park-N-Ride at Owl Creek and Highway 82 Maroon Creek Bridge Replacement Highway 82 Expansion to 4-lane Airline Trail Buttermilk Connector Trail (constructed 2015) Burlingame Ranch Phase II Snowmass Base Village (40 percent built out) 4.16.1 Present Projects   Grand Avenue Bridge Replacement – Completion Spring-2018 RFTA Integrated Transportation Systems Plan (includes evaluation of the entrance to Aspen and potential recommendations for transit and other transportation system improvements and programs) Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects   Brush Creek Transit Center and Intercept Lot (expansion – pavement, lighting etc. for 200 spaces) Town of Snowmass Village Base Village (PUD Amendment for remaining 60 percent under review by Town) 4.16.1.2 Resources and Actions Considered Several resources categories would have no impact and therefore would have no potential for cumulative impacts. The categories that are excluded from further discussion are Coastal Resources, Farmlands, Historic Resources, Hazardous Materials, Land Use, and Visual Impacts. The other resource categories are considered in the section below. 4.16.2 Environmental Consequences The cumulative effects analysis necessarily involves assumptions, uncertainties, and data sets that may be incomplete. When considering the significance of the cumulative effects, the same thresholds of significance used in identifying significant project-related effects are used, and such thresholds of significance are defined in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Where FAA Order 1050.1F has not established significance thresholds, it can be difficult to determine levels beyond which cumulative effects significantly degrade a resource. Local, state, and federal standards for some resources would still apply, and other goals or objectives from land use management plans and other guiding programs may also be helpful. The analyses contained in this EA identify any defined thresholds. Where numerical thresholds are not available or cannot be determined, impacts are typically described in relative terms of magnitude. Air Quality: Because the proposed projects would generate emissions during construction as well as ongoing operational emissions, consideration was given to air quality implications for all past, present, and future actions. The pollutant of concern is PM10 because Pitkin County is in a maintenance area for this pollutant; therefore, cumulative impacts are considered for this pollutant. The proposed terminal and airfield projects are expected to result in short-term construction emissions as well as emissions in the out year, both of which are considered de minimis for PM10. 4.16.2 These emissions are substantially lower than the de minimis threshold (see Table 4.1-10 – less than 1 ton PM10 relative to the threshold of 100 tons per year). Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would add PM10 emissions, but if considered in combination, would collectively be small and primarily temporary related to construction. Because the additional projects are generally temporary in nature and small, cumulative air quality impacts are not expected to be significant. Climate: The cumulative impact of the proposed terminal and airfield projects on the global climate when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not currently scientifically predictable. Aviation has been calculated to contribute approximately 3% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; this contribution may grow to 5% by 2050. Actions are underway within the U.S. and by other nations to reduce aviation’s contribution through such measures as new aircraft technologies to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency, renewable alternative fuels with lower carbon footprints, more efficient air traffic management, marketbased measures and environmental regulations including an aircraft CO2 standard. The U.S. has ambitious goals to achieve carbon-neutral growth for aviation by 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline, and to gain absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. At present, there are no calculations of the extent to which measures individually or cumulatively may affect aviation’s CO2 emissions. Moreover, there are large uncertainties regarding aviation’s impact on climate. The FAA, with support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its participating federal agencies (e.g., NASA, NOAA, EPA, and DOE), has developed the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) to advance scientific understanding of regional and global climate impacts of aircraft emissions, with quantified uncertainties for current and projected aviation scenarios under changing atmospheric conditions. 4.16.3 Section 4(f): The Terminal Alternatives would have no impact on any Section 4(f) resources. While the Runway Alternative would require the relocation of the Owl Creek Bike Path, this relocation was determined to not adversely affect the use of the bike path. Additionally, no 4(f) resources would be significantly affected by noise. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to Section 4(f) resources as a result of either Proposed Action. Socioeconomic: There would be no significant impacts under the No Action or Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 relative to socioeconomic impacts, children’s health and safety or environmental justice. Therefore, there would be no potential for cumulative impacts as a result of the Terminal Alternatives. The highest potential for large cumulative impacts is relative to the No Action Runway Alternative. Under the No Action for the Runway, with loss of commercial service, there would be a substantial impact on the economy of the Roaring Fork Valley. This is unusual in that in this case, the No Action would provide the largest socioeconomic impact. This impact would likely create induced impacts relative to the economy within the valley. Most of the other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area (such as the enhancements to roadways, bridges and housing) would provide benefits to the economy. Therefore, the No Action, while it would provide large negative socioeconomic impact in the area would not have cumulative negative impacts relative to other project as the other projects would generally benefit the economy. Water Resources: There are no impacts to wetlands under the Terminal Alternatives or the Runway Alternative; however, 1,670 LF of Owl Creek would be piped. The projects would occur in areas where the open channel, and riparian and floodplain area of Owl Creek have been maintained to improve safety conditions. Based on the Air Service Study, the Runway Alternative meets the minimum FAA safety standards while reducing impacts to Owl Creek, its riparian area, and wetlands. The proposed reconfiguration purpose and need entails widening the runway and increasing the distance between the taxiway and the runway, and is not directed towards increasing capacity; therefore, cumulative impacts to water resources such as increased development near the ASE are unlikely to occur in the present and reasonable future. None of the other past or present projects listed above have had a significant impact on Owl Creek. Additionally, none of the reasonably foreseeable projects listed above would impact Owl Creek. Therefore, there are no known cumulative impacts on Owl Creek as a result of past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects. Based on the analysis described above, there would be no significant cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed actions. 4.16.4 Chapter 5 Public Involvement Public involvement is a vital component of the NEPA process. The EA started with scoping in 2015 that included the development of a Community Input Committee (CIC). CIC and public meetings occurred on February 23, 2015; April 16, 2015; September 10, 2015; October 22, 2015; February 16/17, 2016; September 29, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five notices for each public meeting were placed in the local papers, online, via radio on the local station, as well as through social media and press releases. Comments were accepted at all these meetings. Presentations to the BOCC were made throughout the project and these meetings were open to the public. Pitkin Connect Online Public Town Hall was utilized throughout the process to gather input on various topics. The Draft EA was released for agency and public review on August 23, 2017. Comments were accepted through October 3, 2017. To facilitate comments, public hearings were held on September 25 and 26, 2017. 30 comments from the public were received during the public comment period. Outreach materials, comments, notices of the meetings, and responses to comments are contained within Appendix 11 of the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA). 5.1 Chapter 6 Preparers The following people were primarily responsible for the preparation of this Environmental Assessment Mead & Hunt, Inc. Kate Andrus, AICP Project Management, Environmental Analysis, Alternatives Analysis, Document Preparation and Review Public Involvement Coordination Christopher Ball Traffic Study James Bullard Document Preparation and Review Ryk Dunkelberg, Esq. Principal, Public Involvement Coordination Heather Flynn Environmental Analysis, Document Preparation and Review Ryan Hayes, C.M. Noise Analysis, Document Review Lauren Rasmussen Document Preparation and Review Brad Rolf, P.E. Document Review, Environmental Analysis Tim Smith Historic Preservation Jennifer Wolchansky, AICP Document Review, Environmental Analysis Gensler, Inc. Brent Mather Design Director - Architecture Adam Ambro Senior Associate - Architecture 6.1 Jonas Philipsen Design Director - Architecture Charles Cunniffe Architects, Inc. Charles Cunniffe Architect Scott Smith Architect TG Malloy Consulting, Inc. Tim Malloy Socioeconomic Analysis, Land Use, Local Coordination Jviation, Inc. Paul Fiore Design Hilary Fletcher Community and Government Coordination J.D. Ingram, P.E. Principal, Engineering and Design BlueGreen Sheri Sanzone, Principal Landscape Architecture Samuel Baucum Landscape Architecture Synergy Consultants Mary Vigilante, President Air Quality, Climate, NEPA Analysis BridgeNet International Paul Dunholter, President Noise Study Cindy Gibbs Noise Study 6.2 Leibowitz-Horton Steve Horton, Principal Financial Analysis Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell Catherine Van Hueven, Esq. Legal Support Peter Kirsch, Esq. Legal Support Bioenvirons Tim Lapello Water Resources, Biological Resources 6.3 Appendix 1 Biological Survey Photographs 1 COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Biological Resources Photographs Photograph 1: Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 of a reach of Owl Creek outside of the project area. Photograph exhibits the step drop of Owl Creek as it descends to the Roaring Fork River to the northeast of the airport (Pitkin County, Co.) Photograph 2: Photograph taken looking over typical Seeded/graded plant community that exists in the western, eastern and far southern portion of the project area (Pitkin County, Co.) 1 Appendix: Biological Resources Photograph 3: Photograph taken looking south at Seeded/graded plant community in the southern portion of project area (Pitkin County, Co.) Photograph 4: Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking north at a portion of the irrigated and mowed hay meadow that exists in the northwest section of the project area adjacent to the Owl Creek riparian area (Pitkin County, Co.) 2 Appendix: Biological Resources Serviceberry/grassland community Photograph 5. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking north over a small seeded grassland that is adjacent to Owl Creek Road in the southern portion of the project area (Pitkin County, Co.) Photograph 6. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking east at an example of the sagebrush community that exists within the project area. This area is located just west of the gravel pad in the western portion of the project area (Pitkin County, Co.) 3 Appendix: Biological Resources Photograph 7. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking northeast at a portion of the riparian area that runs along Owl Creek to the west of the runway (Pitkin County, Co.) Photograph 8. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking east at the wetland area that is supported by the western reach of Owl Creek (Pitkin County, Co.). 4 Appendix: Biological Resources Photograph 9. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking north down a reach of Owl Creek in the eastern section of the project area (Pitkin County, Co.) Photograph 10. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking west at Tributary 1 in the northwestern portion of the project area (Pitkin County, Co.) 5 Appendix: Biological Resources Photograph 11. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking north at the location of Tributary 2 (Pitkin County, Co.) Photograph 12. Photograph taken looking east at the created wetlands that are situated in the southern section of the project area near the bike path (Pitkin County, Co.) 6 Appendix: Biological Resources Photograph 13. Photograph taken Sept 8, 2015 looking north at the Sardy homestead in the Northwest section of the project area Photograph 14. Photograph taken looking east at the detention pond that is located at the southern end of the runway (Pitkin County, Co.) 7 Appendix: Biological Resources Appendix 2 USFWS Coordination i COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT W Itl()-ll¡\Vll{()¡\S 1L4 N Boulevard, Ste 206 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 970.64L.8749 P tim.bioenvirons@gmai l.com ¡.1.s. El, E El Ì,'lsll ÀNl, \vlL,t)t'It"Fl sÐ lìvI(lFl rtl c0ì\(luR¡is Àh-liu(]'f ao*ctt'R liol l.lKtit'\'lo '\l)\'r:Rs[tl tro ('ollltnr,r lì lr- v- T'¡/L.-' )'ESII:lì¡i ('ol ,OR,\fX) strPlìf{\'¡soR ìC"'-\S' .Q 0l b- _ ø L E)LI oo TÊ- æ7D December 3,2015 FWS Attn. Ann Timberman 445W Gunnison Ave, Suite 240 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Dear Ms. Timberman: We are requesting information on endangered, threatened, or candidate species in the vicinity of a proposed runway and taxiway improvement project at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport located in Section 3 of Township 10S, Range B5W, and Sections 27 and 34 of Township 95, Range B4W 6th p.M., (39" 13' 24.8' N, 106" 52' 1 .5" W). The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is requesting this information for preparation of their Environmental Assessment documents. By way of past correspondence, in 2009 we requested review and confirmation regarding endangered, threatened, or candidate species in the vicinity of a proposed runway extension at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport in the same vicinity as the current project. We received a letter dated August 6, 2009 from FWS concurring that no adverse effect on identified species would occur. That letter is attached. We recently visited the FWS ECOS critical habitat website and found that no critical habitat was identified in Pitkin County. However, we would like to confirm that no further consultation with the FWS is required at this time. We have also conducted field investigations associated at the project site in September of 2015 and did not observe any threatened, endangered or candidate species or critical habitat within or in the vicinity of the project area. We are also requesting confirmation of our findings based on current FWS protocol regarding this investigation. We appreciate your timely response to this request. lf you have any additional comments at this time, we would very much appreciate your input. Thank you' si Tim Bio-Environs REC]O[\TEÐ DEC 0e 2015 Eælodoa¡ServioeÉ Otña-Juf,libn, CO rill-mum il?le?New ue. rise: strata marinas ssn?c?fm comma No traitor Bio-Environs Gunnison, Co. 81230 ?2 . . . 970.641.8749 RECEIVED AUG 0 6 288% Ecologicai Services {Brand Junction. CO August 3, 2009 USFWS Attn. Patricia Gelatt 764 Horizon Drive, Building Grand Junction, CO 81506?3946 Dear Ms. Gelatt: We are requesting information on endangered, threatened, or candidate species in the vicinity of a proposed runway extension at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport located in Section 3 of Township 108, Range 85W, and Sections 27 and 34 of Township 98, Range 84W 6th P.M., (39? 13? 24.8? N, 108? 52? 1.5? W). The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is requesting this information for preparation of their Environmental Assessment documents. We originally requested this information with a letter in April, 2008. Based on a phone conversation on October 2, 2008 the USFWS directed us to visit the USFWS ECOS critical habitat website. The USFWS indicated that if critical habitat was identified within the project area we were directed to proceed with further consultation. Based on information provided by the website, no critical habitat was identified in Pitkin County and further consultation with the USFWS was not required at that time. We have also conducted field investigations at the project site in July of 2008 and did not observe any threatened, endangered or candidate species or critical habitat within or in the vicinity of the project area. Based on several phone conversations and guidance provided by Mr. Terry lreland of the USFWS Grand Junction, Colorado office, we have also conducted further research through the review of a re-evaluation titled l/Vildlife Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species-Technical Report, State HWY 82/ Entrance to Aspen, Environmental Reevaluation. This re-evaluation of wildlife resources was completed in February 20, 2007 in association with a CDOT project to expand State HWY 82 in the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport area. Portions of the highway expansion are adjacent to the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, and therefore include similar habitat and associated plant communities that are common to the State Hwy 82 corridor. The CDOT report concludes that there will be no impacts to threatened and endangered or candidate species associated with the Hwy 82 expansion. We have also consulted via a phone conversation with Mr. Phil Nyland, a Wildlife Biologist with the White River National Forest Service, regarding any effects to the Canada in this area. Mr. Nyland requested that we refer to the aforementioned CDOT report and review the results documented in the report. in this report Mr. Nyland states that he does not believe ?that the work within the State Highway 82 corridor would present (sic) affect the Canada or its habitat?. Based on these findings, we are requesting your concurrence that there will be no impacts to federally Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species associated with the proposed runway extension at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. We appreciate your timely response to this request. lf you have any additional comments at this time, we would very much appreciate your input. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Lapello Bio-Environs Northwest Mountain Region US. Department Denver Airports District Of?ce of Transportation 26805 East 68?" Avenue, Suite 224 Federal Aviation Denver, CO 80249?6361 Administration August 2, 2017 Ms. Ann Timberman US Fish and Wildlife Service Western Colorado Ecological Service Field Office 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand Junction; CO 81501-5711 Dear Ms. Timberman: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would like to request informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act for the proposed improvement projects at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Pitkin County, as owner and operator of ASE, is proposing to reconfigure Runway 15/33 and improve the terminal building (Attachment A): - Runway 15/33 Reconfiguration Shift the runway 80 feet to the west; 0 Widen the runway from 100 feet to 150 feet; 0 Realign the perimeter road, Owl Creek Road, and Owl Creek Bike Path; 0 Relocate navigational aids and runway/taxiway lighting; 0 Rescind Pitkin County?s wingspan and aircraft weight restriction policy; 0 Piping of Owl Creek within ASE property; and Amending flight procedures to accommodate shift in runway location. 0 Terminal Improvements 0 Construction of replacement terminal and associated parking; 0 Re?configure the terminal roadway and recirculation roadway; Integrate the new terminal with public transit; Relocate ancillary facilities, such as rental car facilities; 0 Demolition of existing terminal; 0 Expanding the commercial aircraft apron; and 0 Construction of a noise barrier along the general aviation apron. The following species could be found in the project area: Canada (Lynx canadensis); North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus); Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida); Yellow? billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans); Colorado Pikeminnow lucuis); Greenback Cutthroat Trout clarki stomias); Humpback Chub (Gila cypha); Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus); and the Ute Ladies?-tresses (Spiranthes diiuvialis). However, afield survey conducted in September 2015 confirmed that none of these species occur in the project area and confirmed the absence of suitable habitat. The FAA has therefore determined that the project will have No Effect on endangered or threatened species. The FAA respectfully requests the US Fish and Wildlife Service to provide written concurrence with our effect determinations. lfyou have any comments, questions, or concerns regarding the analyses and conclusions used to determine the potential effects of the proposed project on ESA resources, or have any questions regarding the project, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 43b Kandice Krull Environmental Protection Specialist 303-342?1261 Enclosures Appendix A 0' 125' ' 250' W IGH A RELOCATED MALSF 2 Y8 RELOCATED PAPI H 750' OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED ASOS l Ow NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER EXISTING TERMINAL BALTIC AVENUE INTERSECTION SE R E VIC TER CEN RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING 500' A' Y' IWA X A T BA OWL CREEK PIPING N C L TI RELOCATED TERMINAL RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' AD RO EK E ILK R RM AIL LC E W T O UT P TR IALB RLOO T TEN TO PO NEC N CO FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING U EN AV E RO AD Cr k ee Figure 4 LEGEND Figure 1-1 ProposedProejcts POTENTIAL TRAIL ROADWAY SETBACK RAIL CORRIDOR VISUAL/NOISE BUFFER EXCESSIVE SLOPE OWL CREEK SURROUNDING AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES OWL CREEK ROAD & BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT RELOCATED LOC/DME COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION 1.3 Appendix ml-Ww? - 0.5.1151: Arm WILDLIFE SLIWKL COMMENT - i: 1 RU 3 114 Boulevard, Ste 206 331515115 (01.01in smart?Elma um .r .- - Gunnison. Colorado 81230 \3 Egl,? 970.641.8749 tim.bioenvirons@gmail.com ?2 0' lo"?r December 3. 2015 FWS Attn. Ann Timberman 445 Gunnison Ave. Suite 240 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Dear Ms. Timberman: We are requesting information on endangered, threatened, or candidate species in the vicinity of a proposed runway and taxiway improvement project at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport located in Section 3 of Township 108. Range 85W. and Sections 27 and 34 of Township 98, Range 84W 6''1 RM, (39? 13' 24.8" N. 106? 52' 1.5" W). The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is requesting this information for preparation of their Environmental Assessment documents. By way of past correspondence. in 2009 we requested review and confirmation regarding endangered. threatened, or candidate species in the vicinity of a proposed runway extension at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport in the same vicinity as the current project. We received a letter dated August 6. 2009 from FWS concurring that no adverse effect on identi?ed species would occur. That letter is attached. We recently visited the FWS ECOS critical habitat website and found that no critical habitat was identified in Pitkin County. However. we would like to confirm that no further consultation with the FWS is required at this time. We have also conducted field investigations associated at the project site in September of 2015 and did not observe any threatened, endangered or candidate species or critical habitat within or in the vicinity of the project area. We are also requesting confirmation of our findings based on current FWS protocol regarding this investigation. We appreciate your timely response to this request. If you have any additional comments at this time, we would very much appreciate your input. Thank you. Sincerely.) Timfpel??/L/Z Bio-Environs RECEIVED DEC 09 2015 Junction. CO Appendix 3 Historic and Archaeological Appendix 1 COUNTY AIRPORT PROVEM ENTS October 11, 2016 Mr. John Kinney Aspen/Pitkin County Airport 0233 East Airport Road Suite A Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Cultural Resource Survey Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Mr. Kinney: Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) was retained by the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (Airport) to provide planning services for a proposed terminal redevelopment and runway shift project. This project is an outgrowth of the Airport Master Plan that was prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration in 2012 and then updated as part of the 2015 Air Service Study and the 2016 Airport Layout Plan Update. This cultural resource survey is intended to identify historic resources early in the planning process so that future design and construction activities can take identified historic properties into account. These identification efforts facilitate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). Architecture and History Survey Study Area The Airport is located approximately 5 miles northwest of Aspen, Colorado, in Township 9S, Range 85W, Sections 27, 28, 33, and 34, and Township 10S, Range 85W, and Section 3. The study area for architectural and historical resources was defined to include all buildings, structures, and objects located within the boundaries of existing Airport property, including the parcel along the east side of Highway 82 (see Attachment A for a map of the study area). This area accounts for resources that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities. Survey Methodology The objective of the survey was to identify historic properties within the study area that appeared to meet the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) Criteria for Evaluation. In order to meet the National Register Criteria, a property must be at least 50 years in age (or more recent construction that possesses exceptional significance), retain integrity, and possess architectural or historical significance. \\Corp.meadhunt.com\sharedfolders\entp\0118900\141313.01\TECH\reports\Affected Environment Materials\Historic resources\160118A Oct.docx Mr. John Kinney January 18, 2016 Page 2 Prior to field survey, historians from Mead & Hunt reviewed records and reports for previously recorded cultural resources in the study area from the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). Below is a list of previous cultural resource surveys conducted on airport property:  1988 – The Colorado Department of Highways conducted a survey for an improvement project along State Highway 82 between Basalt and Aspen. This survey identified the Airport Ranch (5PT.538) as potentially eligible for listing in the National Register as a “relatively intact example of an early ranch in the Roaring Fork Valley, and as a good example of the type of evolution a ranching property undergoes over the years.” The OAHP officially determined the Airport Ranch eligible for the National Register in July 1988. Attachment B includes a copy of the 1988 inventory form.  May 2006 – Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (MAC) conducted a survey at the Pitkin County Airport, which identified an additional outbuilding, a pioneer log structure related to the Airport Ranch, and the Stapleton Brothers Ditch (5PT.1188.1). The Stapleton Brothers Ditch was recommended as not eligible for the National Register and the OAHP officially determined the ditch not eligible in February 2007. The official eligibility determination for the Airport Ranch did not change as a result of this survey and the log structure was recommended as noncontributing to the Airport Ranch complex.  2008 – MAC conducted a survey for a runway extension at the Pitkin County Airport. No historic resources were identified within the study area for this project.  May 2009 – MAC conducted an archaeology survey for an Airport Master Plan update. A new segment of the previously recorded Wiese Upper Ditch (5PT1176), which was previously determined eligible for the National Register, was documented during the survey. However, the newly identified segment was recommended not eligible since it did not retain the essential elements of historic integrity to be considered contributing to the overall resource.  August 2009 – Mead & Hunt conducted a field review of the airport property as part of an update to the Airport Master Plan. The National Register-eligible Airport Ranch (5PT.538) was the only historic property identified. Extant ranch-related resources documented during the survey included a log house, log shed, log outbuilding, concrete block pump house, frame barn, hip roof frame house, approximately four frame sheds, one metal shed, and a modern trailer. The Airport Ranch consists of approximately 463 acres, based on the 1988 inventory form and confirmed in the field, and its boundaries correspond to the fence line on the east, 7,800-foot contour line on the west, Owl Creek Road on the south, and a row of trees on the north. Survey Results Historians with Mead & Hunt conducted a field review of the study area on September 30, 2015. The field review of properties included buildings, hangars, and offices related to operations at the Airport. None of the airport-related properties are at least 50 years old and they do not possess architectural or historical significance and therefore do not meet the National Register Criteria of Evaluation. Field review also included a review of the National Register-eligible Airport Ranch (5PT.538), which was the only historic property identified within the study area. The ranch, determined eligible in 1988, retains \\Corp.meadhunt.com\sharedfolders\entp\0118900\141313.01\TECH\reports\Affected Environment Materials\Historic resources\160118A Oct.docx Mr. John Kinney January 18, 2016 Page 3 its nine contributing buildings and structures. Since the 2009 survey the property has been improved with the removal of non-historic additions to two buildings, which does not impact the historic integrity of individual resources or the overall ranch complex. Other buildings have been stabilized with the enclosure of windows and rope anchors and the historic setting has been improved with the removal of a non-contributing modern trailer. Post-2009 alterations to protect and stabilize ranch-related buildings are summarized below and illustrated in Attachment C.  Frame house – An attached garage (non-historic) and two shed roof additions removed; windows and doors covered with plywood; exterior asbestos cladding removed at certain locations revealing original clapboard; building overall remains intact.  Log house – Windows covered with plywood but remains unchanged and intact.  Frame shed/stable – An attached addition (non-historic) removed but remains intact.  Frame shed and metal bin – Shed is tied to adjacent tree for stabilization purposes but both remain unchanged and intact. The historic boundary for the Airport Ranch, unchanged since the 1988 determination, includes approximately 463 acres with boundaries defined as the Airport fence line on the east, 7,800-foot contour line on the west, Owl Creek Road on the south, and a row of trees on the north. A map of the historic boundary is included in Attachment A. The Airport Ranch remains relatively intact based on information included on the original inventory form, subsequent studies, and field observations in 2015. Recommendations The Airport Ranch (5PT.538) is officially determined eligible for the National Register and will need to be taken into account in future Airport activities in order to comply with requirements in Section 106. No other known listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible historical resources have been identified within the Airport property boundary or within the project area. An archaeological survey is pending and anticipated to commence in spring 2016, at which time a separate report will be prepared. Please submit these findings to the FAA to forward to the OAHP. Additional copies have been provided for your convenience. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (916) 971-3961 or timothy.smith@meadhunt.com. Sincerely, MEAD & HUNT, Inc. Timothy Smith Historic Preservation Attachments \\Corp.meadhunt.com\sharedfolders\entp\0118900\141313.01\TECH\reports\Affected Environment Materials\Historic resources\160118A Oct.docx Attachment A. Project Location Map 0' 125' ' 250' W IGH A RELOCATED MALSF 2 Y8 RELOCATED PAPI H 750' OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED ASOS l Ow NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER EXISTING TERMINAL BALTIC AVENUE INTERSECTION SE R E VIC TER CEN RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING 500' A' Y' IWA X A T BA OWL CREEK PIPING N C L TI RELOCATED TERMINAL RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' AD RO EK E ILK R RM AIL LC E W T O UT P TR IALB RLOO T TEN TO PO NEC N CO FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING U EN AV E RO AD Cr k ee Figure 4 LEGEND Figure 1-1 ProposedProejcts POTENTIAL TRAIL ROADWAY SETBACK RAIL CORRIDOR VISUAL/NOISE BUFFER EXCESSIVE SLOPE OWL CREEK SURROUNDING AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES OWL CREEK ROAD & BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT RELOCATED LOC/DME COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION 1.3 Attachment B. 1988 Airport Ranch Inventory Form JHADG CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY- Qrf-fice of Archaeology and Broadwaymenver, C0 .. . Historic Preservation - -- RECOBD NOT FOR FIELD USEHair. wry/3? (1 IMPORTANT: gonna-ra- THIS SHEET FOR EACH BET. nor ELIG. RESOURCE anus EFFEER NOMINATED FORM. LISTED, DATE 11Resmirce ?No; EET 533' MAPPED ?jProjec-E Nam; SH .32 ngen to 335.311: Archo. ?-1-qu ?rehiutj" Distric-t_(F91.- A-rch. a Ilia. '3 ?li 5f. 1.1.,?ne" 31'; sit- 5m! 11Ln-i- Section 34. Eg? . Pitkin . . ?1 BJUSGS QUAD 3599.11 1950 . photocopy port-?911 Quad. Giaatiwy "Show sit-e". maps ax l2'I)Area_ .. . 2:5 Zacres 13mm Re?e-ne?ncgi: (Omen UTH centered 'o'n is??sounce may hit. 3:11am for resourpe un'd?ei: 10 act-g5.) A-I am. 3.41 91mm, Arman '?G-il' palit?laiglijVagbii?it?w?1 lieu-91am- . - C. q'aqaa?aa? 61w]. Greek Eva-id? . Ian?: Block Additiph I 1.1-1.- Assessmemz: Eligible N'eje? Data'__ . .l . Hammer-{Address Trust; John- Spacbne'r Trust :t-mdivided baitf interests) 17)Gov' t: Involvement: Agency? 1 3 i ur'b an one-3541 igh?t_ino_d e'rea Explain .uu?r-u 19)Threats to Re?source?atet Erosion Wind ErosionHAni-ma'l widening and new aliments on SH 82 Recomendatiups none v. BEFERENCE: 21)State{Fed. Permit Nos. n/a 22)Photo Mo's. 37?12 #14?19 .cm?file. at CDOH 23)Report Title FC 082?1 (14) East. of Basalt to As_pen ZURecorder Pearce Date June $988 26)Recorder Affiliation CDOH 27)Phone No. 757-9785 Form No . 619 Reso?rte No. . Page 2 Hap all features and show the boundaries o-f the resou-rces. Show all major t'ogographic_ features, permanent modern feathres, and vegetation zones as appropriate. Give names of features, streets and addresses if kn_own. Prov-ids sca1_e, key and dirEEtion. scale: .4 .w key: true mag. . . I I 28)Location?AcceSs: SH 82 west from Aspen to Owl Creek Road (just soJm-ofSardy_ Travel on road to share bend before steep hill. Ranch is at the end of the private drive 29)Boundary Deserip?ion: Airport boundaries on the easkx east, 7800 foot contour line on the west, Owl Creek Road on the south and a row of trees on the north Justification: Visual boundaries (actuallegal boundaries are 463 acres) Attachment C. Airport Ranch Photographs Photo 1. Airport Ranch (2009). Hip roof frame house with attached garage, view facing north. Photo 2. Airport Ranch (2015). Hip roof frame house with non-historic attached garage and two shed roof additions (non-historic) removed. Windows and doors covered with plywood for stabilization, original clapboard remains underneath asbestos siding. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 3. Airport Ranch (2009). Log house, view facing southwest. Photo 4. Airport Ranch (2015). Windows on log house now covered with plywood for stabilization but otherwise unchanged. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 5. Airport Ranch (2009). Frame barn, view facing southwest. Photo 6. Airport Ranch (2015). Frame barn remains unchanged. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 7. Airport Ranch (2009). Log shed, view facing west. Photo 8. Airport Ranch (2015). Log shed remains unchanged. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 9. Airport Ranch (2009). Frame shed/stable, view facing northeast. Photo 10. Airport Ranch (2015). Non-historic side addition (north elevation) and shed roof canopy along east side removed but remains intact. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 11. Airport Ranch (2009). Frame shed and metal bin, view facing south. Photo 12. Airport Ranch (2015. Frame shed is tied to tree for stabilization purposes but both remain unchanged. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 13. Airport Ranch (2009). Frame shed and modern trailer, view facing southwest. Photo 14. Airport Ranch (2015). Modern trailer removed. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 15. Airport Ranch (2009). Concrete block pump house, view facing west. Photo 16. Airport Ranch (2015). Concrete block pump house remains unchanged. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 17. Airport Ranch (2009). Log outbuilding, view facing northwest. Photo 18. Airport Ranch (2015). Log outbuilding remains unchanged. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 19. Airport Ranch (2015). Overview of ranch setting, view facing west. Photo 20. Airport Ranch (2015). Overview of ranch setting, view facing east. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment Photo 21. Airport Ranch (2015). Overview of ranch setting, view facing northwest. Cultural Resource Survey – Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment July 9, 2018 Kandice Krull Federal Aviation Administration, Denver ADO 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224 Denver, CO 80249-6361 Subject: Cultural Resource Survey Clarification Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Ms. Krull: Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) was retained by the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (Airport) to provide planning services for a proposed terminal redevelopment and runway shift project. This project is an outgrowth of the Airport Master Plan that was prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration in 2012 and then updated as part of the 2015 Air Service Study and the 2016 Airport Layout Plan Update. Architectural, Historical and Archeological Survey Area The Airport is located approximately 5 miles northwest of Aspen, Colorado, in Township 9S, Range 85W, Sections 27, 28, 33, and 34, and Township 10S, Range 85W, and Section 3. The study area for architectural and historical resources was defined to include all buildings, structures, and objects located within the boundaries of existing Airport property. This letter certifies that the airport survey area included the area north of the runway all the way to the fence-line and the analysis includes the area for the MALSF. Additionally, for archeological the entire area north of the runway was previously surveyed during May 2009. This area is entirely pre-disturbed, graded and actively mowed. It was determined during scoping that an additional archeological survey was not needed due to the active disturbance of the area in question. This area was fully considered in the analysis of the EA. Sincerely, MEAD & HUNT, Inc. Timothy Smith Historic Preservation Pitkin County Airport Survey Project: Report of the Class III Cultural Resource Inventory, Pitkin County, Colorado by Amy Nelson Lead Agency Federal Aviation Administration Prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 899 Eagle, CO 81631 Prepared for Mead & Hunt, Inc. 1743 Wazee Street, Suite 40 Denver, CO 80202 Melissa Elkins Principal Investigator September 2016 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: DISCLOSURE OF SITE LOCATIONS PROHIBITED (43CFR 7.18) Abstract Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Metcalf) was contracted by Mead and Hunt, Inc. to conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Pitkin County Airport property in Pitkin County, Colorado. The inventory was conducted as part of an effort to update the airport’s master plan and was implemented to satisfy federal requirements governing surface impacts to the property. At the time of this inventory no specific developments were planned in the project area. The project area is located approximately four miles north-northwest of Aspen, Colorado in Township 9S Range 85W Sections 27 and 34. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) consists of five irregularly-shaped blocks outside the fenced airport boundary as well as a linear corridor connecting the five parcels. Of the approximately 19.8 acres in the project area, 19.2 acres were intensively surveyed. A small block of previously surveyed land overlapped the southeastern portion of the APE and was reinventoried as part of the current project. Approximately 0.63 acres within the project area were not intensively surveyed. This acreage includes 0.1 acres that exhibited dense vegetation on a steep slope, and 0.53 acres within a disturbed dirt parking area and paved road. Fieldwork was conducted on July 8, 2016 by Metcalf archaeologist Amy Nelson. Inventory resulted in the discovery and documentation of one new segment of a historic linear resource, a segment of Colorado State Highway 82 (SH 82). Other segments of this road have been documented in Pitkin (5PT505.1 to 5PT505.16; 5PT606.1 and 5PT606.2) and Lake Counties (5LK128 and 5LK 487) but appear to be a mix of segments of SH 82 and abandoned segments of earlier toll roads. All of the segments are documented for their association with Independence Pass rather than with the state highway. Because of a certain amount of confusion over the association between these different segments and the current alignment of the entire extent of SH 82 from Glenwood Springs to Twin Lakes, the current segment was given a new Smithsonian number, 5PT1363.1. Metcalf recommends that the entire resource, 5PT1363.1 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A and C. Metcalf further recommends that the recorded segment, 5PT1363.1, does not retain the essential elements of historic integrity and, therefore, does not support the entire resource’s overall assessment of NRHP eligible. Metcalf recommends a finding of no historic properties affected for the APE as defined at the time of inventory. ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Effective Environment .................................................................................................................... 1 Previous Work and Culture History................................................................................................ 3 Previous Work ................................................................................................................................ 3 Culture History............................................................................................................................ 6 Statement of Objectives/Research Design ...................................................................................... 8 Expected Results ......................................................................................................................... 9 Field/Lab Methods .......................................................................................................................... 9 Results and Management Recommendations ............................................................................... 10 5PT1363.1 (State Highway 82)............................................................................................. 10 Eligibility and Management Recommendations ................................................................... 13 Evaluation of Research ................................................................................................................. 14 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 14 References Cited ........................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A: Cultural resource location map (agency copies only; not for public distribution) APPENDIX B: Cultural resource forms (agency copies only; not for public distribution) List of Figures Figure 1: Project location map…………………………………………………………………..2 iii Introduction Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Metcalf) was contracted by Mead and Hunt, Inc. to conduct a Class III cultural resource inventory for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Aspen Airport property in Pitkin County, Colorado. The inventory was conducted as part of an effort to update the airport’s master plan and was implemented to satisfy federal requirements governing surface impacts to the property. At the time of this inventory no specific developments were planned in the project area. The project area is located approximately four miles north-northwest of Aspen, Colorado in Township 9S Range 85W Sections 27 and 34. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) consists of five irregularly-shaped blocks outside the fenced airport boundary as well as a linear corridor connecting the five parcels. Of the approximately 19.8 acres in the project area, 19.2 acres were intensively surveyed. A small block of previously surveyed land overlapped the southeastern portion of the APE and was re-inventoried as part of the current project. Approximately 0.63 acres within the project area were not intensively surveyed. This acreage includes 0.1 acres that exhibited dense vegetation on a steep slope, and 0.53 acres within a disturbed dirt parking area and paved road. Fieldwork was conducted on July 8, 2016 by Metcalf archaeologist Amy Nelson. Inventory resulted in the discovery and documentation of one new segment of a historic linear resource, a segment of Colorado State Highway 82 (SH 82) that is adjacent to, but not within, the project boundary. Other segments of the state highway on Independence Pass have been documented in Pitkin County but the recordings appear to be a mix of segments of SH 82 (5PT505.1 to 5PT505.3) and abandoned segments of earlier toll roads. (5PT505.4 to 5PT505.16; 5PT606.1 and 5PT606.2). Documentation of linear resources in Lake County (5LK128 and 5LK 487) also appear to be remnants of earlier toll roads on Independence Pass. Because of a certain amount of confusion over the association between these different segments and the current alignment of the entire extent of SH 82 from Glenwood Springs to Twin Lakes, the current segment was given a new Smithsonian number, 5PT1363.1. Metcalf recommends that the entire resource, 5PT1363, is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A and C. Metcalf further recommends that the recorded segment, 5PT1363.1, does not retain the essential elements of historic integrity and, therefore, does not support the entire resource’s overall assessment of NRHP eligible. Metcalf recommends a finding of no historic properties affected for the APE as defined at the time of inventory. Effective Environment Physiographically, the project area is in the West Elk Mountains of the Southern Rocky Mountains province (Taylor 1999) along the western terrace above the Roaring Fork floodplain. The floodplain is relatively flat, but is surrounded on both sides by steep, forested ridges and slopes; much of the immediate area is dominated by the airport and other commercial and residential developments. Project elevations range from 7,680 to 8,200 feet above sea level. Soils in the survey area are alluvial, brown silty loam with considerable rock debris. 1 Figure 1: Project location map (*Areas designated as Reconnaissance Survey were not inventoried to Class III standards) 2 Local bedrock in the project area is Pennsylvanian sedimentary rocks comprised primarily of shale, sandstone, quartzite, limestone, and dolomite (Taylor 1999). Vegetation in the immediate project area consists of sage, prickly pear cactus, wildflowers, willows, and dense oakbrush on the east facing slopes to the river and on the north and south facing slopes of the east-flowing drainages coming off the Elk Mountains to the west. Much of the moisture in the area is received as snowfall (Soil Conservation Service 1972). The area drains to the north via the Roaring Fork River which empties into the Colorado River near Glenwood Springs. Mule deer and elk are the most common artiodactyls in the area, and migrate between vegetation zones on a seasonal basis. These animals spend winters in the lower to middle elevation zones, generally in areas forested by pinyon and juniper, where snows are not excessively deep and browse is available. With the arrival of spring, most individuals migrate to the higher elevations to take advantage of the abundant vegetation that flourishes in the short growing season. Large carnivores and omnivores may also follow the seasonal movements of the artiodactyls. Historically, the area’s land use was related primarily to mining, livestock grazing and, by the mid-1940s, the ski industry. Current land use in the vicinity includes airport activities, residential homes, and activities related to tourism. Weather at the time of fieldwork was warm and dry and conditions were good for the discovery of cultural resources. Environmental constraints included steep terrain, dense vegetation that obscured the ground surface and previous construction disturbances. Ground visibility varied from 60 to 80 percent on the terrace edge to 0 to 20 percent on the steeper slopes of the drainages. Previous Work and Culture History Previous Work A files search was conducted through the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) online database, Compass, on June 15, 2016. GIS data was also requested on June 6 and received from the OAHP on June 15, 2016. A one-mile buffer around the project area was searched and includes sections 21, 22, 26 to 28, and 33 to 35 in T. 9S, R. 85W and sections 2 to 4 in T. 10S, R 85W. The 1882, 1888, and 1917 General Land Office (GLO) plats for T. 9S, R.85W were inspected for linear features, such as roads and ditches, and other features, such as houses or buildings (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/). Additionally, the Aspen (1960, PR 1987) and Highland Peak (1960, PR 1987) USGS topographic maps were examined to determine if any historic resources exist in the project area. Historic USGS maps for Aspen (1893) and Mount Jackson (1909) and a 1936 Colorado State Highway map were also examined. The Colorado Midland Railroad appears on the 1888 and 1917 GLO plats as well as the 1893 Aspen and 1909 Mount Jackson maps and appears to follow a similar route to Hwy 82 where it 3 parallels the project area. Hwy 82 is depicted as a state highway on the 1936 map. Local roads that appear on the 1888 GLO plat appear to have been obliterated by agricultural fields by 1917. Two local roads that appear on the 1960 Aspen USGS map were discernible in places in the project area but were not documented because they are unnamed on all maps and appear to have been used only for access to local residences, fields, or the river. The Compass files search revealed that 17 Class III cultural resource inventory projects have been conducted within one mile of the project area (Table 1). Previous projects include eight linear projects relating to railroads, pipelines, highways or roads, or buried electric lines; and nine block inventories conducted by the Pitkin County Airport, the Colorado Department of Transportation or the Bureau of Land Management. One block inventory was also completed on private land. Table 1. Cultural resource inventories within a one mile radius of the project area. OAHP Report No. Project Type Report Title A CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD AUTHORITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, MC.CH.R94 Linear GLENWOOD SPRINGS TO BRUSH CREEK TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, EAGLE, GARFIELD, AND PITKIN COUNTIES, COLORADO HOLY CROSS BASALT TO ASPEN 115 KV REBUILD PROJECT EAGLE AND PITKIN COUNTIES, COLORADO CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY²LIMITED TESTING OF 5PT596 MC.LM.R122 Linear ADDENDUM TO: HOLY CROSS BASALT TO ASPEN 115KV REBUILD PROJECT EAGLE AND PITKIN COUNTIES, COLORADO CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION MC.PA.R78 Block AUTHORITY BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT ALONG COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 82, GARFIELD, EAGLE, AND PITKIN COUNTIES, COLORADO AN INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY ALONG A SEGMENT OF OWL CREEK PT.CH.NR6 Linear ROAD NORTH OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (CDOT SHO C570-012) SURVEY REPORT PROJECT FC 082-1(14) EAST OF PT.CH.R1 Block BASALT TO ASPEN AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY 82 - BRUSH CREEK ROAD INTERSECTION PT.CH.R2 Linear BETWEEN BASALT AND ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (STR-FC(CX) 082-1(14)) AN INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF PT.CH.R4 Block SIX PARCELS ASSOCIATED WITH STATE HIGHWAY 82 IMPROVEMENTS WEST OF ASPEN, PITKIN 4 Company Year WCRM 2000 Metcalf 1996 Parsons 2010 CDOT 2004 Dept. of Highways 1988 Centennial 1993 CDOT 1996 OAHP Report No. Project Type Report Title COUNTY, COLORADO (PROJECT STA 082A-008) PT.CO.R1 Linear PT.FA.R1 Block PT.FA.R2 Block PT.FA.R3 Block PT.FS.NR40 Block PT.LG.R24 Linear PT.LM.NR10 Block PT.LM.NR3 Block PT.RE.R1 Linear PT.SC.NR7 Block KINDER MORGAN RETAIL BRUSH CREEK 6 INCH PIPELINE, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO: RESULTS OF AN INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY (URS 22238253.00003) DOCUMENTATION OF TWO HISTORIC RESOURCES AT THE ASPEN AIRPORT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ASPEN AIRPORT RUNWAY EXTENSION, AN INTENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY FOR TATANKA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO MEAD AND HUNT, INC. AIRPORT SURVEY PROJECT: REPORT OF THE CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO A CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF 3 SMALL PARCELS NEAR ASPEN IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (S#1110) CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ASPEN VALLEY 10 INCH PIPELINE FOR SOURCEGAS IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (GRI # 2013-69) A CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY OF 5 SMALL PARCELS WITHIN ASPEN IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (S#1108) OWL CREEK BLM PARCEL (S#865) HOLY CROSS ENERGY SNOWMASS BURIED ELECTRIC LINE, CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PITKIN COUNTY LIMITED-RESULTS CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FORM ON PRIVATE LANDS RED BUTTE FARMING LLC (GLSP10-020) Company Year URS 2005 Metcalf 2006 Metcalf 2008 Metcalf 2009 BLM-GSRA 1990 Grand River Inst. 2013 1989 BLM-GSRA 1984 Metcalf 2003 NRCS 2010 The 17 previous inventories resulted in the documentation of 12 cultural resources including four historic ranch/homestead or habitation sites, one historic townsite, one historic schoolhouse, two historic ditches, one road, one railroad segment, one railroad depot and one prehistoric isolated find (Table 2). None of these resources are located within the current project area boundaries. Table 2. Previously documented cultural resources within one mile radius of project area. Site No. Type 5PT123 Historic 5PT492 Historic Site Name Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Aspen Depot 5 Description Railroad D&RG Railroad depot NRHP E-OAHP NE In APE? No No Site No. 5PT500 5PT538 5PT540 5PT595 5PT602 5PT613 5PT871 5PT1176.1 5PT1178.1 5PT1188.1 Type Historic Historic Historic Historic Historic Prehistoric IF Historic Historic Historic Historic Site Name Description Rathbone townsite Airport Ranch Brush Creek School Abandoned townsite Ranch Schoolhouse Habitation Ranch Debitage Homestead Road Ditch Ditch Stapleton/Owl Creek Ranch --Brush Creek Road -Stapleton Brothers Ditch NRHP In APE? Unevaluate d No E-OAHP No NE-OAHP No NE-OAHP No NE No NE No E No NE-OAHP No NE-OAHP No NE-OAHP No Culture History Prehistoric culture history is summarized in the context for the Northern Colorado River Basin (Reed and Metcalf 1999); a historic context is provided in Mehls (1982) and Church et al. (2007). The reader is referred to those documents for specific discussions of the culture history and research issues of the general area. Briefly, archaeological reconstructions for the mountains include the PaleoIndian Era (ca. 13,400 to 8,400 BP), the Archaic Era (ca. 8,400 to 2,000/1,500 BP), the Formative Era (ca. 2,400 to 700 BP), and the Protohistoric Era (ca. 700 to 100 BP). In the northern Colorado Basin, the PaleoIndian era is represented by four traditions that can be distinguished primarily on the basis of projectile points and, to a lesser extent, by subsistence strategies. The four traditions include Clovis, Goshen, Folsom, and Plano (Reed and Metcalf 1999:56). PaleoIndian cultural resources are limited, and usually consist of isolated diagnostic projectile points. Based on Reed and Metcalf (1999:59), no PaleoIndian sites have been recorded in Pitkin County. The Archaic era encompasses a long period that archaeologists have envisioned as a relatively stable period of time when a broad-based, hunter-gatherer lifeway was practiced (Reed and Metcalf 1999:71). It contrasts with the preceding PaleoIndian era in that the lifeway was less mobile and was more focused on the use of local resources on a scheduled, seasonal basis. The main technological marker is a transition from the use of lanceolate projectile points to the use of stemmed and notched varieties, and a distinct increase in the overall variability in point styles. Reed and Metcalf (1999:79) break the Archaic era into four periods, although they suggest other temporal frameworks may also be acceptable. This four-part scheme includes the Pioneer period (8350 to 6450 BP), the Settled period (6450 to 4450 BP), the Transitional period (4450 to 2950 BP), and the Terminal period (2950 to 1950 BP [AD 1]). 6 Archaic-age sites are greater in number than PaleoIndian sites, and include a variety of site types representing a mobile lifestyle centered on hunting and the gathering of wild foods. Ground stone occurs in greater numbers after the PaleoIndian era, and probably represents an increasing reliance on vegetable foods. Higher frequencies of radiocarbon samples dating to the Late Archaic have been interpreted as an indication of increased population in the Late Archaic (Black 1986). Based on several excavations in the mountains, including Yarmony House (Metcalf and Black 1991), Black has developed a model of Early Archaic lifeways which proposes that Early Archaic use of mountain settings was year-round, rather than seasonal in which they migrate out of the mountains to over-winter in milder climates. Within Colorado and the entire surrounding region, cultural systems were changing during the Formative era, as suggested by widespread adoption of horticulture in the Southwest, and the variable use of cultigens by the Fremont to the west and Early Ceramic Period peoples to the east (Reed and Metcalf 1999:140). Although the current project area is quite removed from archaeological sites containing evidence of Formative era cultures including the Anasazi and the Fremont, there are a few sites dating to this time period in surrounding counties (Reed and Metcalf 1999:143). The Aspen Tradition is proposed as a taxonomic unit for use in describing the variability among non-horticultural cultural systems in the Northern Colorado River Basin between approximately 400 BC and AD 1300 (Reed and Metcalf 1999:141). A shift to the use of bow-and-arrow technology, the adoption of cultigens and ceramics by some groups, and a gradual broadening, or intensification, of the hunted and gathered subsistence base marks the beginning of the Aspen Tradition west of the Continental Divide. There is also an apparent shift in group mobility patterns, and an apparent increase in reliance on the use of prepared firepits for food processing. Sites of this age are common, but often show very little change in lifestyle compared to Archaic era groups. Perhaps due to better preservation, site types such as eagle traps, wickiups, and rock art, are also associated with this Tradition. The Protohistoric era refers to aboriginal occupation of western Colorado between the end of horticultural-based subsistence practices of the Formative era and the final expulsion of the Ute tribe to reservations in AD 1881 (Reed and Metcalf 1999:146). Protohistoric era groups in the Northern Colorado River Basin were highly mobile hunters and gatherers. Before extensive exposure to Euroamerican culture, these groups often used wickiups for shelter, manufactured brown ware ceramics, and hunted with bows and arrows. Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular projectile points are diagnostic of this time period. The Utes made contact with the exploring Spanish in the early 1600s. By the second half of that century, the Utes occupying the Northern Colorado River Basin had obtained enough horses to elevate themselves to an equestrian lifeway. The use of the horse permitted the expansion of annual territories and increased cultural contacts with other groups, especially the inhabitants of the Great Plains, and the Pueblos and the Spanish to the South. Euroamerican artifacts are often found in Protohistoric era components dating to late in the period. 7 The Historic Period in this area begins roughly when the Aspen area was first visited by the Hayden surveying party during 1873-1874. Beginning with the early gold rush that began in 1859, Colorado’s mining industry was a significant contributor to the state’s economic, political, and social development. This trend continued as the industry expanded with the discovery of silver, copper, lead and zinc in the central mountain region and resulted in population explosions in mining camps and nearby supply centers. Technological advances such as smelting allowed these ores to be more successfully processed and contributed to the increase in mine production. Wagon roads and railroads were essential to the transportation needs of the mining industries and the communities that surrounded them. At times, wagon roads were the only access to in the narrow and steep mountain canyons. Some of these wagon roads and railroad grades later became part of the state highway system. In 1879 prospectors from Leadville came into the Aspen area searching for mineral wealth, which was found in abundance (Rohrbough 1985). Towns such as Aspen became supply, processing, and transportation hubs for the mining industries in the Central Mountain region. The road over Independence Pass has been an important link in the state’s transportation network since 1879 when Aspen became the center of a silver mining boom. The route provides a direct connection between Aspen and Leadville, which are 59 miles apart via Independence Pass (as compared to 139 miles via Tennessee Pass and Glenwood Springs). A toll road built between 1879 and 1882 by Aspen citizens provided access to and from the mines east of Aspen. After the construction of the toll road, Pitkin County purchased the portion of the road within its boundaries. In the late 1880s, the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad and the Colorado Midland Railroad entered Aspen from the north via Glenwood Springs, providing a more reliable method to transport the ores mined near Aspen to larger markets. Aspen boomed until the Silver Panic of 1893, after which the town was nearly abandoned. A handful of miners, and a few farmers and ranchers kept the community alive. In the mid-1940s, the ski industry pioneered a revival of Aspen, which has grown in popularity ever since. Statement of Objectives/Research Design This project involved federal surface administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Following state and federal policies and regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665) as amended, the project area was inventoried to identify any cultural resources within the APE. Any discovered cultural resources were to be evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP under the Criteria for Eligibility (36 CFR 60.4). Management recommendations for treatment of any discovered resources were to be made in accordance with their recommended NRHP evaluations and potential impacts. Prehistoric resources are most often evaluated under Criterion D, for their potential to yield information important to studies of prehistory. Significant information potential in a 8 prehistoric site requires that the site contain intact cultural deposits or discrete activity areas that can be securely associated with a temporal period or named cultural group. The potential for intact deposits or cultural/temporal associations may be inferred from surface evidence of cultural features or undisturbed Holocene deposits, and the presence of temporally or culturally diagnostic artifacts. Historic resources may be evaluated under any of the Criteria. However, in the absence of structural features or documented association with significant historic events or important contributions of persons significant in history, historical resources are evaluated under essentially the same criteria as prehistoric resources. Expected Results The files search results provide an indication of the number, types, and distribution of cultural resources in the immediate vicinity of the Pitkin County Airport Project. Expectations for cultural resources in the area were low. Although both historic and prehistoric resources have been identified in the surrounding area, the project parcels are small and have been subjected to considerable disturbances including construction relating to residential homes, parking lots, and roads. Although not strictly within the defined APE, State Highway 82 runs adjacent to the project area and was a known historic linear resource. Field/Lab Methods The project area was covered using standard pedestrian transects spaced no more than 20 meters apart. Of the 19.81 acres in the project area (Figure 1), 0.63 acres were not inventoried because they were too densely vegetated (0.1 acres) or because they exhibited previous disturbances (0.53 acres). Because ground visibility was moderate to poor throughout much of the APE, special attention was paid to areas such as animal burrows and cutbanks that afforded views of subsurface contexts. If cultural materials were encountered, the immediate area was to be intensively examined to determine the nature and extent of the resource. Metcalf defines sites as five or more artifacts; or a feature, structure, or trail; or any combination of these elements meeting OAHP criteria in a discrete location that is believed to represent the locus of patterned human activity. An isolated find is defined as four or fewer artifacts without evidence of, or potential for, additional cultural materials or features in the immediate vicinity. An isolated find can also represent a single event or many pieces of a single artifact. Once defined, resources were recorded on OAHP forms. A handheld GPS unit that digitally depicted the APE was utilized. The GPS is a Trimble GeoXT6000 unit, georeferenced to UTM zone 13, NAD 83. No artifacts were collected. Digital photographs were taken of newly recorded resources. A physical datum was not placed at the linear resource recorded as part of this inventory. All field documentation, original records, digital images and copies of this report are on file at the Metcalf office in Eagle, Colorado. 9 Results and Management Recommendations This inventory resulted in the documentation of one segment of a known, historic linear resource, a segment of Colorado State Highway 82 (5PT1363.1). Appendix A includes a site location map. Site forms are found in Appendix B. 5PT1363.1 (State Highway 82) Site Description. Site 5PT1363.1 is a newly documented segment of Colorado State Highway 82 (SH 82). SH 82 is located on Colorado’s Western Slope and extends 85.29 miles in total from Glenwood Springs to Twin Lakes. From Glenwood Springs the highway travels southeast up the Roaring Fork River Valley to Aspen then continues to the southeast and east over Independence Pass where it ends at its intersection with State Highway 24 near the town of Twin Lakes. The Roaring Fork River is a northwest flowing river that originates in the Sawatch Mountains on Independence Pass and terminates near Glenwood Springs at its confluence with the Colorado River. The documented segment of SH 82 is located about four miles northwest of Aspen where it traverses a terrace along the western bank of the river at the base of the Elk Mountains. Deposits on the river terrace are silty and cobbly alluvium deposited by the fast flowing Roaring Fork River. Site 5PT1363.1 is adjacent to the Aspen Pitkin County Airport and this segment of highway serves as part of the busy entrance into the airport and the town of Aspen. At this location, SH 82 is a modern four lane highway that appears to deviate significantly from the original state highway route. In addition to the airport, the highway is encompassed by modern commercial and residential construction. Immediately to the east of the highway, the current project area includes some small parcels of undeveloped or minimally disturbed airport land along the terrace edge. Vegetation in these areas consists of sage, prickly pear cactus, wildflowers, willows, and dense oakbrush on the east facing slopes to the river and on the north and south facing slopes of the east-flowing drainages coming off the Elk Mountains to the west. The recorded segment trends northwest to southeast and measures approximately 6,682 feet long and about 90 feet wide. It is a paved and maintained four lane divided highway that accommodates a high density of traffic. Much of the segment is bordered by concrete barriers and the road utilizes bridges to pass over three east-flowing drainages. All three bridges are of modern concrete construction. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the road has been subject to multiple rerouting and widening projects conducted by the Colorado Department of Transportation. A small portion (approximately 1665 feet) of the recorded segment appears to follow the original route of the highway; however, most of the segment has been rerouted. The portion of SH 82 between Glenwood Springs and Aspen provides the only yearround state highway access to Aspen while the portion of the route over Independence Pass between Aspen and Twin Lakes/US 24 is open seasonally from Memorial Day through early November depending on snow. The high point of the highway, Independence Pass at 12,096 feet, is about twenty miles east of Aspen. 10 State Highway 82 is an original state highway with its period of significance during the 1920s. In 1911, the newly formed Colorado Highway Commission approved the addition of SH 82 to the state highway system, and construction took place on the east side of the pass between 1916 and 1923. The first motorized vehicles traveled over the pass in 1924. This improved road served the development of industry when mining was revived between Leadville and Aspen in the early 1920s (ACRE 2002, Autobee and Dobson-Brown 2003, CDOT, Salek 2011). The development of SH 82 has roots much earlier in the history of Western Colorado. Beginning with the early gold rush that began in 1859, Colorado’s mining industry was a significant contributor to the state’s economic, political, and social development. This trend continued as the mining industry expanded with the discovery of silver, copper, lead and zinc in the central mountain region and resulted in population explosions in mining camps and nearby supply centers. Wagon roads and railroads were essential to the transportation needs of the mining industries and the communities that surrounded them. At times, wagon roads were the only access to mining towns in narrow and steep mountain canyons. With improved access, towns such as Aspen became supply, processing, and transportation hubs for early mining industries in the Central Mountain region. Some of these wagon roads and railroad grades later became part of the state highway system and, in the case of Aspen, SH 82 contributed to a revival of silver mining in the 1920s and its later rebirth as one of the premier tourist destinations in the state. SH 82 has been an important link in the state’s transportation network since Aspen became the center of a silver mining boom. Silver discoveries around Aspen during the late 1870s led to increased road building activity in an effort to improve transport of ore from the remote mountain community to refineries in Leadville. Previously, mule trains were used to transport supplies and ore between Aspen and Leadville but the trip was difficult and costly (Mehls 1982:76). Better maintained toll roads over mountain passes solved some of these problems and, in the early 1880s, B. Clark Wheeler and others with a stake in Aspen mining formed the Aspen, Hunter Creek, and Leadville Toll Road Company to build and operate a toll road over Independence Pass from Aspen to Twin Lakes, south of Leadville. The route was shorter than those currently in use that travelled over Taylor Pass and through Buena Vista and the road immediately improved access to Aspen but the route was still arduous and was impassable for much of the year primarily because of winter snow (Mehls 1982:77). Before long, an easier route reached Aspen from the north via the Grand Valley and Glenwood Springs. These northern toll roads followed the narrow Roaring Fork River Valley and were constructed in the valley throughout the late 1880s with a toll road stretching from Carbondale to Aspen opening in 1885 (Mehls 1982:78). The road to the north opened access to larger markets for ore in Grand Junction and the Front Range. Also seeking to profit from silver mining in Aspen, The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad reached Aspen in 1887 followed closely by the Colorado Midland Railroad in 1888. The Colorado Midland Railway Company was founded in 1883 by H.D. Fisher and other Colorado Springs businessmen. The railway was designed and built as a standard gauge line to more 11 easily interchange with the major railroads of Colorado Springs and was the first standard gauge line to penetrate Colorado’s Rockies via a route over Ute Pass west of Colorado Springs and on to Leadville via Trout Creek Pass. After railroad service arrived in Aspen, use of the toll road over Independence Pass waned and, when the silver mines closed in the 1890s, the road was mostly abandoned (Mehls 1982). But, transport of both people and supplies via railroad was also costly and generated extreme competition between the different rail lines. As a result of this competition, the Midland went out of business by 1920 (Mehls 1982). In 1911, the newly formed Colorado Highway Commission approved the addition of SH 82 to the state highway system (www.codot.gov/projects/SH82/corridor-history; Salek 2011). Concentrating first on automobile tourism using Independence Pass, and encouraged to make road improvements through the Good Roads Movement (ACRE 2002), Aspen citizens again worked to open and improve the route over Independence Pass. Construction took place on the east side of the pass between 1916 and 1923 (Salek 2011). The improved automobile road deviated from the original toll road, which was characterized as being very narrow with sharp and dangerous curves and grades as steep as 12 and 14 percent (Salek 2011). Curves and steep grades had to be rebuilt for automobiles and the state did this in sections causing some sections of the original toll road to be abandoned. The first motorized vehicles traveled over the pass in 1924. This improved road served the development of industry when mining revived between Leadville and Aspen in the early 1920s. The highway was also known as the Roaring Fork Route on early tourist maps and brochures and the first federal aid system in 1923 included the route as No. 82. The last section built on Independence Pass, known as the Weller Grade, had a maximum grade of 6.6 percent and a width up to 17 feet, including cement rubble masonry headwalls, rustic log guard rails, and cement rubble masonry retaining and guard rails in the Weller Grade section. SH 82 also incorporated parts of the Colorado Midland Railway route to extend the highway to the north. The railroad tracks were pulled up around 1919 and the railroad bed in parts of the Roaring Fork Valley were converted for automobile use (Mehls 1982:94). In 1937, four miles between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale was paved; the remainder of the road to Aspen was paved in 1938. The last section of SH 82 to be paved over Independence Pass was done by 1969. An expressway was completed from Glenwood Springs halfway to Carbondale by 1966 and to Carbondale by 1972. CDOT widened the highway between Glenwood Springs and Aspen due to population growth in the Roaring Fork Valley that began in the 1980s. Environmental sensitivity required a unique design, and the preferred alternative featured a divided expressway with a design similar to the stacked viaduct of I-70 in Glenwood Canyon. The highway also has managed High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes between Basalt and Aspen that CDOT has said are the first rural HOV lanes in the country (Salek 2011). Four lanes were completed from Aspen northwest to Basalt in various phases between 1996 and 2000 (CDOT). Today, SH 82 serves as the main artery for traffic getting from I-70 south to towns in the 12 Roaring Fork Valley which serve as year round tourist destinations. In the winter, it is the only way to get to Aspen; in summer, Independence pass serves as a more scenic route. Sixteen segments of road have been documented in Pitkin County on Independence Pass (5PT505.1 through 5PT505.16) but they appear to be a mix of portions of the current paved alignment of SH 82 (5PT505.1 to 5PT505.3) and unpaved and abandoned segments of the Independence-Twin Lakes-Roaring Fork Toll Road that are not associated with the current alignment of SH 82. The entire resource, 5PT505, is recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) with SHPO concurrence. 5PT.606.1 and 5PT.606.2 are also associated with unpaved segments of the older road known as Independence Pass Toll Road. This resource is also recommended as eligible for the NRHP and both segments are recommended as contributing to the overall eligibility of the resource. Segments of the highway were also documented in Lake County on the east side of the Continental Divide as 5LK.128 in 1975 and 5LK.487 but these recordings were completed in the 1970s and do not provide eligibility recommendations or historical information. All of these resources cite their association with Independence Pass and/or previous Independence Pass toll roads rather than SH 82. Because of this mix of paved segments of SH 82 and abandoned toll road segments that are recorded under a single Smithsonian number (5PT505), the currently documented segment of SH 82 which is west of Aspen and not on Independence Pass, has been given a separate Smithsonian number, 5PT1363.1. In addition to the documented road segments, bridges associated with SH 82 and listed or eligible for the NRHP include Maroon Creek Viaduct (5PT136), which was originally a bridge on the Midland Railroad, and the Glenwood Springs Viaduct, also known as the Grand Avenue Viaduct (5GF2717), which will be demolished as part of the realignment of SH 82 in Glenwood Springs. Eligibility and Management Recommendations. SH 82 is an original 1920s state highway. The northern and eastern portions of the highway have somewhat different histories but both generally followed the path of toll roads or railroads that first opened up the remote mountain silver mines surrounding Aspen to ore markets and later provided improved roads that opened the area to automobile tourism and a 1920s mining revival. Portions of the highway in the Roaring Fork River Valley made use of abandoned railroad beds built by the Colorado Midland Railroad and segments of the highway over Independence Pass made use of older toll roads. However, over the years, beginning around 1912 and extending into the 1960s, the highway required engineering innovations that allowed the Colorado Department of Highways to navigate the remote mountain terrain of Independence Pass as well as the narrow Roaring Fork River Valley. As a result, the entire resource, 5PT1363, is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. SH 82 is an important example of an early and prominent project of the Colorado Highway Department under Criterion A because it has a direct and important association with the development of automobile tourism and recreational pursuits into the high country. The state highway also supported the mineral extraction industry by providing access to area mines that revived around Aspen in the 1920s. As such it possesses significance in the areas of 13 Transportation, Recreation, and Industry (Mining) under Criterion A. SH 82 also possesses significance under Criterion C in the area of Engineering. Beginning in 1924, automobiles began to access the highway that had been specifically redesigned and improved by the Colorado Department of Highways to address challenging mountain conditions. Structures such as the Maroon Creek Viaduct and Glenwood Springs/Grand Avenue Viaduct and the design of the highway over Independence Pass exemplify bold engineering solutions by the Colorado Highway Department to address the extreme challenges associated with constructing highways over mountain passes and in challenging terrain. Metcalf recommends that segment 5PT1363.1 of SH 82 does not support the NRHP eligibility of the entire resource. Since at least the 1990s, the portion of the road adjacent to the Pitkin County Airport has been realigned, widened, and modernized so that the existing road segment is now a busy four lane, divided highway. A small portion of the segment appears to follow the original path of the road but most of the segment has been realigned. As such, segment 5PT1363.1 no longer retains integrity of location, design, workmanship, or materials. Likewise, the Pitkin County airport parallels the west side of the road segment. The southern end of the segment is at a busy intersection surrounded by other commercial and residential construction all of which compromise intregrity of setting, feeling and association. At this location, SH 82 serves as the busy entrance to the local airport and to the town of Aspen. Evaluation of Research Despite the presence of previously documented historic resources and one prehistoric isolate within a one mile radius of the current project area, expectations for cultural resources within the current APE were low given the small parcels for survey and the amount of modern disturbance within them. Those expectations were met as the only new site documentation for this project is a segment of SH 82, a known historic resource that parallels the western project boundary. Because field conditions were generally good and because the number and distribution of cultural resources met expectations, there is little potential for unidentified resources in the APE. Therefore, the originally stated goal of identifying and evaluating all cultural resources within the APE has been met. Summary and Conclusions Metcalf conducted a Class III cultural resource inventory for the Aspen Airport’s master plan update in Pitkin County, Colorado. A total of 19.2 acres was intensively inventoried. Inventory resulted in the discovery and documentation of one segment of Colorado State Highway 82 (5PT1363.1). The entire resource (5PT1363) is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. Metcalf further recommends that the newly recorded segment, 5PT1363.1, does not retain the essential elements of historic integrity and, therefore, does not support the entire resource’s overall assessment of NRHP eligible. As a result, Metcalf recommends a finding of no historic properties affected for the APE as defined at the time of inventory. 14 References Cited Associated Cultural Resource Experts (ACRE) 2002 Highways to the Sky: A Context and History of Colorado’s Highway System. Submitted to Colorado Department of Transportation. Ms. on file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver. Autobee, Robert and Deborah Dobson-Brown 2003 Colorado State Roads and Highways, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission. Associated Cultural Resource Experts (ACRE). Ms. on file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver. Black, Kevin D. 1986 Mitigative Archaeological Excavations at Two Sites for the Cottonwood Pass Projects, Chaffee and Gunnison Counties, Colorado. Ms. on file, National Park Service, Interagency Archaeological Services, Denver. Church, Minette et al. 2007 Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado. Mehls, Steven F. 1982 The Valley of Opportunity: A History of West-Central Colorado. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series, Number 12, Denver. Metcalf, Michael D., and Kevin D. Black 1991 Archaeological Excavations at the Yarmony Pit House Site, Eagle, County, Colorado. Ms. on file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado. Reed, Alan and Michael D. Metcalf 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of professional Archaeologists, Denver. Rohrbough, Malcolm J. 1985 Aspen: The History of a Silver Mining Town 1879-1893. Oxford University Press, New York. Salek, M.E. 2011 The Highways of Colorado. Electronic document, http://www.msalek.com/colo. Accessed on 8/5/2016. 15 Soil Conservation Service 1972 Natural Vegetation Map, Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, Oregon. Taylor, Andrew M. 1999 Guide to the Geology of Colorado. Cataract Lode Mining Company, Golden, Colorado. 16 APPENDIX A: Cultural resource location map. (Agency copies only; not for public distribution) 17 R. 85W 'x lju?i?di?gre m.m uapm oemo whoa can 15' Quad. Overview lrport ugicl] Mead Hunt Aspem?Pi in County A Consultants, Inc. ml? no I- Pi in County, CO 16 APPENDIX B: Cultural resource forms (Agency copies only; not for public distribution) 19 Es: HISTORYG 6 February 6, 2017 Kandice Krull linvironmental Protection Specialist liAA Denver Airport District Office 26805 1'1. 68?11 Avenue, Suite 224 Denver, CO 80249-6361 Re: Updated Determination of Effect for the Aspen?Pitkin County Airport #71361) Dear Ms. Krull: Thank you for your correspondence datedjlanuarv 31, 2017 and received on February 3, 2017 by our office regarding the consultation of the above-mentioned project under Section 106 of the National 1 listoric Preservation Act (Section 106). After review of the provided information, we do not object to the proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed project. After review of the provided survey information we concur that segment 5131113631 does not support the overall eligibility of resource 51"1".1363 for the National Register of Historic Places. We also concur that resource 51"1'538 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. After review of the scope of work and assessment of adverse effect, our previous concurrence with the recommended finding of no adverse qji?r/ 36 CPR under Section 106 for resource 5PT.1363, including segment remains. After review of the provided updated information, we concur with the recommended finding of no bzh'lon'rpmpem'er qu?c/cd [36 CFR under Section 106 for resource 51"1'538? Should unidentified archaeological resources be discovered in the course of the project, work must be interrupted until the resources have been evaluated in terms of the National Register eligibility criteria (36 CPR 60.4) in consultation with our office pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13. Also, should the consulted-upon scope of the work change please contact our office for continued consultation under 36 CFR 800. request being involved in the consultation process with the local government, which as stipulated in 36 CliR 800.3 is required to be notified of the undertaking, and with other consulting parties. Additional infc.)rmation provided by the local government or consulting parties might cause our office to re-evaluate our eligibility and potential effect ?ndings. Please note that our compliance letter does not end the 3l'J-dav review period provided to other consulting parties. If we may be of further assistance, please contact jennifer Bryant, our Section 106 Compliance Manager, at (303) 866 2673 or iennifer.bryanI@Lstate.co.us. Since Received 1 Steve Turner, AIA 1 3 2017 State 1 listoric Preservation Officer By: FAA DE A History Colorado. 1200 Broadway. Denver, CO 80203 HistoryColorado.org (U Northwest Mountain Region Denver Airports District Of?ce US- apartment 26805 68?" Avenue. Suite 224 of Transportation Denver, CO 80249-6361 Federal Aviation Administration January 31, 2017 Mr. Steve Turner State Historic Preservation Office 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Re: Updated Determination of Effect for the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Dear Mr. Turner: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Section 106 finding of a No Historic Properties Affected for the proposed improvement projects at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport (Airport) on November 17, 2016. Your office requested additional information on the potential impacts to resource 5PT.538 in a letter dated December 2, 2016. The purpose of this letter is to provide the additional information requested. Resource 5PT.538 (Airport Ranch) is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The edge of the historic boundary for Airport Ranch closest to the proposed project corresponds to the Airport fence line. The Airport fence line is approximately 455 feet west of the existing runway. The proposed project includes shifting the runway to west by 80 feet. Construction activities should be at least 300 feet from the edge of the boundary of the resource and 640 feet from the closest structure associated with Airport Ranch. Based on this information, the FAA still finds the No Historic Properties Affected finding to be applicable. The FAA respectfully requests the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office to provide written concurrence with the Section 106 determination. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns regarding the analyses and conclusions used to determine the potential effects of the pr0posed project on historic, cultural, and archaeological resources, or have any questions regarding the project, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kandice Krull Environmental Protection Specialist FAA - Denver Airport District Office 303-342-1261 Enclosures COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OAHP1400 Management Data Form Rev. 11/10 A Management Data Form should be completed for each cultural resource recorded during an archaeological survey. Isolated finds and revisits are the exception and they do not require a Management Data Form. Please attach the appropriate component forms and use continuation pages if necessary. Fields can be expanded or compressed as necessary. 1. Resource Number: 2. Temporary Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 3. Attachments (check as many as apply) Prehistoric Archaeological Component Historic Archaeological Component Historic Architectural Component Form Linear Component Sketch/Instrument Map (required) U.S.G.S. Map Photocopy (required) Photograph(s) (required) Other, specify: 4. Official determination (OAHP use only) Determined Eligible NR\SR Determined Not Eligible NR\SR Nominated Need Data NR\SR Contributing to NR Dist.\SR Dist. Not Contributing to NR Dist.\SR Dist. Supports overall linear eligibility NR\SR Does not support overall linear eligibility NR\SR I. IDENTIFICATION 5. Resource Name: Colorado State Highway 82 6. Project Name/Number: Pitkin County Airport 7. Government Involvement: Local State Federal Agency: Federal Aviation Administration 8. Site Categories (check as many as apply): In existing National Register District Prehistoric: archaeological site paleontological site National Register District name: Historic: archaeology site building(s) structure(s) object(s) In existing National Register District National Register District name: 9. Owner(s) Name and Address: Colorado Department of Transportation 10. Boundary Description and Justification: Extent of road surface and 75 ft right of way (total width) of Colorado State Highway 82 (Hwy 82) within the project Area of Potential Effect (APE) 2 2 11. Site/Property Dimensions Length: 2036.7m Width: 27.4m Area: 62,108 m Acres (m /4047): 15.3 Area was calculated as: Length x Width (rectangle/square) Length x Width x 0.785 (Ellipse) II. LOCATION 12. Legal Location PM 6th Township 9S Range 85W Section 27 SW ¼ NW ¼ PM 6th Township 9S Range 85W Section 27 S ½ SW ¼ PM 6th Township 9S Range 85W Section 27 NW ¼ SW ¼ PM 6th Township 9S Range 85W Section 34 E If section is irregular, explain alignment method: Aspen 1960 (PR 1987); Highland 13. USGS Quad: 14. County: Pitkin Peak 1960 (PR 1987) 15. UTM Coordinates: Datum used NAD 27 NAD 83 WGS 84 A. Zone 13 337907 mE 4245200 mN (north end) ½ NW ¼ B. Zone 13 C. Zone ; D. Zone ; 16. UTM Source: Other (explain): 338251 mE 4344625 mE Other: mN (south end) mN mE mN Corrected GPS/rectified survey (<5m error) Uncorrected GPS 17. Site elevation (feet): 7560-7680 ft. 18. Address: GIS Lot: Page 1 of 14 Block: Addition: Map template Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Management Data Form Temporary Resource Number: 19. Location/Access: The recorded segment of Highway 82 runs parallel to the Pitkin County airport which is located approximately four miles northwest of the town of Aspen. III. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/SITE CONDITION 20. General Description (should include both on site as well as geographical setting with aspect, landforms, vegetation, soils, depositional environment, water, ground visibility): Site 5PT1363.1 is a newly documented segment of Colorado State Highway 82 (SH 82). SH 82 is located on Colorado’s Western Slope and extends 85.29 miles in total from Glenwood Springs to Twin Lakes. From Glenwood Springs the highway travels southeast up the Roaring Fork River Valley to Aspen then continues to the southeast and east over Independence Pass where it ends at its intersection with State Highway 24 near the town of Twin Lakes. The Roaring Fork River is a northwest flowing river that originates in the Sawatch Mountains on Independence Pass and terminates near Glenwood Springs at its confluence with the Colorado River. The documented segment of SH 82 is located about four miles northwest of Aspen where it traverses a terrace along the western bank of the Roaring Fork River at the base of the Elk Mountains. Deposits on the river terrace are silty and cobbly alluvium deposited by the fast flowing Roaring Fork River. Site 5PT1363.1 is adjacent to the Aspen Pitkin County Airport and this segment of highway serves as part of the busy entrance into the airport and to the town of Aspen. At this location, SH 82 is a modern four lane highway that appears to deviate significantly from the original state highway route. In addition to the airport, the highway is encompassed by modern commercial and residential construction. Immediately to the east of the highway, the current project area includes some small parcels of undeveloped or minimally disturbed airport land along the terrace edge. Vegetation in these areas consists of sage, prickly pear cactus, wildflowers, willows, and dense oakbrush on the east facing slopes to the river and on the north and south facing slopes of the east-flowing drainages coming off the Elk Mountains to the west. Ground visibility varied from 60 to 80 percent on the terrace edge to 0 to 20 percent on the steeper slopes of the drainages. 21. Soil depth (cm) and description: Sediments are silty loam alluvium with dense gravels and cobbles of unknown depth. 22. Condition a. Architectural/Structural b. Archaeological/Paleontological Excellent Undisturbed Good Light disturbance Fair Moderate disturbance Deteriorated Heavy disturbance Ruin Total disturbance 23. Describe condition: The original road has been completely replaced by a four lane modern highway with modern cement bridges that no longer follows the original route of State Highway 82. 24. Vandalism: Yes No Describe: IV. NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 25. Context or Theme: Highways to the Sky: A Context and History of Colorado’s Highway System, Colorado Department of Transportation; Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology (Church et al. 2007) 26. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory Does not meet any of the National Register criteria Qualifies under exceptions A through G. List exception(s): 27. Applicable State Register Criteria: A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to history B. Property is connected with persons significant in history C. Property has distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction or artisan D. Property is of geographic importance E. Property contains the possibility of important discoveries related to prehistory or history Does not meet any of the State Register criteria 28. Area(s) of significance: Transportation, Recreation, Industry (Mining) Page 2 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Management Data Form Temporary Resource Number: 29. Period(s) of significance: The period of significance for SH 82 is during the 1920s – SH 82 is an original 1920s state highway. In 1911, the newly formed Colorado Highway Commission approved the addition of SH 82 to the state highway system, and construction took place on the east side of the pass between 1916 and 1923. The first motorized vehicles traveled over the pass in 1924. This improved road served the development of industry when mining revived between Leadville and Aspen in the early 1920s (ACRE 2002, Autobee and Dobson-Brown 2003, CDOT, Salek 2011). 30. Level of significance: National State Local 31. Statement of significance: SH 82 is an original 1920s state highway. The northern and eastern portions of the highway have somewhat different histories but both generally followed the path of toll roads or railroads that first opened up the remote mountains silver mines surrounding Aspen to ore markets and later provided improved roads that opened the area to automobile tourism and a 1920s mining revival. Portions of the highway in the Roaring Fork River Valley make use of abandoned railroad beds built by the Colorado Midland Railway Company and segments of the highway over Independence Pass made use of older toll roads. However, over the years, beginning around 1912 and extending in to the 1960s, the highway required engineering innovations that allowed the Colorado Highway Department (CHD) to navigate the remote mountain terrain of Independence Pass as well as the narrow Roaring Fork River Valley. As a result, the entire resource, 5PT1363 is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. SH 82 is an important example of an early and prominent project of the Colorado Highway Department under Criterion A because it has a direct and important association with the development of automobile tourism and recreational pursuits into the high country. The state highway also supported the mineral extraction industry by providing access to area mines that revived around Aspen in the 1920s. As such it possesses significance in the areas of Transportation, Recreation, and Industry (Mining) under Criterion A. SH 82 also exhibits significance under Criterion C in the area of Engineering. Beginning in 1924 automobiles began to access the highway that had been specifically redesigned and improved by the Colorado Department of Highways to address challenging mountain conditions. Structures such as the Maroon Creek Viaduct and Glenwood Springs/Grand Avenue Viaduct and the design of the highway over Independence Pass exemplify bold engineering solutions by the CHD to address the extreme challenges associated with constructing highways over mountain passes and in challenging terrain. 32. Statement of historic integrity related to significance: Segment 5PT1363.1 of SH 82 does not support the eligibility of the entire resource. Since at least the 1990s, the portion of the road adjacent to the Pitkin County Airport has been realigned, widened and modernized so that the existing road segment is now a busy four lane, divided highway. A small portion of the segment appears to follow the original path of the road but most of the segment has been realigned. As such, segment 5PT1363.1 does not retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, or materials. In addition, the Pitkin County airport parallels the west side of the road segment. The southern end of the segment is at a busy intersection surrounded by other commercial and residential construction all of which compromise intregrity of setting, feeling and association. At this location, SH 82 serves as the busy entrance to the local airport and to the town of Aspen. 33. National Register Eligibility Field Assessment: Eligible Not eligible Need data Linear Segment Evaluation (if applicable): Supporting Non Supporting 34. Status in an Existing National Register District: Contributing Non-contributing 35. State Register Eligibility Field Assessment: Eligible Not eligible Need data 36. Status in an Existing State Register District: Contributing Non-contributing 37. National/State Register District Potential: Yes No Describe: 38. Cultural Landscape Potential: Yes No Describe: 39. If Yes to either 37 or 38, is this site: Contributing Non-contributing Explain: V. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 40.Threats to Resource: Water erosion Wind erosion Grazing Neglect Vandalism Recreation Construction Other (explain): 41. Existing protection None Marked Fenced Patrolled Access controlled Other (specify): Comments: 42. Local landmark designation: 43. Easement: 44. Recorder’s Management Recommendations: No further work is recommended for the current project VI. DOCUMENTATION Page 3 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Management Data Form Temporary Resource Number: 45. Previous actions accomplished at the site: Tested Partial excavation Complete excavation Date(s): a. Excavations: b. Stabilization: Date(s): c. HABS/HAER documentation [date(s) and numbers]: d. Other: 46. Known collections/reports/interviews and other references (list): 47. Primary location of additional data: 48. State or Federal Permit number: CO State 2016-74, expires 02282017 49. Collection: Artifact collection authorized: Yes No Were artifacts collected: Artifact repository: Collection method: Diagnostics Grab Sample Random Sample Other (specify): 50. Photograph Numbers: Digital Photo Roll 16-057, Images 447-451 Yes No Files or negatives stored at: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Golden, CO 51. Report title: Mead and Hunt, Inc., Pitkin County Airport Survey Project: Report of the Class III Cultural Resource Inventory, Pitkin County, Colorado 52. Recorder(s): Amy Nelson Date: 07/08/2016 53. Recorder affiliation: Phone number/Email: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (303) 425-4507/mac@metcalfarchaeology.com NOTE: Please attach a site map, a photocopy of the USGS 1:24000 map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 303-866-3395 Page 4 of 14 Resource Number: Temporary Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Linear Component Form OAHP 1418 Rev. 11/2010 This form should be completed for each linear resource or linear segment. Use this form in conjunction with the Management Data Form. Call OAHP staff (303-866-5216) prior to assigning a resource number. I. Resource Identification 1. Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 3. Site Name: 2. Temporary Resource Number: Colorado State Highway 82 4. Record of: Entire resource II. Resource Description 5. Resource Type: Segment Road Railroad Trail Ditch/Canal Other (specify): 6. Component Description: The recorded segment is a portion of State Highway 82 beginning immediately north of the Pitkin County Airport and about four miles north/northwest of the town of Aspen, Colorado. It runs along a terrace on the west bank of the Roaring Fork River through the narrow valley at the base of the Elk Mountains generally paralleling the river. This portion of the highway serves as the busy entrance into Aspen. The segment trends northwest to southeast and measures approximately 6,682 ft long and about 90 ft wide. It is a paved and maintained four lane divided highway that accommodates a high density of traffic. Much of the segment is bordered by concrete barriers and the road utilizes bridges to pass over three east-flowing drainages. All three bridges are of modern concrete construction. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the road has been subject to multiple rerouting and widening projects conducted by the Colorado Department of Transportation. A small portion (approximately 1665 ft) of the recorded segment appears to follow the original route of the highway; however, most of the segment has been rerouted. SH 82 extends from Glenwood Springs to Twin Lakes, Colorado. The portion of the highway between Glenwood Springs and Aspen provides the only year-round state highway access to Aspen while the portion of the route over Independence Pass between Aspen and Twin Lakes/US 24 is open seasonally from Memorial Day through early November depending on snow. The high point of the highway, Independence Pass at 12,096 feet, is about twenty miles east of Aspen. 7. Original use: transportation 8. Current use: transportation 9. Modifications (describe and include dates): No traces of the original road are present at this location. The highway is a modern and busy four lane highway with three modern concrete bridges. 10. Extent of Entire Resource: State Highway 82 (SH 82) follows an 85.29 mile route through Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, and Lake Counties that connects the communities of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt and Aspen west of the Continental Divide with the small village of Twin Lakes and US Highway 24 on the east side of the Continental Divide. 11. Associated Artifacts: none 12. Associated Features or Resources: none Page 5 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: III. Research Information 13. Architect/Engineer: unknown Source(s) of Information: 14. Builder: Colorado Highway Department www.codot.gov/projects/SH82/corridor-history; ACRE 2002, Autobee and DobsonBrown 2003, CDOT, Salek 2011 1920s to 1969 but continues to be realigned, widened, and maintained to 15. Date of Construction / Date Range: the present day. www.codot.gov/projects/SH82/corridor-history; ACRE 2002, Autobee and DobsonSource(s) of Information: Brown 2003, CDOT, Salek 2011 16. Historical / Archival Data: Beginning with the early gold rush that began in 1859, Colorado’s mining industry was a significant contributor to the state’s economic, political, and social development. This trend continued as the mining industry expanded with the discovery of silver, copper, lead and zinc in the central mountain region and resulted in population explosions in mining camps and nearby supply centers. Wagon roads and railroads were essential to the transportation needs of the mining industries and the communities that surrounded them. At times, wagon roads were the only access to mining towns in narrow and steep mountain canyons. With improved access, towns such as Aspen became supply, processing, and transportation hubs for early mining industries in the Central Mountain region. Some of these wagon roads and railroad grades later became part of the state highway system and, in the case of Aspen, contributed to its rebirth as one of the premier tourist destinations in the state. Source(s) of Information: SH 82 has been an important link in the state’s transportation network since Aspen became the center of a silver mining boom. Silver discoveries around Aspen during the late 1870s led to increased road building activity in an effort to improve transport of ore from the remote mountain community to refineries in Leadville. Previously, mule trains were used to transport supplies and ore between Aspen and Leadville but the trip was difficult and costly (Mehls 1982:76). Better maintained toll roads over mountain passes solved some of these problems and, in the early 1880s, B. Clark Wheeler and others with a stake in Aspen mining formed the Aspen, Hunter Creek, and Leadville Toll Road Company to build and operate a toll road over Independence Pass from Aspen to Twin Lakes, south of Leadville. The route was shorter than those currently in use that travelled over Taylor Pass and through Buena Vista and the road immediately improved access to Aspen but the route was still arduous and was impassable for much of the year primarily because of winter snow (Mehls 1984:77). Before long, an easier route reached Aspen from the north via the Grand Valley and Glenwood Springs. These northern toll roads followed the narrow Roaring Fork River Valley and were constructed in the valley throughout the late 1880s with a toll road stretching from Carbondale to Aspen opening in 1885 (Mehls 1982:78). The road to the north opened access to larger markets for ore in Grand Junction and the Front Range. Also seeking to profit from silver mining in Aspen, The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad reached Aspen in 1887 followed closely by the Colorado Midland Railroad in 1888. The Colorado Midland Railway Company was founded in 1883 by H.D. Fisher and other Colorado Springs businessmen. The railway was designed and built as a standard gauge line to more easily interchange with the major railroads of Colorado Springs and was the first standard gauge line to penetrate Colorado’s Rockies via a route over Ute Pass west of Colorado Springs and on to Leadville via Trout Creek Pass. After railroad service arrived in Aspen, use of the toll road over Independence Pass waned and, when the silver mines closed in the 1890s, the road was mostly abandoned (Mehls 1982). But, transport of both people and supplies via railroad was also costly and generated extreme competition between the different rail lines. As a result of this competition, the Midland went out of business by 1920 (Mehls 1982). In 1911, the newly formed Colorado Highway Commission approved the addition of SH 82 to the state highway system (CDOT; Salek 2011). Concentrating first on automobile tourism using Independence Pass, and encouraged to make road improvements through the Good Roads Movement (ACRE 2002), Aspen citizens again worked to open and improve the route over Independence Pass. Construction took place on the east side of the pass between 1916 and 1923 (Salek 2011). The improved automobile road deviated from the original toll road, which was characterized as being very narrow with sharp and dangerous curves and grades as steep as 12 and 14 percent (Salek 2011). Curves and steep grades had to be rebuilt for automobiles and the state did this in sections causing some sections of the original toll road to be abandoned. The first motorized vehicles traveled over the pass in 1924. This improved road served the development of industry when mining revived between Leadville and Aspen in the early 1920s. The highway was also known as the Roaring Fork Route on early tourist maps and brochures and the first federal aid system in 1923 included the route as No. 82. The last section built on Independence Pass, known as the Weller Grade, had a maximum grade of 6.6 percent and a width up to 17 feet, including cement rubble masonry headwalls, rustic log guard rails, and cement rubble masonry retaining and guard rails in the Weller Grade section. Page 6 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: SH 82 also incorporated parts of the Colorado Midland Railroad route to extend the highway to the north. The railroad tracks were pulled up around 1919 and the railroad bed in parts of the Roaring Fork Valley were converted for automobile use (Mehls 1982:94). In 1937, four miles between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale was paved; the remainder of the road to Aspen was paved in 1938. The last section of SH 82 to be paved over Independence Pass was done by 1969 (Salek 2011). An expressway was completed from Glenwood Springs halfway to Carbondale by 1966 and to Carbondale by 1972. CDOT widened the highway between Glenwood Springs and Aspen due to population growth in the Roaring Fork Valley that began in the 1980s. Environmental sensitivity required a unique design, and the preferred alternative featured a divided expressway with a design similar to the stacked viaduct of I-70 in Glenwood Canyon. The highway also has managed High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes between Basalt and Aspen that CDOT has said are the first rural HOV lanes in the country (Salek 2011). Four lanes were completed from Aspen northwest to Basalt in various phases between 1996 and 2000 (www.codot.gov/projects/SH82/corridor-history). Today, SH 82 serves as the main artery for traffic getting from I-70 south to towns in the Roaring Fork Valley which serve as year round tourist destinations. In the winter, it's the only way to get to Aspen; in summer, Independence pass serves as a more scenic route. Sixteen segments of road have been documented in Pitkin County on Independence Pass (5PT505.1 through 5PT505.16) but they appear to be a mix of portions of the current paved alignment of SH 82 (5PT505.1 to 5PT505.3) and unpaved and abandoned segments of the Independence-Twin Lakes-Roaring Fork Toll Road that are not associated with the current alignment of SH 82. The entire resource, 5PT505 is recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) with SHPO concurrence. 5PT.606.1 and 5PT.606.2 are also associated with unpaved segments of the older road known as Independence Pass Toll Road. This resource is also recommended as eligible for the NRHP and both segments are recommended as contributing to the overall eligibility of the resource. Segments of the highway were also documented in Lake County on the east side of the Continental Divide as 5LK.128 in 1975 and 5LK.487 but these recordings were completed in the 1970s and do not provide eligibility recommendations or historical information. All of these resources cite their association with Independence Pass and/or previous Independence Pass toll roads rather than SH 82. Because of this mix of paved segments of SH 82 and abandoned toll road segments that are recorded under a single Smithsonian number (5PT505), the currently documented segment of SH 82 which is west Aspen and not on Independence Pass, has been given a separate Smithsonian number, 5PT1363.1. In addition to the documented road segments, bridges associated with SH 82 and listed or eligible for the NRHP include Maroon Creek Viaduct (5PT136), which was originally a bridge on the Midland Railroad, and the Glenwood Springs Viaduct, also known as the Grand Avenue Viaduct (5GF2717), which will be demolished as part of the realignment of SH 82 in Glenwood Springs (Autobee and Dobson-Brown 2003). 17. Cultural Affiliation and Justification: American based on archival records and historic maps. IV. Management Recommendations No further work is recommended for the current project 18. Eligibility of Entire Resource Eligible Not Eligible Need Data Is this an official determination? Yes No Remarks / Justification: SH 82 is an original 1920s state highway. The northern and eastern portions of the highway have somewhat different histories but both generally followed the path of toll roads or railroads that first opened up the remote mountains silver mines surrounding Aspen to ore markets and later provided improved roads that opened the area to automobile tourism and a 1920s mining revival. Portions of the highway in the Roaring Fork River Valley make use of abandoned railroad beds built by the Colorado Midland Railway Company and segments of the highway over Independence Pass made use of older toll roads. However, over the years, beginning around 1912 and extending in to the 1960s, the highway required engineering innovations that allowed the Colorado Highway Department (CHD) to navigate the remote mountain terrain of Independence Pass as well as the narrow Roaring Fork River Valley. As a result, the entire resource, 5PT1363 is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. SH 82 is an important example of an early and prominent project of the Colorado Highway Department under Criterion A because it has a direct and important association with the development of automobile tourism and recreational pursuits into the high country. The state highway also supported the mineral extraction industry by providing access to area mines that revived around Aspen in the 1920s. As such it possesses significance in the areas of Transportation, Recreation, and Industry (Mining) under Criterion A. SH 82 also exhibits significance under Criterion C in the area of Page 7 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: Engineering. Beginning in 1924 automobiles began to access the highway that had been specifically redesigned and improved by the Colorado Department of Highways to address challenging mountain conditions. Structures such as the Maroon Creek Viaduct and Glenwood Springs/Grand Avenue Viaduct and the design of the highway over Independence Pass exemplify bold engineering solutions by the CHD to address the extreme challenges associated with constructing highways over mountain passes and in challenging terrain (ACRE 2002, Autobee and Dobson-Brown 2003, CDOT, Salek 2011). 19. Evaluation of integrity of the segment of the entire linear resource being recorded (Complete only if “Segment” under item 4 is checked and the entire resource is marked as Eligible under item 18) Supporting Non-supporting Not applicable Remarks / Justification: Segment 5PT1363.1 of SH 82 does not support the eligibility of the entire resource. Since at least the 1990s, the portion of the road adjacent to the Pitkin County Airport has been realigned, widened and modernized so that the existing road segment is now a busy four lane, divided highway. A small portion of the segment appears to follow the original path of the road but most of the segment has been realigned. As such, segment 5PT1363.1 no longer retains integrity of location, design, workmanship, or materials. Likewise, the Pitkin County airport parallels the west side of the road segment. The southern end of the segment is at a busy intersection surrounded by other commercial and residential construction all of which compromise integrity of setting, feeling and association. At this location, SH 82 serves as the busy entrance to the local airport and to the town of Aspen. 20. Recorder(s): Amy Nelson 21. Date: 07/08/2016 Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1560 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 303-866-3395 References Cited: Associated Cultural Resource Experts (ACRE) 2002 Highways to the Sky: A Context and History of Colorado’s Highway System. Submitted to Colorado Department of Transportation. Ms. on file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver. Autobee, Robert and Deborah Dobson-Brown 2003 Colorado State Roads and Highways, National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission. Associated Cultural Resource Experts (ACRE). Ms. on file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver. CDOT www.codot.gov/projects/SH82/corridor-history. Accessed August 2016. Mehls, Steven F. 1982 The Valley of Opportunity: A History of West-Central Colorado. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series, Number 12, Denver. Salek, M.E. 2011 The Highways of Colorado. Electronic document, http://www.msalek.com/colo. Accessed on 8/5/2016. Page 8 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: SITE PHOTOS 5PT1363.1: State Highway 82, view south/southeast from north end of recorded segment. Digital Photo Roll 16057, Image 451. Photo taken 7/7/2016 by A. Nelson. 5PT1363.1: State Highway 82, view south/southeast from approximate midpoint of recorded segment. Digital Photo Roll 16-057, Image 447. Photo taken 7/7/2016 by A. Nelson. Page 9 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: SITE PHOTOS 5PT1363.1: State Highway 82, view north/northwest from approximate midpoint of recorded segment. Digital Photo Roll 16-057, Image 448. Photo taken 7/7/2016 by A. Nelson. 5PT1363.1: State Highway 82, view west from approximate midpoint of recorded segment. Digital Photo Roll 16057, Image 449. Photo taken 7/7/2016 by A. Nelson. Page 10 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: SITE PHOTOS 5PT1363.1: State Highway 82, view north/northwest from approximate southern end of recorded segment. Digital Photo Roll 16-057, Image 450. Photo taken 7/7/2016 by A. Nelson. Page 11 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: SITE SKETCH MAP 338000 333 00 339000 Mead Hunt 1:10800 I Photo Point Aspen/Pitkin County Airport A. UTM Points Pitkin County, CO ContourLine (40 no) 5PT1 3 63 . 1 Resource Boundary MetcalfArchaeological 0 200 "1 TN 1960 -1937 Alignment Al' Consultants. Inc. AD 1983 UTM Zone 13N urrem semen-w Eu. rm Survey Area Page120f14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: HISTORIC MAP Colorado State Highways maps showing the path of State Highway 82 from Glenwood Springs travelling southeast through Aspen then east to Twin Lakes. Page 13 of 14 Resource Number: 5PT1363.1 Temporary Resource Number: SITE LOCATION MAP Meed Hunt 124000 Aspen/P1tkm County A1rport Resource Boundary Pitkin County, CO c3?? of P1359137 PR [987 Survey Area . Metcalf Archaeological 0 0'25 0-5 km TN complet?d Survey Consultants, Inc. 1960 ??93387 Reconnalssance Survey Plum NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N Page 14 of 14 Eta HISTORYG January 26, 2016 Kandice Krull Environmental Protection Specialist FAA-Denver Airport District Of?ce 26805 68Ih Avenue, Suite 224 Denver, CO 80249-6361 Re: Scoping Meetings for Aspenfl?itkin County Airport Environmental Assessment (EA) for Airport Improvements 69520} Dear Ms. Krull, Our of?ce received correspondence datedjanuary 14, 2016 and received January 19, 2016 from Mead Hunt for the above referenced public scoping meetings in Aspen and Snowmass, Colorado in February 2016. We appreciate the invitation, but will be unable to attend. In lieu of attendance, we offer the following comments: Our of?ce represents the State of Colorado consulting under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act {Section 106) on potential effects to cultural resources eligible to the National Register of Historic Places from projects funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency {36 CFR 800.16 Federal involvement by the Federal Aviation Administration indicates that this project will be subject to Section 106. The proposed airport improvements may affect cultural resources. Once an area of potential effect is re?ned by the FAA, we recommend identi?cation of cultural resources in order to comment on potential direct and indirect effects to cultural resources under Section 106. Early identi?cation of cultural resources within the proposed project area can inform project planning, potentially avoidng or minimizing adverse impacts to resources eligible to the We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment at the public scoping meeting. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Katie .-\rntzen, our Section 106 Compliance Manager, at {303} 866-4608 or katiearntzen??stateco.us. Sincerely, gar 'hteve Turner, AIA State Historic Preservation Of?cer History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 HistoryColorado.org cc: Kate Andrus Mead Hunt 1743 Wazee Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Appendix 4 DOT Section 4(f) Letter 1 COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Northwest Mountain Region Denver Airports District Office 26805 E 68th Ave, Suite 224 Denver, CO 80249-6361 August 15, 2017 Mr. Jon Peacock Pitkin County Manager 530 East Main Street, #3 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Draft Section 4(f) de minimis finding for the Proposed Improvement Projects at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Dear Mr. Peacock: The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE), in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), is proposing various improvement projects. These improvements include the reconfiguration of Runway 15/33 and the construction of a new terminal building. Portions of the runway reconfiguration project will impact the Owl Creek Trail (Trail). The Trail has been identified as a Section 4(f) resource. Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Act requires the DOT to make an effort to preserve public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. It also prohibits the use of Section 4(f) resources if a feasible and prudent alternative is available. In accordance with the requirements of Section 4(f), the FAA has issued the attached draft Section 4(f) de minimis finding for the proposed improvements at ASE. The impacts of a project may be determined to be de minimis if: 1. The use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f); 2. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and 3. The official with jurisdiction over the resource, after being informed of the public comments and the FAA’s intent to make the de minimis impact finding, concur in writing that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). 2 The FAA respectfully requests for you to review the draft finding. The draft Section 4(f) de minimis finding will be released for public review at the same time as the Draft EA for the proposed improvement projects. The public comment period will close on October 3, 2017. The FAA will ensure that you receive any comments that are submitted on the proposed impacts to the Trail. The FAA will then revise the finding based on comments and request, if still appropriate, that you provide written concurrence with the de minimis impact finding. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns regarding the analyses used to determine the potential effects of the proposed project on Section 4(f) resources, or have any questions regarding the project, please do not hesitate to contact Kandice Krull at Kandice.krull@faa.gov or 303-342-1261. Sincerely, John P. Bauer, Manager Denver Airports District Office (303) 342-1259 Enclosure: Cc: Draft Section 4(f) de minimis finding John Kinney, Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Manager Mark Kuhn, City of Aspen Trails Manager Mead & Hunt Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Denver Airports District Office FINAL SECTION 303(c)l4(f) DE MINIMIS FINDING For the AspenIPitkin County Airport City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Introduction - Section 4(f) Section 4(f) was initially codified in Title 49 United States Code (USC) 1653(f) (Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966). In 1983, 1653(f) was reworded and recodified as Title 49 USC 303 but is still commonly referred to as Section Congress amended Section 4(f) in 2005 when the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted. Section 4(f) declares that ?it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.? In addition: Section 4(f) prohibits the use of land of significant publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and land of a historic site for transportation projects unless the Administration determines that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and that all possible planning to minimize harm has occurred. De minimis impacts related to historic sites are defined as the determination of either ?no adverse effect" or ?no historic properties affected" in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. For publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges, de minimis impacts are defined as those that do not ?adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes? of the Section 4(f) resource. De minimis impact determinations are based on the degree of impact after the inclusion of any measure(s) to minimize harm. II. Project Description The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) is located about three miles northwest of Aspen?s Central Business District. Pitkin County, as owner and operator of ASE, is proposing to reconfigure Runway 15/33 and improve the terminal building (Figure 1). Pitkin County currently limits the size of aircraft that can operate at ASE through Section of the Pitkin County Code. This section, adopted in 2001, prohibits the operation of aircraft with ?a tip-to-tip wingspan of greater than 95 feet.? The wingspan restriction was required because ASE could not satisfy all of the applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards without significant improvements. Airlines are changing their aircraft fleet in response to air travel demand and it is expected that the aircraft serving ASE, which meet the County?s wingspan and weight limit, will eventually be withdrawn from service in favor of larger aircraft with greater wingspan and passenger seating. Unless the current wingspan policy is rescinded, ASE risks the loss/reduction of commercial passenger service. Before the County can rescind its current policy, FAA will require that the airfield be brought into compliance with current airfield design standards. The purpose of the runway reconfiguration is to enable ASE to accommodate anticipated aircraft in the future and bring the airfield into compliance with the FAA airfield design criteria, which provide for safe separation of aircraft movement on the airfield. The existing terminal and apron are unable to efficiently accommodate existing and forecasted passenger demand. The purpose and need for improvements to the passenger terminal are related to deficiencies in the current terminal, issues associated with the current roadway configuration and passenger parking, and deficiencies in the apron area. The proposed projects include: . Runway 15/33 Reconfiguration Shift the runway 80 feet to the west; Widen the runway from 100 feet to 150 feet; Realign the perimeter road, Owl Creek Road, and Owl Creek Bike Path; Relocate navigational aids and runway/taxiway lighting; Rescind Pitkin County?s wingspan and aircraft weight restriction policy; Piping of Owl Creek within ASE property; and Amending flight procedures to accommodate shift in runway location. 0000000 0 Terminal Improvements Construction of replacement terminal and associated parking; Re-configure the terminal roadway and recirculation roadway; Integrate the new terminal with public transit; Relocate ancillary facilities, such as rental car facilities; Demolition of existing terminal; Expanding the commercial aircraft apron; and Construction of a noise barrier along the general aviation apron. 0000000 Description of Section 4(f) Resource and Potential Impacts The Owl Creek Trail connects Aspen to Snowmass Village starting from Buttermilk Ski area and crossing the Owl Creek drainage to connect to the Snowmass trail system at the Owl Creek/Brush Creek divide. The Owl Creek Trail runs along Owl Creek Road on the western edge of ASE and crosses through ASE property on the south side. The path is owned and maintained by Pitkin County. The runway reconfiguration requires the shifting of approximately 1,657 linear feet of Owl Creek Trail to the west. The total shift will be between 13 and 58 feet (Figure 2). During construction, there would be temporary access restrictions to Owl Creek Trail. It is anticipated that the bike path will be closed during construction of a retaining wall, but there is likely room in the right-of?way to either build a temporary bike path or allow users to use Owl Creek Road for a small section to minimize impacts to users. The exact method to minimize impacts will be determined during final design. Construction is estimated to be about 6-9 months but with phasing and temporary routing, the bike path and/or road will remain open during the majority of this time to minimize impacts. Adequate notice will be provided prior to any closure of the Owl Creek Trail. The project will have a de minimis impact on the physical characteristics of the trail, and will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the trail for protection under Section IV. Discussion of Coordination The public was offered an opportunity to comment on this Section 4(f) de minimis finding during the public comment period for the Draft EA. The public had 30 days to comment on the proposed project, the potential impacts, and this finding. The FAA notified Pitkin County (official with jurisdiction over the Owl Creek Trail) of the intent to proceed with a de minimis Section 4(f) finding in a letter dated August 15, 2017. The FAA followed-up with Pitkin County after the completion of the public comment period to seek concurrence with the de minimis finding. Pitkin County concurred with the finding in an email dated March 4, 2018. V. Preliminary Finding After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal action is consistent with Title 49 USC 303 and other applicable environmental requirements. The proposed Federal action will not significantly affect the Owl Creek pedestrian/bike trail and constitutes a de minimis Section 4(f) impact. am John? uer, ager Feder Aviat Administration Den Airport DistrictOffice 3' 19 ?8 Date Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT N 0' 125' ' 250' 500' FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 750' BALTIC AVENUE INTERSECTION BA RELOCATED TERMINAL RELOCATED LOC/DME NU VE CA L TI EXISTING TERMINAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER E E VIC SE R TER CEN AD RO RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT A' Y' IWA X A T OWL CREEK PIPING AD RO EK E ILK R RM AIL LC E W T O UT P TR IALB RLOO T TEN TO PO NEC N CO RELOCATED PAPI 2 Y8 A W IGH OWL CREEK ROAD & BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT H LEGEND FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE OWL CREEK SURROUNDING AREA Ow EXCESSIVE SLOPE l k ee Cr RELOCATED MALSF VISUAL/NOISE BUFFER OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED ASOS RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK Figure 4 POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 1-1 ProposedProejcts 1.3 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT \ �) ·�· 30' 60' � 1 80' 120' \ \ \ -- -- -- -- ------ -- -- -- \ \\ -- \ \.- -\--- --------­ ---- ---­ ---- --�.c"-�-- ------ ------ ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT ------ r \ \\ \ I \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ '- _/ )) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \.._ __,/ LEGEND - FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 2 Bike Path and Owl Creek Road Relocation Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ITKIN COUNT36 ?9 . a) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 530 E. Main Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 8 bl i phone (970) 9205200 fox (970) 9205 98 July 18, 2016 Ms. Kandice Krull Environmental Specialist, FAA Denver Airports District Of?ce 26805 E. 68?? Avenue, Suite 224 Denver, Colorado 80249 Dear Ms. Krull: This letter is to con?rm that Pitkin County is the owner of and has jurisdiction over the bike path that traverses a portion of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. The County has reviewed the plans for the proposed runway relocation and has been extensively involved in the overall planning of that relocation. As a result, we have reviewed the relocation plans for the bike path as well, have offered our input and are satis?ed with the proposed plans to relocate the path. The County recognizes the need to relocate a portion of the bike path to accommodate the proposed runway relocation and does not consider the relocation a signi?cant impacts as it will result in minimal impairment to the continued use of the bike path. The County has determined that the bike path is used solely for recreational purposes which will be fully mitigated by the planned relocation, that the portion of the bike path that will be relocated does not have local signi?cance and that the relocation will not adversely affect any feature, attributes or activities of the bike path or the users of the bike path. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this information to you and please do not hesitate to call if you have additional questions. The County looks fonrvard to working with the Airport and the FAA on this project. Sincerely, Jon Peacock Pitkin County Manager From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Jon Peacock Kandice.Krull@faa.gov John Kinney; Kate Andrus Re: Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Improvement Project Sunday, March 4, 2018 11:13:14 AM Hello Kandice, This e-mail in to confirm the de minimis impact finding of the affect of reconfiguring Runway 15/33 and construction of a new terminal at the Aspen Pitkin County Airport on the Owl Creek Trail.  The reconfiguring Runway 15/33 and construction of a new terminal will not adversely affect the activities, features or attributes that qualify the Owl Creek Trail for protection under Section 4(f). Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Best, Jon Peacock On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:19 PM, wrote: Mr. Peacock, Back in August, I sent you a letter letting you know of the FAA’s intent to pursue a Section 4(f) de minimis finding for the proposed improvement project at ASE.  As I mentioned in the letter, the FAA can use a de minimis finding if: 1. The use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f); 2. The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and 3. The official with jurisdiction over the resource, after being informed of the public comments and the FAA’s intent to make the de minimis impact finding, concur in writing that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f). The public comment period ended on October 3, 2017 and we did not receive any comments related to the de minimis finding.  I have attached the August letter and the public comments that were received on the Draft EA. To be able to finalize the finding, I just need your concurrence in writing that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features or attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f).  A reply to this email would be sufficient. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks Kandice Kandice Krull Environmental Protection Specialist FAA - Denver Airports District Office 303-342-1261 -Jon Peacock, County Manager Pitkin County 530 E. Main St. 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 (970)920-5067 (office) (970)471-8550 (cell) Please note:  In August, we moved our offices to 123 Emma Road #106, Basalt, CO 81621.  The office is in the building with Ho Palace and Subway off the Basalt round-about on the north side of Hwy 82. Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT July 10, 2018 Kandice Krull Federal Aviation Administration, Denver ADO 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224 Denver, CO 80249-6361 Subject: MALSF Clarification Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Ms. Krull: Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) was retained by the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (Airport) to provide planning services for a proposed terminal redevelopment and runway shift project. This project is an outgrowth of the Airport Master Plan that was prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration in 2012 and then updated as part of the 2015 Air Service Study and the 2016 Airport Layout Plan Update. This letter certifies that the airport survey area included the area north of the runway all the way to the fence-line and the analysis includes the area for the MALSF. It was cut off of several of the graphics due to scale, but the analysis contained within the EA considered the potential impacts relative to the relocation of the MALSF. The area is entirely pre-disturbed, graded and actively mowed. Sincerely, MEAD & HUNT, Inc. Kate Andrus Project Manager Appendix 5 Supplemental Noise and Aircraft Substitution i COUNTY AIRPORT PROVEM ENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix Integrated Noise Model Substitutions Summary The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0d, was used to generate aircraft noise exposure contours for this project.1 These contours were used to determine potential noise impacts for each of the development alternatives. The INM is the required computer program used to identify the location of aircraft noise in an airport’s environs per FAA Order 1050.1E, which was the Order that was used for rulemaking at the start of this EA. The INM program contains noise profiles for many, but not all, aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (NAS). For aircraft that do not have their own noise profile, INM assigns a standard substitute aircraft. Many newer generation aircraft that are scheduled to be flying in the NAS within the planning horizon of this document do not have a noise profile or a standard substitution. In this EA, there is one new generation aircraft that does not have a noise profile or substitution, the Bombardier CS100. Since INM does not contain noise profiles for the Bombardier CS100, an FAA-approved substitution aircraft was used to more accurately model noise. In order to use a non-standard aircraft substitution, the project team must request permission from the FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy (AEE). For the new Bombardier CS100 regional jet, this project will use a Boeing 737-700 with a 4-dB reduction to the standard arrival and departure Noise Power Distance Curve (NPD) noise data. This configuration was approved by AEE. This appendix contains two documents – the letter submitted to the FAA by the project team describing the reason for the substitution request and the FAA substitution approval. 1 Note: This Environmental Assessment was initiated previous to the FAA requirement of using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) for noise and air quality analysis. The use of INM for this EA is approved by FAA. .1 October 5, 2016 Sean Doyle Environmental Protection Specialist AEE-100 Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration Dear Sean: Re: INM Substitutions for CS-100 Aircraft for Aspen/Pitkin County Environmental Assessment We are writing to request substitutions for aircraft contained in the Integrated Noise Model (INM) for the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) Environmental Assessment (EA) noise analysis. Please note that it has been specifically agreed upon that this EA will utilize the INM and not the AEDT. Our recommendations for substitution aircraft are included below, along with background and technical information supporting these recommendations. We are proposing to create a custom aircraft to model for the CS100 new Regional Jet. It would be based upon the performance and noise data of the 737700 aircraft, the jet that is closest in size and configuration to the CS100, but with adjustments to the noise curve data. Problem Statement. The Environmental Assessment is being prepared for a new terminal and a runway shift for Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. The current runway configuration has a non-standard condition of 320 feet separation between the runway and taxiway, limiting the operations to aircraft with a wing span of 95 feet or less, operating with a Modification to Standards. With the high airport altitude, challenging terrain, weather, runway length and wing span limitation, this effectively limits the airport to the CRJ-700 aircraft for commercial jet service, or turboprops. This runway shift will meet Airport Design Group D-III Standards and will allow aircraft contained in that group to operate at the Airport in the future. The CRJ700 is expected to be phased out of the fleet in the project study period and to be replaced by new generation regional jets with wing spans greater than 95 feet. The EA will evaluate the noise effects for two future years, 2028 and 2033. The No-Project case assumes that commercial service will be provided by the CRJ-700 and turboprops only. For the No Project case, commercial service will only be possible with turboprop aircraft given that there will not any planned viable regional jet with a wing span under 95 feet. The With-Project case assumes in the 2028 time frame that passenger service will be accommodated by a mix of CRJ-700 aircraft, small narrow body jets, turboprops and new generation regional jets. By 2033, the CRJ-700 aircraft are anticipated to be completely retired from the fleet and that for the With-Project case, commercial service will be provided by the new generation regional jets, small narrow body jets and turboprops. The ASE noise analysis is unique in that the project assumes that the current regional jet fleet operating at the airport today will not be operating at the airport in the future but will be replaced by new generation regional jets and potential narrow body aircraft, as the current generation regional jets are expected to be retired. Without the runway shift, it is assumed that only turboprop aircraft will be operating at the airport under the No Project scenario as the new generation regional jets and narrow body aircraft will exceed the design criteria for runway/taxiway separation. 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment INM Substitutions October 5, 2016 Page 2 The community is concerned that the noise modeling for the future conditions reflect the most reasonable representation of future noise levels associated with future generation regional jets, and not reflect noise levels associated with regional jets that are anticipated to be out of the fleet. The No-Project conditions assume there will no longer be commercial jet service at the airport, while the With-Project conditions assume the service will be with new generation aircraft. There is a concern that using noise levels from current fleet would overstate the noise associated with the With-Project conditions when compared to the No-Project conditions. The new generation regional jets being manufactured can be accommodated at ASE with the relocated runway; the community is concerned that the EA reflect, as accurately as possible, those associated noise contours. There are no new generation regional jet aircraft in the INM; therefore, we need to identify aircraft in the INM that can be substituted for the new generation regional jets that will most accurately reflect future noise levels. A community concern is that using current regional jet noise equivalent aircraft contained in the noise model for the future project conditions would overstate the noise effects and would not be a reasonable representation of future noise levels. Project Background. ASE had 39,193 annual operations in 2015, with 6,859 commercial service operations with the CRJ-700 and 2,884 commuter prop operations with the Q400, The Q400 stopped serving the Airport in early 2016. There were also 20,271 corporate jet operations and 9,179 other propeller aircraft operations. The airport is located in a valley with challenging terrain conditions that affect the departure, arrival and missed approach procedures. Aircraft takeoff and land from the same direction operating in contra flow. In addition to the terrain, the airports high elevation (7,800 feet), runway length (8,000 feet), heat in the summer and snow in the winter limit the types of aircraft to those that have the performance to operate in these challenging conditions and operate in a manner that is financially viable for the airline. Currently, the only regional jet that meets these performance requirements with a 95’ wing span is the CRJ-700. No commercial jets are able to operate under current conditions. With the runway shift, new generation regional jets including the CS100, Mitsubishi MRJ and the Embraer EMB190 E2 may potentially have the performance necessary to operate financially viable service into Aspen. Bombardier, the manufacture, has stated that the CS100 can operate at ASE, thus it is the aircraft that will be used to represent new generation regional jets at the airport. The Boeing 737-700 is also assumed to potentially be able to operate at ASE; however, it is uncertain at this time if it could be done so economically given the challenges stated above. Industry Information. Some of the new generation aircraft are still undergoing certification testing; these aircraft are in the final stages of testing and entering into production have not all released certificated noise data. Information about the noise profile of these aircraft was gathered from the manufacturers and users. The new generation regional jets, Airbus Nero and Boeing 737 MAX are known to be quieter than an equivalent size current generation aircraft; however, they are not yet in the INM noise model most of the new aircraft do not have published noise certification data. The new generation aircraft are all based upon the same new generation engine technology, therefore we are providing noise data for like sized aircraft that will have similar noise profiles 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment INM Substitutions October 5, 2016 Page 3 Bombardier CS100, C Series aircraft Information for the CS100 was gathered from Bombardier EASA. The CS100 will be using PW1500G engines with the highest bypass ratio on the market of 12:1. The C Series noise footprint is four times smaller than aircraft currently in production using a 500 nautical mile flight for comparison. The cumulative EPNdB is predicted to be 255, which is a sum of all the certification measurement points. http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.com/content/dam/Websites/bca/literature/cseries/Bomba rdier-Commercial-Aircraft-CSeries-Brochure-en.pdf.pdf At the Paris Air Show in June 2015, Bombardier announced the C Series aircraft is 20 EPNdB(i) below the Federal Aviation Administration Stage 4 guideline. EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) has provided certification noise data for the CS100 aircraft. This data is presented in Appendix A. The results show that the range in the cumulative EPNdB was measured to be 257.1 to 258.3, depending upon the certification weight. The average was 257.6. Proposed CS100 Custom Aircraft. The data provided by EASA stated that the combined noise certification of all three measurement points is measured to be 257.6 EPNdB, and that the aircraft will be the quietest in its class. A combined noise certification level for a number of different aircraft types are presented in Table 1. This includes the CRJ-700, which is the current aircraft, the 737700, which is the one closest in size and configuration to the 737700 per the FAA substitution guidelines. EASA noise certification data for these and other aircraft types are presented in Appendix B. Note that this is the same total certification value as the Bombardier Q400 turboprop (DHC-8-402Q). Note also that the only existing aircraft presented in Table 2 that is capable of operating at ASE is the CRJ700. Table 1 presents the EASA certification data for each of the measurement points as well. The data shows that on average the CS100 is 4.8 dB quieter on sideline noise, 5.7 dB quieter on takeoff and 4.3 dB quieter on approach than the 737700. This is similar to the predicted stated values that these new generation aircraft are around 4 dBA quieter on takeoff and 2 dBA quieter on approach for an equivalent size aircraft. The 737700 is a somewhat larger aircraft than the CS100, thus the noise differences are also somewhat larger. 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment INM Substitutions October 5, 2016 Page 4 Table 1 Noise Certification Data for Comparative Regional and Commercial Jet Aircraft Manufacturer Model Engine MTOW (lbs) MLW (lbs) SL EPNdB TO AP Total Bombardier CRJ-701ER CF34-8C5 74,100 67,000 89.5 82.4 92.6 264.5 Bombardier CRJ-200LR CF34-3B1 50,800 46,700 82.4 77.6 92.2 252.2 Embraer ERJ-145LR AE3007-A1 45,900 41,900 85.0 80.0 92.6 257.5 Embraer ERJ-190-200AR CF34-10E5 111,294 99,751 92.2 85.1 92.7 269.9 Boeing 737-700 CFM56-7B24 146,000 128,650 92.9 83.7 95.8 272.4 Bombardier CS-100 PW1524G 129,400 115,500 88.1 78.0 91.5 257.6 -4.8 -5.7 -4.3 -14.8 737700 vs CS100 Delta dB Source: EASA, Average for all measurements of each type/engine. The consulting team proposes to create a new custom aircraft for the CS100 aircraft that is based upon the 737700 aircraft assumptions contained in the INM noise model. The custom aircraft would be a duplicate of the 737700, with adjustments only to the noise curve data. The changes proposed are to reduce the noise values on approach by 4 dB and on departure by 4 dB. All other database values are assumed to be the same as the 737700. The area of greatest concern on noise modeling is the departure ground roll sideline noise, that is departure noise based. The 737700 aircraft is the closest existing regional jet in terms of size and engine configuration. Noise wise this results in an aircraft that is similar in noise to the existing CRJ700 that operates there today. The custom CS100 will have the same performance assumptions as the 737700, but will be 4 dB quieter on approach and 4 dB quieter on takeoff than the 737700 in the INM noise model. The custom Aircraft create for the CS100 aircraft was generated using the following assumptions. 1. The 737700 aircraft performance data was used to represent the CS100 aircraft. The tables copied from the 737700 were duplicated and used for the CS100 include: a. PROCEDUR departure (ICAO_B All stage lengths flown at ASE) b. PROCEDUR arrival (STANDARD) c. THR_JET d. FLAPS 2. The noise curve data (NPD_CURV) for the 737700 aircraft (CF567B) was used for the CS100 aircraft with the following adjustments. a. The arrival noises values were reduced by 4 dB b. The departure noises values were reduced by 4 dB These tables described above for the custom CS100 are presented the following pages. 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment INM Substitutions October 5, 2016 Page 5 PROCEDUR ACFT_ID OP_TYPE PROF_ID1 PROF_ID2 STEP_NUM STEP_TYPE FLAP_ID THR_TYPE PARAM1 PARAM2 PARAM3 CS100 A USER 1 1D T_ZERO 6000 250 3 CS100 A USER 1 2D T_5 3000 171 3 CS100 A USER 1 3D A_15 1500 140 3 CS100 A USER 1 4D A_40 1000 133 3 CS100 A USER 1 5L A_40 304.7 0 0 CS100 A USER 1 6B A_40 V 2741.9 116 40 CS100 A USER 1 7B -NONE- L 0 30 10 CS100 D USER 1 1T T_5 T 0 0 0 CS100 D USER 1 2C T_5 T 1000 0 0 CS100 D USER 1 3A T_01 T 1888.7 195.1 0 CS100 D USER 1 4C T_ZERO C 3000 0 0 CS100 D USER 1 5A T_ZERO C 2159.3 250 0 CS100 D USER 1 6C T_00H C 5500 0 0 CS100 D USER 1 7C T_00H C 7500 0 0 CS100 D USER 1 8C T_ZERO C 10000 0 0 CS100 D USER 2 1T T_5 T 0 0 0 CS100 D USER 2 2C T_5 T 1000 0 0 CS100 D USER 2 3A T_01 T 1814.3 197.7 0 CS100 D USER 2 4C T_ZERO C 3000 0 0 CS100 D USER 2 5A T_ZERO C 2058.1 250 0 CS100 D USER 2 6C T_ZERO C 5500 0 0 CS100 D USER 2 7C T_ZERO C 7500 0 0 CS100 D USER 2 8C T_00H C 10000 0 0 CS100 D USER 3 1T T_5 T 0 0 0 CS100 D USER 3 2C T_5 T 1000 0 0 CS100 D USER 3 3A T_5 T 1619 175.6 0 CS100 D USER 3 4A T_01 T 1840.6 200.4 0 CS100 D USER 3 5C T_ZERO C 3000 0 0 CS100 D USER 3 6A T_ZERO C 1958.4 250 0 CS100 D USER 3 7C T_ZERO C 5500 0 0 CS100 D USER 3 8C T_ZERO C 7500 0 0 CS100 D USER 3 9C T_ZERO C 10000 0 0 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment INM Substitutions October 5, 2016 THR_JET ACFT_ID THR_TYPE COEFF_E COEFF_F COEFF_GA -24.596 -0.273000 Page 6 COEFF_GB B 29618.1 CS100 C 22106.7 -23.71468 0.165546 0.00000650000 0.000 CS100 S 29335.5 0.00000 -195.6 CS100 T 23534.8 -29.3547 0.308407 0.00000 0.000 -28.632 -0.105000 0.00000 COEFF_H CS100 -249.1 FLAPS ACFT_ID OP_TYPE FLAP_ID COEFF_R COEFF_C_D COEFF_B CS100 A A_15 0.1048 0.4122 0 CS100 A A_30 0.1194 0.3986 0 CS100 A A_40 0.1434 0.3907 0 CS100 D T_00H 0.063 0 0 CS100 D T_01 0.062 0.4329 0.0097 CS100 D T_05A 0.07 0 0 CS100 D T_10 0.0858 0.4112 0.0089 CS100 D T_15 0.0889 0.406 0.0087 CS100 D T_25 0.0932 0.4021 0.0086 CS100 D T_5 0.0749 0.4251 0.0093 CS100 D T_ZERO 0.0552 0 0 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment INM Substitutions October 5, 2016 Page 7 NPD_CURV NOISE_I NOISE_TYP OP_MOD THR_SE L_20 L_40 L_63 L_100 L_200 L_400 L_630 L_1000 L_1600 L_2500 D E E T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PW1500G S A 3000 91.5 87.3 84.2 80.9 75.5 69.3 64.3 59.2 51.9 45.6 PW1500G M A 3000 89 81.9 77.1 72.1 64 55.2 48.5 41.6 33.5 25.3 PW1500G P A 4000 102.6 95.3 90 84.3 75.3 65.6 58.4 50.7 40.6 29.7 PW1500G P A 5000 103.4 95.9 90.7 85 76 66.4 59.3 51.7 42.1 31.6 PW1500G P A 6000 104 96.6 91.3 85.6 76.7 67.2 60.1 52.6 44 33.7 PW1500G P A 7000 104.6 97.1 91.9 86.2 77.3 67.8 60.7 53.4 46 36 PW1500G E A 3000 94.8 90.2 86.7 82.9 76.7 69.1 63.5 57.2 48 36.6 PW1500G M A 7000 91 83.9 79 74 66.1 57.5 51.2 44.7 37.8 30.5 PW1500G M A 5000 90.1 83 78.2 73.2 65.2 56.5 50.1 43.4 35 27.1 PW1500G M A 4000 89.6 82.5 77.7 72.6 64.7 55.9 49.4 42.6 33.8 25.7 PW1500G M A 6000 90.6 83.5 78.7 73.6 65.7 57.1 50.7 44.1 36.4 28.9 PW1500G S A 4000 92.2 87.9 84.8 81.6 76.2 70.1 65.4 60.3 52.8 46.7 PW1500G S A 5000 92.7 88.5 85.4 82.1 76.8 70.8 66.1 61.2 54 48.4 PW1500G S A 6000 93.2 89 85.9 82.7 77.4 71.5 66.9 62 55.4 50.3 PW1500G S A 7000 93.7 89.4 86.4 83.1 77.9 72 67.5 62.7 56.8 51.6 PW1500G E A 7000 97.3 92.7 89.1 85.5 79.7 72.9 67.4 61.8 54.5 45.6 PW1500G E A 6000 96.8 92.2 88.6 85 79.1 72.1 66.6 60.9 52.5 43.1 PW1500G E A 5000 96.2 91.6 88.1 84.3 78.3 71.2 65.7 59.8 50.7 40.6 PW1500G E A 4000 95.6 91 87.4 83.6 77.6 70.2 64.7 58.6 49.2 38.4 PW1500G P A 3000 101.8 94.5 89.2 83.5 74.4 64.7 57.4 49.6 39.9 27.9 PW1500G E D 13000 99.1 94.9 91.6 88.3 82.8 76.5 71.8 65.9 59.6 54.8 PW1500G E D 23500 107.8 104 101.2 98.3 93.5 88.2 83.9 78.2 72.5 66.3 PW1500G E D 16000 101.4 97.3 94.2 91 85.7 79.6 75 69.3 63 57.6 PW1500G E D 10000 96.3 92 88.6 85.1 79.5 72.8 68 62 56.2 51.7 PW1500G E D 19000 103.5 99.6 96.5 93.4 88.3 82.5 78 72.3 66.5 60.6 PW1500G M D 10000 91.2 83.9 79.6 74.8 67.3 59 53.3 46.4 40.2 32.9 PW1500G M D 13000 94.1 87 82.7 78 70.5 62.3 56.7 49.9 42.9 35.6 PW1500G M D 16000 96.5 89.7 85.3 80.6 73.3 65.2 59.5 52.8 45.4 38.1 PW1500G M D 23500 103.2 96.9 92.5 87.9 80.7 72.8 67.4 60.6 53.7 46.4 PW1500G S D 23500 104.4 100.5 98 95.3 91 85.9 82.4 77.5 71.5 65.5 PW1500G P D 10000 104.1 97.1 92.4 87.1 78.8 69.6 63.1 55.5 49 39.9 PW1500G P D 13000 107 100.1 95.4 90.3 82.2 73.1 66.8 59.4 52.9 44 PW1500G P D 16000 109.5 102.6 98 93 85 76.1 70 62.7 56.2 47.2 PW1500G P D 19000 111.7 104.9 100.3 95.4 87.6 78.9 72.9 65.7 59.2 50.2 PW1500G P D 23500 116.2 109.5 105 100.3 92.9 84.5 78.8 71.4 64.9 56.2 PW1500G S D 10000 92.3 88.1 85.4 82.3 77.4 71.9 68 63 57.3 47.9 PW1500G S D 13000 95.2 91.2 88.4 85.4 80.7 75.3 71.4 66.5 60.5 52.1 PW1500G S D 16000 97.7 93.6 91 88.1 83.4 78.1 74.3 69.5 63.3 56 PW1500G S D 19000 99.9 95.9 93.3 90.5 85.9 80.7 77 72.2 66.3 59.7 PW1500G M D 19000 98.7 92 87.7 83.1 75.7 67.7 62.1 55.5 48.2 40.9 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment INM Substitutions October 5, 2016 Page 8 Summary. The consulting team proposes to use a custom aircraft to model the noise from the new CS100 regional jet. It would be based upon the performance and noise data of the 737700 aircraft, the jet that is closest in size and configuration to the CS100, but with adjustments to the noise curve data. This noise curve data would be reduced by 4 dB on approach and 4 dB on takeoff. Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Let me know if you need additional information to make your determination. Regards, Paul Dunholter, P.E. President BridgeNet International Attachment: Appendices 20201 Birch St SW, Newport Beach, California 949.250.1222 www.airportnetwork.com TCDSN No.: EASA.IM.A.570 Issue: 1 BD-500-1A10 (CS100) Page 1 of 5 Date: 16 June 2016 TYPE-CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET FOR NOISE No. EASA.IM.A.570 for BD-500-1A10 (CS100) Type Certificate Holder: Bombardier Inc. 800 boul. René-Lévesque Ouest H3B1Y8, Montréal Québec, Canada For models: BD-500-1A10 (CS100) TC.CERT.00080-001 (c) European Aviation Safety Agency, 2014. All rights reserved. ISO9001 Certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASAInternet/Intranet TCDSN No.: EASA.IM.A.570 Issue: 1 Page 2 of 5 Date: 16 June 2016 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TC.CERT.00080-001 (c) European Aviation Safety Agency, 2014. All rights reserved. ISO9001 Certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASAInternet/Intranet TCDSN No.: EASA.IM.A.570 Issue: 1 Page 3 of 5 Date: 16 June 2016 Type Certificate Holder1 Bombardier Inc. Aircraft Type Designation1 (Commercial Designation Engine Manufacturer1 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Engine Type Designation1 Additional modifications essential to meet the requirements or needed to attain the certificated noise levels1 ICAO Annex 16, Volume I Noise Certification Basis EASA Record No. 1 Edition / Amendment Maximum Mass BD-500-1A10 CSeries CS100 ) PW1524G None Edition 6 / Amendment 10 Lateral EPNL Flyover EPNL 1 1 Chapter1 4 Approach EPNL Limit See Note 91.5 99.9 - 90.2 91.5 99.8 - 77.8 90.1 91.5 99.7 - 77.4 90.0 91.5 99.6 - Take-off1 (kg) Landing1 (kg) Level Limit Level A19117 60,781 52,390 88.0 96.0 A19123 59,000 52,390 88.1 A19124 58,000 52,390 A19125 57,000 52,390 Limit Level 78.8 90.4 95.9 78.1 88.1 95.9 88.2 95.8 1 See Note 1. TC.CERT.00080-001 (c) European Aviation Safety Agency, 2014. All rights reserved. ISO9001 Certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA-Internet/Intranet TCDSN No.: EASA.IM.A.570 Issue: 1 Page 4 of 5 Date: 16 June 2016 TCDSN EASA.IM.A.570 Notes 1. In cases where it is appropriate to issue a noise certificate, items so marked shall be included on EASA Form 45. TC.CERT.00080-001 (c) European Aviation Safety Agency, 2014. All rights reserved. ISO9001 Certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASAInternet/Intranet TCDSN No.: EASA.IM.A.570 Issue: 1 Page 5 of 5 Date: 16 June 2016 Change Record Issue Issue 1 Date 16 June 2016 Changes Initial Issue -END- TC.CERT.00080-001 (c) European Aviation Safety Agency, 2014. All rights reserved. ISO9001 Certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASAInternet/Intranet Appendix B EASA Aircraft Noise Certification Data Manufacture Model MTOW (KG) MLW (KG) 22,000 22,000 22,000 20,990 20,600 19,990 21,990 20,990 20,900 20,600 19,990 19,990 20,990 20,990 20,600 19,990 19,990 21,990 20,990 20,990 20,600 19,990 19,990 20,833 45,928 19,300 19,300 19,300 18,700 18,700 18,700 19,300 19,300 18,700 18,700 19,300 18,700 19,300 18,700 18,700 19,300 18,700 19,300 19,300 18,700 18,700 19,300 18,700 18,987 41,859 RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR RR AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1/1 AE3007 A AE3007 A AE3007 A AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1 AE3007 A1/1 AE3007 A1/1 AE3007 A1/1 AE3007 A1/1 AE3007 A1/1 AE3007 A1P AE3007 A1P AE3007 A1P AE3007 A1P AE3007 A1P AE3007 A1P 84.9 84.9 84.9 85.0 85.1 85.1 84.9 85.0 85.0 85.1 85.1 85.1 85.0 85.0 85.1 85.1 85.1 84.9 85.0 85.0 85.1 85.1 85.1 85.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 80.1 79.8 79.2 81.0 80.1 80.1 79.8 79.2 79.2 80.1 80.1 79.8 79.2 79.2 81.0 80.1 80.1 79.8 79.2 79.2 80.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 92.5 92.5 92.5 92.6 92.6 92.6 92.5 92.5 92.6 92.6 92.5 92.6 92.5 92.6 92.6 92.5 92.6 92.5 92.5 92.6 92.6 92.5 92.6 92.6 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 258.4 258.4 258.4 257.7 257.5 256.9 258.4 257.6 257.7 257.5 256.8 256.9 257.6 257.7 257.5 256.8 256.9 258.4 257.6 257.7 257.5 256.8 256.9 257.5 52,290 50,790 48,790 52,290 50,790 48,790 52,290 50,790 48,790 52,290 50,790 48,790 48,790 50,482 111,294 45,800 45,000 45,000 45,800 45,000 45,000 45,800 45,000 45,000 45,800 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,246 99,751 GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE CF34-10E5 CF34-10E5 CF34-10E5 CF34-10E5A1 CF34-10E5A1 CF34-10E5A1 CF34-10E5 CF34-10E5 CF34-10E5 CF34-10E5A1 CF34-10E5A1 CF34-10E5A1 CF34-10E5A1 91.7 91.8 91.8 92.9 93.0 93.1 91.3 91.3 91.3 92.4 92.5 92.6 92.6 92.2 95.5 95.4 95.2 95.5 95.4 95.2 95.5 95.4 95.2 95.5 95.4 95.2 95.2 87.4 86.5 85.4 86.2 85.4 84.3 86.4 85.4 84.1 84.9 84.1 83.0 83.0 85.1 89.5 89.3 89.1 89.5 89.3 89.1 89.5 89.3 89.1 89.5 89.3 89.1 89.1 92.9 92.8 92.8 92.9 92.8 92.8 92.6 92.5 92.5 92.6 92.5 92.5 92.5 92.7 99.3 99.2 99.1 99.3 99.2 99.1 99.3 99.2 99.1 99.3 99.2 99.1 99.1 272.0 271.1 270.0 272.0 271.2 270.2 270.3 269.2 267.9 269.9 269.1 268.1 268.1 269.9 34,020 34,019 33,995 32,999 32,995 33,606 30,391 30,391 30,391 30,391 30,391 30,391 GE GE GE GE GE CF34-8C5B1 CF34-8C5B1 CF34-8C5B1 CF34-8C5B1 CF34-8C5B1 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.6 89.6 89.5 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 82.7 82.7 82.7 82.0 82.0 82.4 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 92.6 92.6 92.6 92.6 92.6 92.6 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 264.7 264.7 264.7 264.2 264.2 264.5 74,088 67,001 22,995 21,995 21,995 24,040 24,040 23,995 23,995 23,587 23,133 23,133 22,995 22,995 21,995 21,995 21,520 24,040 24,040 23,995 21,319 21,319 21,205 21,319 21,205 21,319 21,205 21,319 21,319 21,205 21,319 21,205 21,319 21,205 20,280 21,319 21,205 21,319 GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 82.5 82.6 82.6 82.4 82.4 82.4 82.4 82.3 82.5 82.5 82.4 82.4 82.5 82.5 82.7 82.2 82.2 82.2 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 77.5 76.2 76.2 78.8 78.8 78.7 78.7 78.5 77.7 77.7 77.6 77.6 76.3 76.3 75.7 78.9 78.9 78.8 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.4 92.2 92.2 92.2 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 252.1 250.9 250.9 253.3 253.3 253.2 253.2 252.9 252.3 252.3 252.1 252.1 250.9 250.9 250.8 253.3 253.3 253.2 Engine Model Lateral Level Limit Flyover Level Limit Approach Level Limit Total EMB145 Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer AVERAGE EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 EMB 145 (LBS) EMB195 Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer Embraer AVERAGE ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 ERJ 190-200 (LBS) 92.2 85.1 92.7 269.9 CRJ700 Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier AVERAGE CL-600-2C10 CL-600-2C10 CL-600-2C10 CL-600-2C10 CL-600-2C10 (LBS) CRJ200 Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 Appendix B EASA Aircraft Noise Certification Data Manufacture Model Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier Bombardier AVERAGE CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 CL-600-2B19 (LBS) MTOW (KG) MLW (KG) 23,995 23,587 23,587 23,133 22,995 22,995 21,995 21,995 21,523 23,048 21,205 21,319 21,205 21,319 21,319 21,205 21,319 21,205 20,275 21,195 50,811 46,728 Engine Model GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE GE CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 CF34-3A1, CF34-3B1 Lateral Level Limit 82.4 82.3 82.3 82.3 82.3 82.3 82.4 82.4 82.4 82.4 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 Flyover Level Limit 78.0 78.4 78.4 77.8 77.6 77.6 76.3 76.3 75.7 77.6 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 Approach Level Limit 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.3 92.2 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 Total 252.6 252.9 252.9 252.3 252.1 252.1 250.9 250.9 250.4 252.2 737700 Boeing 737-700 77,564 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24 92.3 97.0 87.9 91.8 96.0 100.7 276.2 Boeing 737-700 73,935 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24 92.5 96.8 86.6 91.5 96.0 100.5 275.1 Boeing 737-700 72,121 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24 92.6 96.7 86.0 91.3 96.0 100.4 274.6 Boeing 737-700 70,080 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24 92.7 96.6 85.2 91.2 96.0 100.3 273.9 Boeing 737-700 62,822 58,604 CFM CFM56-7B24 93.1 96.2 82.5 90.5 95.8 100.0 271.4 Boeing 737-700 60,327 58,059 CFM CFM56-7B24 93.3 96.0 81.5 90.3 95.8 99.8 270.6 Boeing 737-700 56,472 55,338 CFM CFM56-7B24 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.5 99.6 269.0 Boeing 737-700 56,472 51,709 CFM CFM56-7B24 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.2 99.6 268.7 Boeing 737-700 77,564 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 92.3 97.0 87.9 91.8 96.0 100.7 276.2 Boeing 737-700 73,935 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 92.5 96.8 86.6 91.5 96.0 100.5 275.1 Boeing 737-700 72,121 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 92.6 96.7 86.0 91.3 96.0 100.4 274.6 Boeing 737-700 70,080 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 92.7 96.6 85.2 91.2 96.0 100.3 273.9 Boeing 737-700 62,822 58,604 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 93.1 96.2 82.5 90.5 95.8 100.0 271.4 Boeing 737-700 60,327 58,059 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 93.3 96.0 81.5 90.3 95.8 99.8 270.6 Boeing 737-700 56,472 55,338 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.5 99.6 269.0 Boeing 737-700 56,472 51,709 CFM CFM56-7B24/3 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.2 99.6 268.7 Boeing 737-700 77,564 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 92.3 97.0 87.9 91.8 96.0 100.7 276.2 Boeing 737-700 73,935 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 92.5 96.8 86.6 91.5 96.0 100.5 275.1 Boeing 737-700 72,121 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 92.6 96.7 86.0 91.3 96.0 100.4 274.6 Boeing 737-700 70,080 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 92.7 96.6 85.2 91.2 96.0 100.3 273.9 Boeing 737-700 62,822 58,604 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 93.1 96.2 82.5 90.5 95.8 100.0 271.4 Boeing 737-700 60,327 58,059 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 93.3 96.0 81.5 90.3 95.8 99.8 270.6 Boeing 737-700 56,472 55,338 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.5 99.6 269.0 Boeing 737-700 56,472 51,709 CFM CFM56-7B24/3B1 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.2 99.6 268.7 Boeing 737-700 77,564 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 92.3 97.0 87.9 91.8 96.0 100.7 276.2 Boeing 737-700 73,935 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 92.5 96.8 86.6 91.5 96.0 100.5 275.1 Boeing 737-700 72,121 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 92.6 96.7 86.0 91.3 96.0 100.4 274.6 Boeing 737-700 70,080 60,781 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 92.7 96.6 85.2 91.2 96.0 100.3 273.9 Boeing 737-700 62,822 58,604 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 93.1 96.2 82.5 90.5 95.8 100.0 271.4 Boeing 737-700 60,327 58,059 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 93.3 96.0 81.5 90.3 95.8 99.8 270.6 Boeing 737-700 56,472 55,338 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.5 99.6 269.0 Boeing 737-700 56,472 51,709 CFM CFM56-7B24/B1 93.5 95.8 80.0 89.9 95.2 99.6 268.7 AVERAGE (LBS) 66,224 58,354 145,999 128,649 92.9 83.7 95.8 272.4 Office of Environment and Energy 800 Independence Ave., SW. U-S- Department Washington, DC. 20591 of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 10/28/2016 Kandice Krull Environmental Program Manager FAA Airports Division Northwest Mountain Region 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Suite 315 Renton, WA 98057 Dear Kandice, The Of?ce of Environment and Energy (AEE) has received the memo dated October 5th 2016, from BridgeNet International requesting approval for a user de?ned INM v7.0d aircraft in support of an Environmental Assessment at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) in Aspen, CO. The memo requests approval for the use the Boeing 737-700 (73 7700), with a 4dB reduction to the standard arrival and departure Noise Power Distance (N PD) noise data for use in modeling the Bombardier C8100. AEE approves the use of the 737700 with a 4dB reduction to the arrival and departure NPD curves to model the Bombardier Please understand that this approval is limited to this particular INM v7.0d aircraft substitution/modi?cation and for the current Environmental Assessment at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) m. Any additional projects or non?standard modeling request at ASE or any other site will require separate approval. Please also note that INM is no longer a supported model and any future assessments will require the use of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). Sincerely, Rebecca Cointin Manager ABE/Noise Division cc: Jim Byers ARP Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix 6 Wetland Delineation i COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Wetland Delineation Report Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA Aspen, Colorado November 27, 2015 Prepared For: Mead&Hunt 1743 Wazee Street Denver, CO 80202 Prepared By: 114 N. BOULEVARD, SUITE 206 GUNNISON, CO 81230 970-641-8749 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2 2.0 REGULATORY DEFINITIONS ............................................................................. 3 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................... 5 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 6 5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS............................................................................ 10 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 11 FIGURES APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX B DATA FORMS Page i Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA 1.0 INTRODUCTION Bio-Environs was contracted to perform a jurisdictional determination and delineation of the boundaries of “waters of the United States,” including wetlands, that occur within the approximately 385 acre Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA Project Area. The study area is located here: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Section 34 T9S, R85W, 6th P.M. 39˚ 13’ 27.0” N, 106˚ 52’ 5.0” W NAD 83 Aspen County, Colorado Elev. 7730’ (Figures 1 and 2) The project area (Figure 2) is established in association with Phase 2 of an Environmental Assessment that is being conducted in relation to development of additional Terminal Facilities and runway expansion. The delineation was completed for planning purposes and potential wetland permitting associated with development of the Terminal Facilities in the northwest potion of the project area, expansion of runway area as well as a reconfiguration of the bike path that runs along the western project area boundary. This 2015 study identifies 3.0 acres of regulated wetlands associated with Owl Creek, approximately 1890 Linear Feet (LF) of “waters of the US” that are part of the Owl Creek wetlands that are to the west of the airport Area of Operations (AOA), 470 LF of drainage features (D-1 and D-2) that are tributaries to Owl Creek as well as 1670 LF of Owl Creek within the current Airport Area of Operations (AOA) perimeter. Two irrigation ditches are also located with the project area, and while they contain water that flows to Owl Creek, they are used for irrigation and have control features on them. They were originally developed in upland areas. The project area also includes approximately 1.3 acres of wetlands that were created for mitigation associated with a previous airport runway expansion in the southern portion of the project area (Figure 3). Owl Creek enters the project area in the northwest portion of the project area and supports the identified wetland area. Owl creek exits the project area at the northeast corner of the project area to flow northeast into the Roaring Fork River, which flows into the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs, CO and is considered a “waters of the US.” All of the wetlands that are identified in this report exhibit a surface connection to the Roaring Fork River. This report identifies the jurisdictional status of the project area based on Bio-Environs professional understanding and interpretation of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0), 2010; Page 2 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 the Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the United States (2008); and Corps of Engineers guidance documents and regulations. Jurisdictional determinations for other “waters of the United States” were made based on definitions and guidance found in 33 CFR 328.3, Corps Regulatory Guidance Letters, and the wetland delineation manual. The Corps of Engineers administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates the discharge of fill or dredged material into all “waters of the United States,” and is the regulatory authority that must make the final determination as to the jurisdictional status of the project area. 2.0 REGULATORY DEFINITIONS 2.1 Waters of the United States “Waters of the United States” are within the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. “Waters of the United States” is a broad term which includes waters that are used or could be used for interstate commerce. This includes wetlands, ponds, lakes, territorial seas, rivers, tributary streams including any definable intermittent waterways, and some ditches below the “Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).” Also included are manmade waterbodies such as quarries and ponds which are no longer actively being mined or constructed. Wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows, riffle and pool complexes, coral reefs, sanctuaries, and refuges are all considered special aquatic sites which involve more rigorous regulatory permitting requirements. A specific, detailed definition of “waters of the United States” can be found in the Federal Register (33 CFR 328.3). 2.2 Wetlands Wetlands are a category of “waters of the United States” for which a specific identification methodology has been developed. As described in detail in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and its supplements, wetland boundaries are delineated using three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. 2.2.0 Other Waters of US Detection of “other waters of US’ was based on Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the United States (2008). “Other waters” for this study include rivers, streams, arroyos, drainages or other features that convey water and may support and active floodplain. The OHWM is used to identify the lateral limits of non-wetland waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Federal jurisdiction over “other waters of the US” extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3. In the arid west, clear natural scour lines impressed on the bank, recent erosion, destruction of native terrestrial vegetation, and the presence of litter and debris are the most commonly used physical features to indicated the OHWM (US Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, 2001). Lichvar and Wakeley (2004) continue to refine OHWM indicators and delineation methods, and have developed lists of Page 3 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 geomorphic and vegetative indicators. These have been used to aid in defining the OHWM within the project area. 2.2.1 Wetland Vegetation In the course of developing the wetland determination methodology the Corps, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Soil Conservation Service, compiled a comprehensive list of wetland vegetation. The indicator status of plant species is expressed in terms of the estimated probabilities of that species occurring in wetland conditions within a given region. The indicator categories as defined by the Corps are: Obligate Wetland (OBL) occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAC) equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34%-66%). Facultative Upland (FACU) usually occur in non-wetlands, occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-33%). but Obligate Upland (UPL) occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in uplands. The percentage of the dominant wetland species in each of the vegetation strata in the sample area determines the hydrophytic, or wetland status of the plant community. Soil type and hydroperiod are two factors important in controlling species composition. 2.2.2 Hydric Soils The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) defines a hydric soil as a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1994). Nearly all hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of saturation or inundation for more than a few days. Saturation or inundation, when combined with microbial activity in the soil, causes the depletion of oxygen. This anaerobiosis promotes certain biogeochemical processes, such as the accumulation of organic matter and the reduction, translocation, or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements. These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods, making them particularly useful for identifying hydric soils in the field (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). The indicators that we use are a subset of the NTCHS Field Indicators of Hydric soils in the United States, Version 7.0 (2010) that are commonly found in the Western Mountains. Indicators are presented in three groups. Indicators for “All Soils” include eight indicators of hydric soil regardless of soil texture. Page 4 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 There are five indicators for “Sandy Soils” for use in soil layers with a texture of loamy fine sand or coarser. There are six indicators for “Loamy and Clayey Soils” in the Western Mountains region for use in soil layers with a loamy very fine sand or finer texture. In this report, soil colors are described using the Munsell notation system. This method of describing soil color consists of separate notations for hue, value, and chroma, which are combined in that order to form the color designation. The hue notation of a color indicates its relation to red, yellow, green, blue, and purple; the value notation indicates its lightness; and the chroma notation indicates its strength or departure from a neutral of the same lightness. The symbol for hue consists of a number from 1 to 10, followed by the letter abbreviation of the color. Within each letter range, the hue becomes more yellow and less red as the numbers increase. The notation for value consists of numbers from 0 for absolute black, to 10 for absolute white. The notation for chroma consists of numbers beginning with /0 for neutral grays and increasing at equal intervals. Soil color, texture and depth provide the basis for assigning a hydric soil indicator. 2.2.3 Wetland Hydrology Wetland hydrology is defined as the presence of water for a significant period of time at or near the surface (within the root zone) during the growing season. Wetland hydrology is present only seasonally in many cases, and is often inferred by indirect evidence. Hydrology is controlled by such factors as seasonal and long-term rainfall patterns, local geology and topography, soil type, local water table conditions, and drainage. Wetland hydrology indicators for the Western Mountain Region include primary and secondary indicators grouped as: A) Observation of Surface Water or Saturated Soils B) Evidence of Recent Inundation C) Evidence of Current or Recent Soil Saturation and D) Evidence of Other Site Conditions or Data. One primary indicator or two or more secondary indicators are required to establish a positive indication of hydrology. 2.2.4 Wetland Definition Summary In general, an area must meet all three criteria to be classified as a wetland. In certain problem areas such as seasonal wetlands which are not wet at all times, or in recently disturbed (atypical) situations, an area may be considered a wetland if only two criteria are met. In special situations, an area which meets the wetland definition may not be within the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction due to a specific regulatory exemption. 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 Existing Maps Several sources of information were consulted to identify potential wetlands and wetland soil units on the site. These include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Soil Survey for this county. These maps identify potential wetlands and wetland soil units on the site. The NWI maps were prepared from high altitude Page 5 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 photography and in most cases were not field checked. Because of this, wetlands are sometimes erroneously identified, missed, or misidentified. Additionally, the criteria used in identifying these wetlands were different from those currently used by the Corps of Engineers. The county soil maps, on the other hand, were developed from actual field investigations. However, they address only one of the three required wetland criteria and may reflect historical conditions rather than current site conditions. The resolution of the soil maps limits their accuracy as well. The mapping units are often generalized based on topography, and many mapping units contain inclusions of other soil types for up to 15% of the area of the unit. 3.2 National Wetland Inventory Map The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map of the area (Figure 5a, 5b) identifies three wetland types within the project area boundaries. The Owl Creek drainage within the project area is perennial and is identified as a riverine system (R3UBH) that includes forested/shrub wetlands (PSSC) associated with the drainage. The southern portion of the project area includes a small section of emergent wetlands (PEMC), which are associated with the created wetlands 3.3 Soil Survey According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (Figures 6a, 6b), there are fifteen separate Soils types identified within the project area. The predominant soils associated with the Owl Creek drainage within the study area are the Anvik-Skylick-Sligting association (11), the Jodero loam (68) and the Kobar silty clay loam (70). These soil types are not identified as hydric by the NRCS. The Kilgore silt loam located in the far southern end of the study area is identified as hydric. 3.4 FEMA Mapping FEMA Mapping does indicate that the Owl Creek drainage is within the 100-yr floodplain (Figure 7). No other areas within the project area are within identified floodplain zones 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION AND DESCRIPTION 4.1 Investigation Methodology The delineation of wetlands and other “waters of the United States” on the site was based on the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0), 2010 and the Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the United States (2008) as required by current Corps of Engineers policy. Prior to the field work, the background information was reviewed to establish the probability and approximate location of wetlands on the site. Next a general reconnaissance of the project area was made to determine site conditions. The site was walked and accessed by boat with the specific intent of determining wetland boundaries. Data stations were established at locations within and near the wetland Page 6 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 areas to document soil characteristics, evidence of hydrology, and dominant vegetation. Note that no attempt was made to examine a full soil profile to confirm any soil series designations. However, soils were examined to a depth of 12 inches where rock prevented further investigation or to 16 inches assess soil characteristics and site hydrology. Complete descriptions of typical soil series can be found in the soil survey for East, Hinsdale and Saguache counties, though the survey does not cover this area. 4.1.1 Site Photographs Photographs of the site are located in Appendix A. These photographs are the visual documentation of site conditions at the time of inspection. The photographs are intended to provide representative visual samples of any wetlands or other special features found on the site inspected. 4.1.2 Delineation Data Forms Where stations represent a wetland boundary point they are presented as paired data sheets, documenting the upland and wetland sides of the wetland boundary. The data forms used in the jurisdictional delineation process are located in Appendix B. These forms are the written documentation of how representative sample stations meet or do not meet each of the wetland criteria. Other points were also inspected during the delineation process but were not specifically recorded on data sheets. 4.1.3 GPS Survey of Wetland Boundary The data points and boundaries of wetlands and “waters of the U.S.” were surveyed using a Trimble Geo XT-Explorer GPS unit. 4.2 General Site Conditions The project area is comprised generally of developed areas that are associated with the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport facilities. The western edge of the northern portion of the project area includes a small area of agricultural lands and relatively undeveloped land that is situated in the Owl Creek drainage. Owl Creek is identified as perennial and enters the project area along the western boundary and traverses the project area to exit at the northeast corner of the area. The drainage is relatively undeveloped as it extends east from the western boundary and supports relatively natural forested and scrub-shrub wetlands up to the airport runway perimeter boundary. After entering the airport Area of Operations (AOA), the Owl Creek drainage has been denuded of taller vegetation and is piped underneath the existing runway. The northeast corner of the project area includes the extension of Owl Creek after the piped section underneath the runway. This reach of Owl Creek supports a well-drained riparian area along its banks and does not include regulated wetlands. The trees within the riparian area have been heavily trimmed to meet the requirements of the AOA. The Roaring Fork Basin experienced below average snow pack through the 2014-2015 winter. However, in May 2015, the Aspen area received over 2 inches of rain with comparative amounts of snow at higher elevations. Flows in the Roaring Fork River this year have generally been above the median flow based on a 51-year record from the Page 7 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 USGS and are near the 75th percentile of flows recorded during that same 51-year period. 4.3 Results Results are presented for the project area in Figure 4. Wetland A (3.0 acre) is a forested/shrub-scrub riparian wetland that is associated with Owl Creek drainage within the project area. The upper reaches of the drainage within the project area are situated in relatively natural mountain terrain (Photographs 1 2 and 3). As the drainage extends to the east towards the airport AOA, it becomes confined within relatively level agricultural fields which demark the wetland boundary and supports wetlands as well as dense riparian areas along its banks (Photographs 4 and 5). As the drainage nears the AOA, it narrows and becomes channelized (Photograph 6) just before entering a culvert at the airport perimeter boundary (Photograph 7). Sample point A-4 wetland This sample point is located within the riparian area along Owl Creek in the western portion of the project area (Figure 4). The dominant vegetation in the riparian wetland is comprised of narrowleaf cotton wood (Populus angustifolia, FAC), gray willow (Salix bebbiana, FACW) and twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata, FAC) with an understory that includes a dominance of beaked sedge (Carex utriculata, OBL), fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata, OBL) and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC). The wetland supports a silty clay loam with some gravels from 0 to 6 inches with a color of 10 YR2/1 and cobble with similar color from 6 to 12 inches. No redoximorphic features are present in the soil test pit sample. Wetland hydrology was present on the day of investigation with saturation present at the ground surface. All three wetland criteria are met at this site (see data form A-4 wet in Appendix B). Sample point A-2 upland The adjacent upland to Wetland A at this location is an upland meadow that is elevated to the west of the wetland (Photograph 3). Vegetation in the meadow is dominated by smooth brome (Bromopsis inermis, FACU) and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata, FACU). Soils in the upland are a loam showing a color of 10YR2/2 with no concentrations from 0 to 12 inches. A lack of wetland hydrology, hydric soils and a dominance of wetland vegetation distinguishes the uplands from the wetland area (see data form A-4 up in Appendix B). Waters of the U.S Owl Creek (3560 LF) The entire study area includes a total of approximately 3560 LF of “waters of the U.S.” associated with the Owl Creek drainage to the west of the AOA (Figure 2). Of this total, approximately 1890 LF is associated with the Owl Creek wetlands that are identified in this report (Photograph 8). The channel associated with this reach of Owl Creek is approximately 20 feet wide and 0.05 feet deep with multiple channels in some locations Page 8 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 with a flow of 2 inches on the day of investigation. 1670 LF of stream is identified within the AOA as a channelized feature that is conveyed underground from the west side of the runway (Photograph 9) to the east via a piped section under the runway (Photograph 10). The reach that exists on the west side of the runway is largely denuded of vegetation and does not support wetlands along its banks excepting some small portions of fringe wetlands in lower areas. After exiting the underground section of pipe, Owl Creek appears to have been channelized as it extends to the northeast and the project boundary (Photograph 11). This reach of channel supports a dense, welltrimmed narrowleaf cottonwood dominated riparian areas (Photograph 12) but does not include hydric soils or saturated soils. As such, the channel does not support wetland criteria in the eastern portion of the project area. Drainage Features D-1 and D-2 In addition to the main Owl Creek drainage, there are two small drainage features that enter Owl Creek in the western portion of the project area (Figure 2). D-1 (420 LF) is a small 3 foot wide by 1 foot deep tributary to Owl Creek that enters the channel near Sample Pt. A-4 wetland (Photograph 13). Although the drainage feature was dry on the day of investigation; it includes bed, bank and OHWM and drains surface waters from the foothills located to the south of the drainage into Owl Creek and is identified as regulated in this report. D-2 (50 LF) is associated with drainage and spring discharge that enters Owl Creek near Data Point A-13. The feature appears to have been developed for the old vacant homestead located just south and includes an excavated area that creates a small area of open water (60 SF) before flowing into Owl Creek (Photograph 14). The area is included within the wetland boundary and supports wetland criteria Table 1 Wetland Area “Waters of U.S.” Wetland A Owl Creek D-1 D-2 Total Wetland Type Forested/shrub, seasonally flooded palustrine. Upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently/temporarily flooded, riverine. Upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, seasonally flooded, riverine Upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently/temporarily flooded, palustrine. Acres/Linear feet 3.0 acre 3560 LF 420 LF 50 LF 3.0 acre wetland 4030 LF “waters of the U.S.” Page 9 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS 5.1 Corps of Engineers The Corps of Engineers has authority over the discharge of fill or dredged material into “waters of the United States.” This includes authority over any filling, mechanical land clearing, or construction activities that occur within the boundaries of any “water of the United States”. A permit must be obtained from the Corps of Engineers before any of these activities occur. Permits can be divided into three general categories: the Regional General Permit for Colorado, Nationwide Permits, and Individual Permits. Nationwide Permits have been developed for projects which meet specific criteria and are deemed to have minimal impact on the aquatic environment. Individual Permits are required for projects that do not fall into one of the specific Nationwide Permits or the Regional General Permit or that are deemed to have significant environmental impacts. These permits are much more difficult to obtain and receive a much higher level of regulatory agency and public scrutiny and may require several months to more than a year for processing. On June 19, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in regards to John A. Rapanos v. United States (No. 04-1034) and June Carabell v. United States (04-1384), et al. The plurality decision created two ‘tests’ for determining CWA jurisdiction: the permanent flow of water test (set out by Justice Scalia) and the “significant nexus” test (set out by Justice Kennedy). On June 5, 2007 the Corps and EPA issued joint guidance on how to interpret and apply the Court’s ruling. According to this guidance, the Corps will assert jurisdiction over traditionally navigable waters, adjacent wetlands, and non-navigable tributaries of traditionally navigable waters that have “relatively permanent” flow, and wetlands that border these waters, so long as such waters are not separated by roads, berms, and similar barriers. In addition, the Corps will use a caseby-case “significant nexus” analysis to determine whether waters and their adjacent wetlands are jurisdictional. A “significant nexus” can be found where waters, including adjacent wetlands, alter the physical, biological, or chemical integrity of the traditionally navigable water based on consideration of several factors. In May 2015, a Clean Water Act rule was issued that clarifies the extent of jurisdiction that the Corps of Engineers and the EPA exert over headwaters. The rule states that headwaters that demonstrate a bed, bank, ordinary high water mark and flow downstream will be regulated. Those that do not demonstrate the above will be evaluated for adjacency. Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters within a minimum of 100 feet and within the 100-year floodplain to a maximum of 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark will be regulated. Regulatory jurisdiction is also afforded to waters with a significant nexus within the 100-year floodplain of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas, as well as waters with a significant nexus within 4,000 feet of jurisdictional waters. Page 10 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Terminal Development EA City of Gunnison, Colorado November 27, 2015 The study area was reviewed per the Rapanos decision, as well as the recent Clean Water Act Rule instituted on August 28, 2015, though not in effect in Colorado due to an injunction regarding its legality. 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS On September 9, 2015 Bio-Environs inspected the Aspen/Pitkin County AirportTerminal Development EA Project Area. One wetland area totaling 3.0 acres along with 3560 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 470 linear feet of a drainage features are identified within the study area. In our opinion, the wetlands are likely jurisdictional under both the Rapanos decision and the recent Clean Water rule as they are adjacent to or connect via surface hydrology to the Roaring Fork River, which is a regulated “waters of the US”. The Army Corps of Engineers makes the final determination regarding the jurisdictional status of wetlands identified within the Project Area. Page 11 FIGURES 106°55.000' W 106°53.000' W 106°51.000' W 106°49.000' W 106°47.000' W WGS84 106°44.000' W 39°17.000' N 39°15.000' N 39°15.000' N 39°17.000' N Figure 1. General Location of Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Project Area 39°13.000' N 39°11.000' N 39°09.000' N 39°07.000' N 39°07.000' N 39°09.000' N 39°11.000' N 39°13.000' N General Project Area TOPO!® ©2008 ©2008 National National Geographic; Geographic; ©2007 Map Map created created with with TOPO!® ©2007 Tele Tele Atlas, Atlas, Rel. Rel. 1/2007 1/2007 106°55.000' W 106°53.000' W 0.0 0 106°51.000' W 0.5 1 1.0 1.5 2 106°49.000' W 2.0 3 2.5 4 3.0 miles 5 km 106°47.000' W WGS84 106°44.000' W TN MN 9° 11/13/15 . Figure 3. Aspen/Pitkin County AirpEort-AS Phase 2 Wetland Delineation Overview Source: World [mat 13- Aspen Airport Phase 2 EA Wetland Delineation Crealed ??etlands W'etland Area Project Area waters ofthe LLS. page HIU .. LINN 2015 Figure. 4. Aspen/Pitkin County Airport-ASE Phase 2 Wetland Delineation- Owl Creek Detail A-38 A-36 Source: World Imagery A-40 A-32 A-42 A-30 Wetland A = 3.0 ac A-44 A-28 A-46 A-24 A-4 wetland A-48 A-22 A-20 A-52 A-17 A-56 A-13 A-8 A-59 A-3 A-4 upland A-1 D-1 D-2 Figure 5a. NWI Map-Northern Project Area Sep 4, 2015 General Project Area-North This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. User Remarks: Figure 5b. NWI Map- Southern Project Area Sep 4, 2015 General Project Area- South This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. User Remarks: 106° 51' 12'' W Figure 6a. NRCS Soil Map 106° 53' 0'' W Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties (Project Area LL84) 337500 337900 338300 338700 339100 339500 339900 4343800 4344200 4343400 4343800 4343000 4343400 4342600 4343000 4342200 4342600 4341800 4342200 4341400 4341800 4341400 39° 12' 21'' N 337900 338300 338700 339100 Map Scale: 1:16,600 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. N Meters 1200 Feet 0 500 1000 2000 3000 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 200 Natural Resources Conservation Service 400 800 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 339500 339900 106° 51' 12'' W 337500 106° 53' 0'' W 39° 12' 21'' N 39° 14' 12'' N 4344200 4344600 4344600 39° 14' 12'' N 9/17/2015 Page 1 of 3 Figure 6b Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Project Area LL84 Map Unit Legend Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties (CO655) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name 11 Anvik-Skylick-Sligting association, 25 to 50 percent slopes 30 Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 11.7 3.1% Dollard-Rock outcrop, shale complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes 3.5 0.9% 63 Jerry loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes 5.6 1.5% 64 Jerry loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes 0.6 0.2% 66 Jerry-Millerlake loams, 6 to 25 percent slopes 15.1 3.9% 68 Jodero loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes 18.1 4.7% 69 Kilgore silt loam 0.0 0.0% 70 Kobar silty clay loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 72.4 18.9% 71 Kobar silty clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 2.7 0.7% 72 Kobar silty clay loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes 23.5 6.1% 84 Morval loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 44.0 11.5% 85 Morval loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes 25.9 6.8% 107 Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, extremely s 104.8 27.3% 108 Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, extremely 48.0 12.5% 110 Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes, extremely 7.7 2.0% 383.7 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/17/2015 Page 3 of 3 Figure 7. FEMA Mapping-Owl Creek JOINS PANEL. 0132 LIMIT OF DETAILED STU DY ZONE A Program at {800) 638-5520. I IN l' til-.T BOO ZONE 0w: ZONE A 55 "mum Paulina IHSHHAHBE HATE MP PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 201DF 325 (Mame E?ll'tull'lr tumumtt HHEL NUMIER I want-tn mm I 'l mm :uumr. AREAS. .3601" an: . . .I: usagtcuzm EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 4,193? Federal Emergency Management Agency This is an o?iolal com:I of a portion of the above Ieferenoed ?ood map. It was extracted using F-M IT Dru-Li me. This map does not re?ect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS   Photograph 1.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking west up the Owl Creek drainage near  Sample Pt. A‐4 wetland (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 2.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking east down the Owl Creek drainage near  Sample Pt. A‐4 wetland (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 3.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking west at Sample Pt. A‐4 upland (Aspen/  Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).  Airport Perimeter Fence    Photograph 4.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking north along Wetland A near Data Pt. A‐28  (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 5.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking north along the riparian and Wetland Area  A, near Data Pt. A‐43 (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 6.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking north down the Owl Creek drainage as it  approaches the AOA perimeter (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 7.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking east at the culvert that conveys water  from Owl Creek into the AOA (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 8.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking east down Owl Creek within Wetland Area  A  (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).  Culvert    Photograph 9.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking northeast along a portion of Owl Creek  that is within the AOA on the western side of the runway (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 10. Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking east at the culvert and pipe within the  AOA that conveys water associated with Owl Creek underneath the runway (Aspen/ Pitkin County  Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 11.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking north along the reach of Owl Creek after  exiting the underground pipe on the east side of the runway within the AOA (Aspen/ Pitkin County  Airport EA Project Area).    Photograph 12.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking north at the riparian area that exists  along the eastern portion of Owl Creek within the AOA (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA project Area).    Photograph 13.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking south at D‐1 which drains surface waters  form the south into Owl Creek (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA project Area).  Owl Creek drainage    Photograph 14.  Photograph taken September 9, 2015 looking north at the D‐2 and the excavated area  of open water before flowing into Owl Creek (Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport EA project Area).  APPENDIX DATA SHEETS WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region .. Project/Site: 2 - a? City/County: Sampling Date: I AS (Z: State: CO Sampling Point: ?2 Investigator(s): Lg. jail?. ea g, Section.Township, RangeLandform terrace. etc.): "Mi-j {22.x Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope Subregion (LRR): PRRE Lat: 3.4 0 ix .2 3, SHIV Long: iOi." 5.5" 3 i? ?u Datum: 58 (9 2 Soil Map Unit Name: 5?64 \m (A360: NWI classification: ?er Are climatic hydrotogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ?Normal Circumstances? present? Yes A No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No '5 the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes as No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks; [7 /0 ?7 curl VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant indicator Dominance Test worksheet: . . 7 Tree Stratum (Plot Size. . /o Eover Specres. Status Number of Dominant Species 1. twain cum (?pf?o - 4? 10 FY34- That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: i (A) .3 2 Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: I (B) 4 L. Percent of Dominant Species 0 . . Total Cover That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: i 00 (NB) Sapimg/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: I I reva ence LL) Total Cover of? Multipiv bV? 2. ht?k?qiwihVOLb?afajL OBL .0 i 1 i speCIes 3. Aims Wui?vit 0.. EBQQ . 4 FACW speCIes 2 5' FAC species 3 FACU species 4 a9 Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: i531! UPL species i5), Column Totats: (A) (B) . 2- 3b1?g db 1/ 0B Prevalence Index 3. Ej?i t? a ,men 4 1 0 1' OJ- Hydrophytic Vegetation IndicatorsRapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. '0?5 5 5 790% ?Av 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. - 71/3: 1 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9_ 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11_ 1indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 0? {e Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Hg 1 F- 1- Hydrophytic 2_ Vegetation t? Yes N0 Total Cover resen Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 SOIL gs; Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Typel Loc2 Texture Remarks . ?0 I00 S?rl?r (la [rm uJ/ gran/J- 4' I i Z, 1 MA, 1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ELocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (SS) Histic Eplpedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (86) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) A Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soilsaz 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Yes 3 No Hydric Soil Present? Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (BB) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) lron Deposits (85) Surface Soil Cracks (BS) lnundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Water-Stained Leaves (39) (except Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (CS) Recent lron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CG) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water?Stained Leaves (BS) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry?Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Surface Water Present? Yes No )3 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): . J. Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (Inches): 3 . C4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 7/73? kip/[96 of W1 Remarks 47L ep// 073 ?ru/ Crawl/1 .5944; #40. W/rl/wJ e/x?wa/r. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 {/Jxo WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region 5" .- re . 5 Project/Site: t? 1 1. .1 City/County: (1 Sampling Date: 7 3 Applicant/Owner: ?s State: 5.3 Sampling Point: lnvestigator(s): 021? Section,Township, Range: 51% 2% Ta L) 3% (1?3 9 ?t i I Landform (hillslope. terrace. etc.): +8.4de Subregion (LRR): Lat: ?wail?Ska I?rc?; 6 \i A5863: I I Are climatic hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes A No . Soil . Soil Sci! Map Unit Name: Are Vegetation or Hydrology signi?cantly disturbed? Are Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic? Local relief (concave, convex, none): r? 07? Are ?Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Slope 1 24? 11? 271/?) Long: mm? 27 z?w Datum: ??2539 NWI classification: no (If no, explain in Remarks.) (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Presentthe Sampled Area within a Wetland? ML Yes Remarks: VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW. or FAQ: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: :23 019 (NB) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 1 FACW species 2 FAC species 3 FACU-species 4 UPL species 5 Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index BIA Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ?l - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Tree Stratum (Plot size: Cover ecies? Status 1, {79;};ij 'a 15:314Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot sizePl?r?u 3, Circa/10. 11. Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. Total Cover rophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_ No_fx_ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 50?. Sampling Point: Pro?le Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) TypeI Locz Texture Remarks 0~ low5 5 cm - 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sul?de (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox (SS) Stripped Matrix (SS) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: 1 - . . . dork. Oran/v" "a 5 Owi Cree}?? 2 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (BS) Surface Soil Cracks (BB) Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water-Stained Leaves (BS) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sul?de Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (CB) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water-Stained Leaves (BS) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (CZ) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) PAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Yes No )1 Depth (inches): Yes No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NO Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Version 2.0 BIO - EVVIRONS 114 North Boulevard. Suite 206 Gunnison, CO 812330 970-641-8749 July 10. 2018 Kandice Krull U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region Denver Airports District Of?ce 26805 E. 68th Avenue; Suite 224 Denver. CQ 80249-6361 Subject: Wetland and Biological Survey Clari?cation Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment City of Aspen, Pitkin County. Colorado Dear Ms. Krull: Bio-Environs, LLC completed the wetland and biological analysis for a proposed terminal redevelopment and runway shift project. This project is an outgrowth of the Airport Master Plan that was prepared and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration in 2012 and then updated as part of the 2015 Air Service Study and the 2016 Airport Layout Plan Update. Wetland Survey Area: The study area included all area located within the boundaries of the Airport fence line. This letter certi?es that the airport survey area included the area north of the runway all the way to the fence-line and the analysis includes the area for the MALSF (see attached ?gure). This area is entirely pre-disturbed, graded and actively mowed. There are no wetlands or waters of the US located in this area and no wildlife species of concern in this area. This area was fully covered in the survey and in the analysis of the EA. Sinc rely, Cudlip Bio-Environs, LLC N 0' 125' ' 250' 500' FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN 750' BALTIC AVENUE INTERSECTION BA RELOCATED TERMINAL RELOCATED LOC/DME NU VE CA L TI EXISTING TERMINAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT APRON EXPANSION POTENTIAL AUTO PARKING NOISE/VISUAL BUFFER E E VIC SE R TER CEN AD RO RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING PERIMETER ROAD REALIGNMENT A' Y' IWA X A T OWL CREEK PIPING AD RO EK E ILK R RM AIL LC E W T O UT P TR IALB RLOO T TEN TO PO NEC N CO RELOCATED PAPI 2 Y8 A W IGH OWL CREEK ROAD & BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT H LEGEND FUTURE BUILDINGS/FACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT RUNWAY SHIFT OF 80' AND WIDENING BY 50' FUTURE ROAD/PARKING DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE OWL CREEK SURROUNDING AREA Ow EXCESSIVE SLOPE l k ee Cr RELOCATED MALSF VISUAL/NOISE BUFFER OWL CREEK PIPING RELOCATED ASOS RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK Figure 4 POTENTIAL TRAIL Figure 1-1 ProposedProejcts 1.3 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix 7 Traffic 1 COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEM ESNTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT Ground Vehicle Movements at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Introduction In support of an environmental assessment for proposed projects at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, this document provides information that pertains to ground vehicle movements attributed to an expected increase in passengers at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport under various improvement and passenger enplanement scenarios. Passenger forecasts were developed in a 2015 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Update and serve as the basis for projections of ground vehicle movements. The ground vehicle movement assumptions used for the traffic analysis in the main body of the environmental assessment (Section 4.15) are included here. Methodology A curbfront user survey was conducted by Jviation at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport on February 13, 2009 in which passengers were asked whether they were arriving or departing, the number of members in their party, the mode of transportation they used to arrive at or depart the Airport, and if they were parking a vehicle. The types of vehicles reported included cars, vans, SUVs/Trucks, Large SUV, RFTA (public bus), and limousines. It was also noted if the mode of transportation used was a commercial vehicle (does not include public transit) or non-commercial vehicle. Based on the results of the user survey and other data, this document describes the composition of commercial, non-commercial, and total vehicle ground movements by vehicle type, the average number of passengers per vehicle, and the expected number of vehicle trips that will occur from various passenger enplanement scenarios. The curb front airport user survey showed that there were a total of 293 vehicle ground movements; 119 commercial (40.6 percent), and 174 non-commercial (59.4 percent). There were a total of 580 passengers on the 293 vehicles. Commercial, non-commercial, and total movements by vehicle type, percentage, total passengers, and average passengers per vehicle are shown in Table 1. Vehicle Ground Movements at ASE (September 19, 2016) 1 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT Table 1. Curb Front Airport User Survey Results Vehicle % of Total Vehicle Type Movements Movements Passengers Commercial Vehicles - 40.6% (40.7% of Passengers) Car 2 1.7% 4 Van 107 89.9% 210 SUV/Truck 9 7.6% 21 Large SUV 0 0.0% RFTA (Public Bus) 0 0.0% Limo 1 0.8% 1 All 119 100.0% 236 Non-Commercial Vehicles - 59.4% (59.3% of Passengers) Car 28 16.1% 41 Van 25 14.4% 56 SUV/Truck 94 54.0% 190 Large SUV 8 4.6% 16 RFTA (Public Bus) 11 6.3% 18 Limo 8 4.6% 23 All 174 100.0% 344 Total Passengers Car 30 10.2% 45 Van 132 45.1% 266 SUV/Truck 103 35.2% 211 Large SUV 8 2.7% 16 RFTA (Public Bus) 11 3.8% 18 Limo 9 3.1% 24 All 293 100.0% 580 % of Passengers Average Passengers Per Vehicle 1.7% 89.0% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 100.0% 2.00 1.96 2.33 11.9% 16.3% 55.2% 4.7% 5.2% 6.7% 100.0% 1.46 2.24 2.02 2.00 1.64 2.88 1.98 7.8% 45.9% 36.4% 2.8% 3.1% 4.1% 100.0% 1.50 2.02 2.05 2.00 1.64 2.67 1.98 1.00 1.98 Note: Ground movements based on a survey conducted by Jviation on 2/13/2009. Sources: Jviation Engineering and Planning, Mead & Hunt The curb front airport user survey did not include any data collection or compilation of rental car vehicles. The number of rental car vehicles has been established through the number of rental car transactions performed in 2007 and through the following methodology:   2007 rental car transactions were 24,548. Average number of passengers per vehicle and vehicle type split is assumed to equal the results  of the curb front airport user survey for non-commercial vehicles. This indicates that 48,377 deplaning passengers, of the total 177,630 deplanements in 2007, or 27.2%, utilized a rental car. The breakdown in passengers by vehicle type is applied to the forecasts of passengers to project the number of ground movements that would occur under various passenger enplanement scenarios. It is assumed that these figures will remain constant throughout the projection period. Ground Vehicle Movements Passenger forecasts were developed in a 2015 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Update and serve as the basis for projections of ground vehicle movements. Passenger enplanements for each forecast year and under each scenario are presented in Table 2. Baseline movements by category and vehicle type are also shown in Table 2. These ground vehicle movements each represent a roundtrip vehicle movement, which is a trip to the airport to drop-off the passenger and a trip from the airport back to the vehicles origin. Vehicle Ground Movements at ASE (September 19, 2016) 2 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT Table 2. Vehicle Ground Movements 2015 Actual 2023 No Action with Project: Terminal 263,153 526,306 Vehicle Movements 1 2028 2028 2033 2033 2033** No Action With Project: No Action With What If Runway Runway First Project: Scenario Year of Runway Out Implementation Year 258,860 296,140 281,036 333,259 548,356 517,720 592,280 562,072 666,518 1,096,712 Average Passengers % of Per Vehicle Type Passengers Vehicle Projected Passenger Enplanements 233,541 Projected Total Passengers 467,082 Rental Vehicles 27.2% of Passengers Car 14.3% 1.46 6,205 6,992 6,878 7,869 Van 19.5% 2.24 5,540 6,243 6,141 7,025 SUV/Truck 66.2% 2.02 20,832 23,473 23,090 26,416 All 100.0% 1.97 32,578 36,708 36,109 41,310 Commercial Vehicles 29.6% of Passengers 50.0% of Vehicles pickup passengers when dropping off other passengers Car 1.7% 2.00 879 990 974 1,115 Van 89.0% 1.96 47,026 52,988 52,124 59,631 SUV/Truck 8.9% 2.33 3,955 4,457 4,384 5,016 Limo 0.4% 1.00 439 495 487 557 All 100.0% 1.98 52,300 58,931 57,970 66,318 Non-Commercial Vehicles43.2% of Passengers 19.5% of private vehicles go to on-site parking (car, van, SUV. Large SUV) Car 11.9% 1.46 14,805 16,682 16,410 18,773 Van 16.3% 2.24 13,218 14,895 14,652 16,762 SUV/Truck 55.2% 2.02 49,701 56,003 55,090 63,024 Large SUV 4.7% 2.00 4,230 4,766 4,688 5,364 RFTA (Public Bus) 5.2% 1.64 6,446 7,263 7,145 8,174 Limo 6.7% 2.88 4,688 5,282 5,196 5,944 All 100.0% 1.98 93,088 104,892 103,180 118,040 Total Vehicles Car 7.8% 1.50 21,889 24,664 24,262 27,756 Van 45.9% 2.02 65,785 74,126 72,917 83,418 SUV/Truck 36.4% 2.05 74,489 83,934 82,564 94,455 Large SUV 2.8% 2.00 4,230 4,766 4,688 5,364 RFTA (Public Bus) 3.1% 1.64 6,446 7,263 7,145 8,174 Limo 4.1% 2.67 5,127 5,778 5,683 6,502 All 100.0% 1.98 177,965 200,531 197,259 225,668 7,467 6,667 25,068 39,203 8,855 7,906 29,727 46,488 14,570 13,009 48,913 76,492 1,058 56,589 4,760 529 62,936 1,254 67,105 5,644 627 74,631 2,064 110,417 9,287 1,032 122,800 17,815 15,907 59,809 5,090 7,757 5,641 112,020 21,126 18,863 70,923 6,036 9,198 6,690 132,835 34,762 31,037 116,699 9,932 15,135 11,007 218,572 26,340 79,163 89,637 5,090 7,757 6,170 214,158 31,235 93,874 106,294 6,036 9,198 7,317 253,954 51,395 154,463 174,900 9,932 15,135 12,039 417,864 1 Note: Vehicle movements each represent a roundtrip vehicle movement, which is a trip to the airport to drop-off the passenger and a trip from the airport back to the vehicles origin. Sources: 2015 ALP Update - Forecast Chapter, Jviation 2015, Mead & Hunt Peaking characteristics have been used to determine the number of ground vehicles projected for the peak hour (PH) of the peak month average day (PMAD). Table 3 summarizes the number of peak hour ground vehicles anticipated under various passenger scenarios. Table 3. Peak Hour Vehicle Ground Movements Vehicle Type Projected Passenger Enplanements Total Annual Vehicles Peak Month Average Day Peak Hour 15.7% 1/30 15.9% 2015 Actual 2023 No Action with Project: Terminal 233,541 177,965 27,941 931 148 263,153 200,531 31,483 1,049 167 Vehicle Movements 1 2028 2028 2033 No Action With Project: No Action Runway Runway First Year of Implementation 258,860 197,259 30,970 1,032 164 296,140 225,668 35,430 1,181 188 281,036 214,158 33,623 1,121 178 2033 With Project: Runway Out Year 2033** What If Scenario 333,259 253,954 39,871 1,329 211 548,356 417,864 65,605 2,187 348 Sources: Projected Passenger Enplanments - 2015 ALP Update, Forecast Chapter, Jviation 2015, Mead & Hunt; Peak Month and Peak Hour percentages – 2008 Airport Master Plan Update; Vehicle Movements – Mead & Hunt. 1 Vehicle movements each represent a roundtrip vehicle movement, which is a trip to the airport to drop-off the passenger and a trip from the airport back to the vehicles origin. Vehicle Ground Movements at ASE (September 19, 2016) 3 Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix 8 Scoping i COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEM ESNTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ASE Scoping Comments EA Proposed Projects  This is a must to keep adequate air service in Aspen  Would like a cross section of the runway  Will I see new aircraft in my neighborhood? Can I see a cross section?  Visual impacts – sound barrier  Traffic impacts of 2nd Hwy 82 intersection? Need for 2nd intersection?  Do it. It’s needed. It’s time. Make it a joy to come to daily.  Think Sydney Opera House. Do something spectacular with the terminal building. Do it.  Another FBO to cater to general aviation  Second FBO for smaller aircraft.  Small.  Do IT!  Please look at the impact of the intersection on traffic  Additional intersection adds a 4th light in this small section of Highway  Drainage improvements?  Why wouldn’t the bike path extend to airline trailhead?  Consider support facilities across Hwy 82  What does a “support area” mean?  Consider relocation of FBO building to gain ramp space  Is another intersection necessary? Will this help or compound Hwy Traffic issues?  Balance need of intersection-one use on the other side  Let neighbors know the construction time line as soon as possible  Parking as transit hub?  Concerned about apron expansion and noise in Meadowood Community Input: Terminal  I agree. Just do it!  Single story- love later turn into split  Good- no expansion into the South needed. Good.  No jet bridges Recommendation #1 Concept ¾ Hybrid and #2 Concept 2  Is there room for U.S. Customs?  Gate lounge area should be larger  I’m OK with no jet bridges  We should reconsider jet bridges  Right size it! Don’t want to build it again in 20 years.  Don’t make it so small it is obsolete before it is finished  Jet bridges are a must  Make it easier on shuttles, cabs, curbside pickups  No advertising - more videos of activities  Setbacks-yes. Low visual impact. Background to Purpose and Need: Runway Reconfiguration  Explain MOD Purpose & Need – Terminal Replacement and East Side Projects  How does new apron mitigate noise impacts?  Extra space for users, passengers, and staff  Noise at Hwy 82 at Harmony has increased since the runway expansion  The widened runway is essential. Do it.  When will the new airplanes be in use?  Make the runway wide enough now for future planes - even longer for the new planes to come.  Extend curfew 1 hour for pre-scheduled flights delayed from weather Visual Resources Preliminary View 1 and 2  As long as it blends and looks nice  Less setback and more consumer amenities in the gate area for our guests  Good to see it’s not a big edifice  Maintain a parklike setting; inviting and fits into the environment  Lead in lights so bright - hazard on the ground  Summer/winter open walls on roof terrace  OK to see planes - good to have lots of vegetation  Build and plan for future growth appropriate for current and future needs  Room for U.S. Customs  Keep view points- can see arriving and departing flights Preliminary View 3 and 4  Bleacher viewing of planes like at Stapleton  Past operations building should open now to terminal  What will Owl Creek Road moving look like?  Keep landscape buffer and trees around terminal  Don’t make it too small or compromise needed space  Provide comfortable furniture and food service for delayed passengers  Make it comfortable and have amenities for passengers  West Buttermilk Road view down- one shown not accurate  “smiley face”  Hybrid option is an appropriate response to site topography  What would it look like at night? Dark Skies  Go Big or Go Home Preliminary View 5 and 6  I have no problem with the airport - good landscaping needed  Wrong location for airport - in residential high-end RE  Location is so convenient  Observation deck, variation of roof lines  Lower McClain Flats Road  New from Meadowood with new aircraft staging area? Expanded apron?  Top deck - Starwood  Size and scale shown is not a problem at all  Roof is critical to visual impact now white reflection- green roof or natural cedars  Be aware of light pollution and shielding  No reflectivity if it has sda  Starwood would have potential light concerns  Revolving beacon ongoing shield (grand fathered in) re Starwood  Not too much glass on the east side please  Terminal building should be modern, but understated  Improve deice containment, current pad and runway  Use west of Maroon Creek Plan (WOMP) direction in analysis Proposed Bike Path & Owl Creek Road Relocation  Will Owl Creek Road need to be moved more for the west side development?  Moving the road and bike path should not be an issue. Move them.  Looks reasonable.  Can the bike path be improved to increase connectivity instead of just replaced?  Greater separation between path and owl creek- consider a vegetated buffer (written underneathYES!)  Improve separation between the bike path and road Socioeconomic Impacts  Consider incorporating affordable housing impacts  Fully integrate RFTA services into terminal design. Consider alignment of the project with AACP.  Accommodate current capacity- not as a growth emphasis. Coordinate of air services and aircraft size.  Consider affordable housing needs generated  Examine the relationship with other ground transportation systems, including light rail or other future systems. Beyond pillow count, examine the economic impact of guests arriving via the airport in winter and summer. Consider other transit needs, e.g. park and ride opportunities on airport property including transit and terminal needs.  Connection to RFTA + underpass  Integration of RFTA into the design would create a better customer experience  RFTA remote parking expansion or garage at Brush Creek  Increase in shuttles to Aspen/Snowmass resorts- reduction in cabs/private vehicles-don’t add to traffic  Valley wide pillow count  Do not preclude future potential fixed guidelines access to airport  Create safe and comfortable connection between RFTA BRT stop and the airport  Will the new terminal generation more FTEs then the current? Where will they live? What will traffic implications be?  Assess communal lodging growth management implications  Do not increase capacity at high peak times- Xmas, 4th of July  Work with county to spread events. Ideas in September or October?  I want to know if larger aircraft would create more economical travel options or does more people flying in create a higher demand in turn creating higher lodging prices, and higher costs in general?  Visitor and residential quality experience greatly reduced at peak capacity Proposed Noise Buffer & Monitors  Noise walls are a good idea around the terminal. Berms too.  Meadowood “Noise”?  Maybe a noise buffer across from Harmony Road. The planes take off there.  Updates for neighbors with specifics about current and anticipated events  Analysis for potential new aircraft as well as existing  Tons of trees  Consider starting this buffer before construction  Changes in expected noise from new planes versus current  Apron buffer location? Air Quality & Climate  Is there a way to disburse the aviation fuel fumes while aircraft are in line for takeoff?  Fumes in AABC aircraft departures  Plug-In to alleviate idling of aircraft  Air Quality-very important  Updates about current particulate and air quality levels- actual and anticipated  You should consider hazardous air pollutants and their effects on human health  Consider air quality effects on tourism and quality of life for residents  People live so close- what about hazardous air pollutants?  Smell?  Energy- use of terminal and buildings  Off-set additional carbon/air pollution with local conservation projects  Can we shared study results at the local government level for more informed local conversation?  Check hazardous air pollutants  Can you capture the hazardous gasses?  Look into air filters for the entire Airport air  Manage general aviation and commercial air traffic to reduce ATC delays and burning excess fuel with hold times on the ground and local air space  Effect on ghg from parking- how can parking be used to support decreased trips into town?  Consider the unique location of the airport- narrow valley at 8000ft. Poor air quality in dramatically increased apron buffer location.  Air quality must include pollutants and carcinogens such as jet fuel.  Plug-In to alleviate idling of aircraft  All kinds of air pollution under flight path Existing Water Resources  Pipe all Owl Creek to better protect the resource from potential spills. Coordinate mitigation banking with city parks and/or county parks.  Stapleton Ditch infrastructure west edge of Owl Creek- identify piping ditch move  West Buttermilk Metro district capacity additional water needs?  Containment of glycol. Electric ground equipment  Cozy Pt Ranch- City of Aspen. Redo Management Plan. Restoration on Brush Creek? North Star Restoration work? Historical & Cultural  Needs Current Photos  Please consider the social/cultural values of the community when planning the interior of the terminal. I.E., rather than all the commercial advertising, consider informational signage about Aspen culture, arts, environment, impact of climate change, history, etc.  Keep it real and unique- no mini LAX or NYC  True to character  How will the design take into consideration the communication of Aspen history and culture (e.g. the opposite of the ART museum)  Do we really want to move this runway 80 ft. closer to the rocks?  How will proximity of the runway effect the adjacent resource? Vibration?  The trail could take advantage of the Farmstead and Aspen Groves  Clean up of historic areas, junk removal?  Allow the possibility to improve Owl Creek Trail, to make it less steep! Potential for Larger Aircraft  Larger aircraft (737, A319) will leave a net negative effect on the valley in terms of noise and pollution. Not needed here.  Larger aircraft during peak seasons will reduce frequency and have less environmental impact  Less commercial frequency reduces ground ops equipment usage, glycol needs, etc.  Less frequency reduces ATC delay and aircraft holding in air and on ground- less burning excess fuel Comments on Other Resources  Consider fuel containment waste water of ramp  Is the D-III standard appropriate based on our commercial volume?  With the airport only 3 miles from Aspen and 3.2 from Snowmass 2 creeks, ground transportation solutions are the most critical environmental and traffic elements.  Ditto (referring to the above comment)  Energy use of buildings = GHG pollutants and cost  Consider spending wetland mitigation fees for local restoration projects  Educate- Coffee chat in Airline breakroom  Consider parking capacity as it relates to multi-modal approach  Note any potential impact to Aspen water agreement via west Buttermilk  Construction + demolition waste = big impact to landfill  Consider full containment wastewater of ramp  Balance need of intersection with use on the other side  Consider relocation of FBO building to gain ramp space  Consider support facilities across Hwy 82  Parking as transit hub?  Drainage improvements? Terminal Design Comments Some comments addressed terminal design of the project. The EA will cover approximately 25% design for the terminal and the site plan; final design will be included subsequent to the EA. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability. It will also take into account other local plans such as the West of Maroon Creek Plan. Many comments also dealt with the request to “right size” the terminal and that user experience goes down during peak capacity right now. When the 2013 Master Plan Update was completed, the predicted fleet mix changes of regional jets to longer wingspans was not known. Therefore, additional terminal work outside the EA will examine the sizing question and determine Level of Service needed based on the new potentially-larger aircraft fleet mix. This will include examination of room needed for specific functions such as the gate areas, TSA, etc. as well as final site development and curbside flow for shuttles, cabs, and parking. Comments on keeping viewsheds, options for a roof terrace, a park-like setting, concessions and amenities will be included in final design. This analysis will be included in final design. There will be additional community involvement during the full design process. Jet Bridges Some comments addressed the question of the addition of jet bridges for the new terminal. While there were comments both for and against jet bridges, it was determined that for now, jet bridges would not be included in the conceptual design due to a larger contingent focusing on the “Aspen experience” of stepping off the aircraft into the mountains. While having no jet bridges poses some operational considerations, the final design will take these types of operational considerations into account to make it functional, as well as ADA compliant. Visual Many comments addressed interest in the visual elements of the terminal and other projects. A qualitative analysis will be conducted to examine the visual impact of the projects on the community surrounding the airport. Visual renderings will be developed to conduct a site massing and viewshed analysis to determine if the proposed airport improvements would have any impacts on the aesthetics and view characteristics of the area. A night time view will also be examined. Additionally, the EA will confirm the projects compatibility with local laws and ordinances pertaining to visual changes along the highway corridor. Several viewpoints will be chosen from different areas of the airport, including from the north, south, east and west, based on areas of known interest. This analysis will include all projects including the terminal and associated roadways and parking, generalized site landscaping, the runway shift and widening, as well as the shift of Owl Creek and the Owl Creek Bike Path. The EA will examine two conceptual terminal alternatives, which were developed with coordination with stakeholders and the ability of the concepts to fit within the existing site constraints. However, final design considerations (such as light shielding and final roof design) will be coordinated with stakeholders after the EA. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability. It will also take into account other local plans such as the West of Maroon Creek Plan. Noise Some comments addressed a concern for changes in noise levels due to the project from the potential for larger aircraft and the expansion of the apron. The analysis of aircraft noise exposure in the EA will be prepared in compliance with FAA Orders. The order that was in effect when the project was scoped was 1050.1E, which requires the use of noise exposure contours using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) showing the area affected by 65 Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) and greater noise levels. The FAA and the County have taken steps over the years to assess existing levels of aircraft noise and develop noise abatement procedures to reduce the impacts on residential and other noise sensitive areas. As a result, under current conditions there are currently no noise sensitive uses exposed to 65 Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) noise levels at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. However, the EA will examine the With Project and No Action noise based on the addition of potentially larger aircraft and determine whether there will be significant impacts associated with the project. This analysis will also include the potential benefits of the proposed noise wall along the GA apron to reduce noise from aircraft on this apron. Some comments indicated that the buffer should be started prior to construction of the project. All projects need to be federally cleared in this EA, and final phasing of construction is dependent on funding availability. Some additional comments indicated that the curfew should be increased in the evening. It is important to note that the curfew at ASE is grandfathered in and any changes to a curfew would negate the entire curfew. Therefore, no changes to the curfew are recommended. Curfew changes are also outside of the scope of this EA. It is important to note that most of the new regional jets coming into the fleet in the future are considered Stage 4 aircraft, which have engines that are generally quieter than their existing regional jet counterparts. Relocation of Existing FBO Some comments related to the relocation of the existing FBO. The relocation of the Existing FBO was a project included in the 2013 Master Plan. One of the main purposes of this relocation was to tie into the parking garage that was proposed at the time to provide further efficiencies. Since the parking garage is no longer reasonably foreseeable due to funding issues, the relocation of the FBO is not being considered at this time. Second FBO Separate EA Some comments dealt with the question of a second Fixed Base Operator. Right now, the development of a parallel taxiway that could serve a second Fixed Base Operator is not reasonably foreseeable due to funding constraints. If this becomes reasonably foreseeable, a separate EA that includes a taxiway and Fixed Based Operator facility on the Airport’s west side would need to be considered, if and when funding is available at some point in the future. Public Involvement Some comments reflected the need for the community to be informed of project progress and timelines. A Public and Agency Involvement Program will be implemented during the preparation of the EA to facilitate coordination between the Airport, the County, FAA, agencies, community groups, and local governments. During the course of the Study, all viewpoints will be carefully weighed and solutions developed which will strive to serve the common interest of all parties to the extent possible. Throughout the planning process, all information will be posted to the project website: http://www.aspenairport.com/airport-improvements-ea/summary. Additionally, project information will be shared via social media and the Peak Democracy Tool. The project team will hold public meetings and workshops for the general public throughout the Study. These meetings will be held in the evening to encourage public participation and will be held at key points during the Study, specifically related to design elements/visualizations and other known community concerns. The purpose of these meetings will be to further refine the areas of concern the public has for various environmental issues and work through issues prior to the release of the Draft EA. Traffic Some comments addressed the need to examine traffic impacts relative to the proposed project. Surface transportation changes, both temporary and permanent, will be analyzed and disclosed for the Proposed Projects and feasible and prudent alternatives. Level of Service (LOS) and access to existing homes and businesses, and convenience will be examined as a result of the proposed project and be compared to the No Action Alternative. The Team will work with CDOT and the Airport on this task to examine the intersection with Highway 82 and Baltic Avenue. The site plan will incorporate the existing connection points to Highway 82. Air Quality and Climate Some comments addressed the question of how air quality and climate would be considered in the EA. The consultant team will prepare an existing conditions emissions inventory for criteria pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) for the sources of emissions that would be affected by the proposed project alternative(s). Sources that are expected to be included in the emissions inventory are: aircraft/APU, ground service equipment (GSE) fleet, ground access vehicles/roadways, stationary sources, and parking lots. This will examine the impact of the proposed project compared to the existing No Action Alternative in the EA. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, the EA will address climate separate from air quality. As an emissions inventory will be prepared for criteria pollutants, an inventory of greenhouse gases will also be prepared. Some comments referred to the ability of aircraft to plug in to reduce idling. Plug in power to replace the use of Auxiliary Power Units is an option that can be examined with the final design of the terminal and apron. The terminal will also examine ways to reduce energy consumption. Other comments relating to the ways to distribute fuel fumes, managing the general aviation/commercial traffic, or use of technology to reduce air emissions are outside the scope of this EA, but can be considered outside of the EA if the technology arises. Plan for existing and future needs Several comments mentioned that the environmental analysis should look at existing and future conditions. An Environmental Assessment does just that. FAA forecasts for aviation activity, size of aircraft and frequency, along with local and regional land use plans will be reviewed to ensure that the projects align with local needs. Bike Path and Owl Creek Road Some comments dealt with questions on the bike path and Owl Creek road relocation. The general plan is outlined in the Proposed Project figure, and will relocate the bike path and the Owl Creek Road alignments to the west within the CDOT Right of Way. The bike path must be outside of the Object Free Zone and Owl Creek Road must stay within right-of-way, therefore, increasing the separation between the two is likely not feasible. Bike path and Owl Creek Road alignments will be determined during the final design process. The figure shows only the relocated portion of the bike path; the existing connection to airline trailhead will still exist. Coordination with local agencies and the public will be conducted and the comment that there should be potential improvements to the grade in the switchback area. Socio-economics Several comments dealt with questions on how socioeconomic issues would be examined in the EA. Economic and demographic trends in the area will be analyzed to the extent that they may be affected by the proposed airport improvements. The analysis will focus upon the historic characteristics of the economy and projections of economic and demographic growth based on available statistical information. Housing trends, development changes, and demographic characteristics will be analyzed and described to provide a description of the social environment. For each of the alternatives an analysis will be conducted to assess the potential impacts to transportation patterns, social cohesiveness, and other pertinent issues identified (i.e., effect on affordable housing (increase in FTEs, etc.) and a valley wide analysis on pillow (number of available places to stay)). An objective analysis will be performed consistent with current FAA Orders, Executive Orders, and other guidance to define actual versus perceived impacts. Parking and Transit Comments: Several comments dealt with the importance of connectivity between the public transit system. The site plan included in the proposed project will work within the existing CDOT connections to Highway 82, the existing BRT RFTA station and underpass, as well as keeping the agreed upon space reservation for potential future additional transit improvements. Links to these resources will be examined to help identify ways to improve the connectivity/experience, and this can be tweaked in final design after the EA with stakeholder coordination. In the 2013 Master Plan Update, a parking garage was recommended to meet existing and future parking demand at the Airport. Since that time, with the addition of the runway shift project, the parking garage is not financially feasible within the planning period. The proposed project now includes replacing the existing number of parking spaces to maximize the parking within the site, but while meeting the Design Guidelines. However, the County has indicated that the new site plan should be flexible to incorporate a parking garage in the future, should it become financially feasible. This assumes that in the near term, the parking at the airport will be under the need, and people will have to use other modes of transportation to ASE (shuttles, public transit, etc.). Due to the fact that parking will not meet the airport needs, providing a park and ride system at the airport for people heading into town will not be possible at this time and is not included in this EA. Note that improvements for existing ground transportation systems (including light rail, bus or shuttles routes and times, or other future systems) and parking outside the ASE site plan are not in the scope for this particular project. Safety versus Capacity Questions - Runway Several comments dealt with the idea of not increasing capacity at the airport. It is important to note that this project is not a capacity project. This project is related to bringing the airfield up to FAA required safety standards to allow for future commercial service aircraft to continue to operate at ASE. Based on the Master Plan Update of 2013, the D-III standard was identified as the correct design group for ASE and therefore, ASE must meet those D-III standards. The demand for flying into ASE exists without the project and should not change with the addition of larger aircraft. Water Several comments dealt with the piping of Owl Creek and general water quality. Analysis will be conducted to identify any potential water impacts that could result from the proposed projects. The effects of the proposed airport improvements on water quality will be examined and documented. Methods to control peak flow and mitigate water quality impacts will be presented in the EA. This task will examine effects relative to the apron placement and GA and commercial activity locations. Surface and ground water resources in the vicinity of the proposed airport improvements construction site will be identified and described. The consultant team will coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies to determine permit requirements and mitigation plans as needed. An assessment of remediation requirements and potential impacts will also be documented in the EA to demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local water quality standards. Design of the project will consider of water needs and water quality protection, and drainage and infrastructure will be assessed to mitigate for any water impacts. It is not anticipated that there will be any increases in capacity on the West Buttermilk District. Because there is an area of Owl Creek that is proposed to be piped within the airport fence line, it is anticipated that some kind of mitigation will be required. This will be coordinated with Army Corps of Engineers as well as local agencies. Ideas for mitigation projects within the area are welcomed and further discussion will be included in the mitigation chapter of the EA. When considering mitigation projects local projects are always preferred. Historic Several comments related to the Airport Ranch, a potentially eligible property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Properties. Impacts on this resource will be examined in the Environmental Assessment based on 1050.1F, including the impacts of the runway relocation 80 feet to the west (closer to the property). Construction Waste Some comments addressed the question of construction impacts. Construction impacts will be included in the EA, including potential impacts on the local landfill. Timing Several comments addressed the timing question. Proposed timing is construction of the terminal being completed in 2022, with the runway shift being completed by 2027. Support Area One question asked for a clarification on what GA Support Area meant. Support area includes elements such as parking, roadways and other necessary elements that help support General Aviation activities Explain MOD MOD refers to the modification of standards that ASE currently operates under. It is a modification to the FAA design standards limiting aircraft to a 95 foot wingspan to account for the non-standard runway/taxiway separation. Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM As with any public comment process, participation in Pitkin County Connect is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 80 All Statements: 9 Minutes of Public Comment: 27 This topic started on February 10, 2016, 3:24 PM. This topic ended on March 31, 2016, 4:09 PM. All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 2 of 5 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? Name not available (unclaimed) March 25, 2016, 1:12 PM That it fit in, in relation to the size of the valley and not overwhelm everything around it. There are housing both for locals and 2nd home owners, a ski area, and businesses located nearby. We all must drive by it constantly. It needs to be an airport that serves a small valley and Historic town not the other way around. If it changes the character of the area negatively it will diminish the very reason it is being proposed. It will degrade the tourist and local experience, and the future attractiveness of the area. Lowered attractiveness translates to less business in the future not more. That it not take open space. Open Space should be inviolate. It is inviolate from an individual citizen and should be under the same rules for the Government. The same with large buildings. They are despised if proposed by an individual and should be despised for the same reasons for a government building. Maybe even more as an example to everyone. The old structure used solar originally which was a statement about what is part of the Aspen character, we care for the environment and want to lead in this arena. Noise is an issue and hasn't been dealt with well enough yet. It should absolutely be addressed and the most helpful mitigating items should be installed be it sound barriers or whatever. Beauty and landscaping should be first class. The trees there now are specimen quality and should be replaced with specimen quality. My main environmental concern is that the airport is going to alter the environment too much and it won't resemble what we have today. One more feather off the goose! John Bennett inside District 5 (on forum) March 23, 2016, 3:06 PM My Top Four Concerns: 1. The new terminal should be as small as possible (given our average passenger volume) and designed to (A) conserve energy and (B) reflect the traditional small town character, beauty, charm and uniqueness of Aspen and Pitkin County. It's absolutely okay for the terminal to feel a little crowded on the busiest day of the year. 2. Runway expansion should be avoided if it opens the door to commercial 737 flights. That idea was voted down by a 2-to-1 margin last time and would likely be defeated by a similar vote today. Nothing would degrade our community character more quickly than the noise and industrial tourism symbolized by "heavy metal" commercial aircraft. 3. The airport's parking and rental car policy should be designed to lure people out of their cars and into mass transit, preferably some form of fun and comfortable fixed guideway system into Aspen. 4. Let's get rid of the marketing billboards that clutter today's terminal and replace them with flowers, art and educational materials designed to inform and excite our visitors about the upper valley's arts & culture, commitment to reducing climate change, recreational opportunities, colorful history and refreshing uniqueness. In short, let's give our residents and visitors a terminal that reflects the beauty of our valley and the highest values of our community – something to make us all truly proud! Name not shown inside District 3 (on forum) March 22, 2016, 7:25 PM All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 3 of 5 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? My concern is that this project exceeds what is strictly necessary, creates an unneeded parking structure, and utterly fails to incorporate public transit. There is no need for more parking and rental cars should be eliminated from the airport. Additionally, there should be some sort of statement regarding whether this plan assumes some sort of expansion of existing operations (as the parking would suggest). None of the County Commissioners are frequent flyers, so some perspective from some who do would be helpful. I fly at least twice a month, sometimes more, and have lived here for about twenty-five years. I see no need for huge expansion, especially around parking. The current ads in the airport are an eyesore. If that's where the BOCC is going with all of this, then we should stop all of this now. Name not shown inside District 4 (on forum) March 17, 2016, 3:37 PM I hear people talk about needing expansion so that we can continue to grow.......aren't we pretty much at capacity in many respects? We no longer are the unique, charming little ski town with interesting shops. The greedy landlords have priced out the local shops and replaced them with shops you can go to in any city. Don't get me wrong....we still have one of the most beautiful, safe and fun places in the world to call home but I no longer go into town to find a unique gift or relaxing cup of coffee. For the majority of our guests, the first and last impression of Aspen/Snowmass is at our airport. Let's keep that a charming and friendly place. I do see the need for a newer and more efficient commercial terminal. A two story building , with adequate underground parking, would be good. The restaurant, bar and shops could be on the upper level and would create a better calmness during the weather and crazy days. As for the widening of the runway, I am very much against any plan that causes us to relocate Owl Creek Road and the bike path. The Teacup might be a good idea if an aircraft needs to move off the end of the runway, rare, and the taxiway is full but if it causes Owl Creek Road to be moved then I think we should maybe look at alternative options. The noise during the high seasons, with 34 commercial flights a day along with the private aircraft, is to be expected. We seem to want all of the aircraft to come in but we don't want to hear them? It's the visual implications of more, more and more that are my deepest concerns. Name not available (unclaimed) March 8, 2016, 9:50 AM What are my top 4 environmental concerns? How about just one? Widening the runway will INCREASE the number of aircraft coming into the airport by allowing bigger planes to land here. That will INCREASE the County's carbon footprint and INCREASE the noise in the Valley. This is all very bad and NOT what most of the citizens want. How can the Aspen Skiing Company support this? Isn't carbon killing our snow? Growing the airport will also make it much more likely that commercial flights will be delayed with all the increased private aircraft use. It is simple math, if it is bad now it will be worse with more private planes. We have heard that we will lose commercial service before and miraculously aircraft were "qualified" to come in. The new pro-growth agenda that Pitkin County and the new LAX airport manager have taken up is not going to make the community better. Enough development! Name not shown inside District 5 (on forum) March 8, 2016, 7:39 AM All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 4 of 5 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? to reduce environmental impact best to do this job right the first time to avoid need for new future projects. population and air traffic not likely to grow. better airport may reduce flight cancellations which unnecessarily waste aviation fuel and auto fuel of failed travelers. all else is nonsense. Name not shown inside District 3 (on forum) March 1, 2016, 2:25 PM Please give due heavy consideration even beyond the areas listed; for instance beyond just woody crk, star mesa, white star ranch all suffer planes repeatedly lining up above our homes as well as disobeying existing air space airport rules and coming in at different angles as well (helicopters, fixed wings, gliders etc). The visual blight is as bad as the noise which is becoming more and more formidable already without addition and expansion. Jet fuel odor can now be detected, too. Is this what a rural area deserves here in paradise? May result in an inordinate property value devaluation eventually, also. Has anyone looked up from a McLain Flats meadow and seen literally hundreds of contrails mid day? Not such a very pretty site in our blue skies. We fervently hope for single story building, keep footprint as small as possible as bigger is not always better. Is public transport area appropriately sized or do we want more cars, more taxies, more congestion, more exhaust? We used to see early AM owls and various wide life right off the planes in the 70's. Where are they now? Are you building any ways into the plane to be sure they are not harmed or run off further? Will Owl Creek Road ultimately be decimated by your plans down the road a few years? How sad this valley is becoming, maybe the UTES were right to settle a curse on the area, we deserve what we sow. Wake up planners-not too late? Remember the airport being a solar building back then? What happened to any forward approaches beyond the standard apo norm? Name not shown inside District 1 (on forum) February 27, 2016, 7:26 AM Any increase in air traffic or size of planes is asking for disaster and tragedy. Already the world's best musicians are insulted by having their performances punctuated by the noise of aircraft. One cannot take a hike anywhere in Colorado without having the peace of nature interrupted by aircraft. My morning coffee is being accompanied by the noise of jets as I write this. The major thing that preserved Aspen above other resorts was that it was difficult to get to. Let's leave this expansion on the table for later - much later. 1 Supporter bill hunt inside District 2 (on forum) February 19, 2016, 8:07 PM now is the time to stop further air quality loss. bring the environmental benefits of light rail to workers driving to aspen and to tourists, who are trying to escape traffic jams. build adequate underground parking so all can use our good (and improve it to world class) system. otherwise we become just another urban mistake and the shape of the airport building is irrelevant. 2 Supporters All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 5 of 5 I i BBIIHTY AIRPIJRT . - IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Agency Scoping Meeting-February 17, 2016 - . EMAIL ADDRESS ?mus war? dqri'sh?l d-Vo? 0?3pm .az/Iq Q5, who 99A 8 Q?Arx/ o-Q-Rs?nm. con C. . Cry flat a W- 9 033$: 00% era/27g Swag J-S/mecaZ/Q) romefo? (gr-0:400. Com ??HM/Lrth 577mu7aa .ConA (we a. cl at 9 0:3, I avid Jahwm cgothoA crap? Sign Community Input Committee Meeting February 17, 2016 i AIRPORT (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -.- EMAIL ADDRESS DEVZAUW meg CKQT R'g/ Kim/mg A 77 Mae/gem waifgz 2' 3541*;ch 13? ?/1ch? L?k mam 577W: ?ed an (MW magma b?d?r Wu.) $5139 Mo; Ha?? 3?0 La I ma! .11. loaf/ifg/rg?cggn (JILL 953/5: meg Stow mood g. or? Awarded. (Xi/ems . (av-1 (.2 4&5/27 area .mooA A India. .Swmm-cj 0 53?2? CM d?lkg?e?maYWd?Q ?99/4, em Mrhi?e CBH 9% Mikarc?zri} 8?M4i/. 50M I i BOUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting February 17. 2016 EMAIL ADDRESS THANK 69 I i ASPENIPITKIN BOUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting February 17, 2016 EMAIL ADDRESS Ea/LpiM?w? @a/maj?mn I i ASPENIPITKIN BOUNTY AIRPORT - - (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Meeting February 16, 2016 J. 5H Ho ONOUGH Maeng-Q?o?m??d Co ?ahm an}; [Let/L 96] anvx? a5w?Mchuav?EoUJil. ?ax/g? \y (HM (Em 5&3th 8:1??ng :7 0m? KEN 8mg baa-Lop a :5 ?Ode/?Se frcowk .3 M1 Kg. 0W I i CHUHTY (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9 Public Meeting February 16, 2016 EMAIL ADDRESS Fm/mmc/V Meg (xx/110%- (C 4m 50!? 0L5 g? /0/mz?w 0/9045 5607f Can/l with; Webs? E50 May/71% I 1 BBUNTY AIHPIJRI (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Meeting February 16, 2016 EMAIL ADDRESS 32> kw?p?dw hem 9 0.4 pwn?aqug. Cov? ?pad? {Tm-vb 1216154 0, Mn (add?M0273 06377;?? ext/b - i ASPENIPITKIH BOUNTY AIRPORT 5' n! . IMPROVEMENTS 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Snowmass Public Meeting - February 18. 2016 Jr? Edam mkwi??" 5 LII-E jg? sz Jggne? (gr-q Mill-QR af?d?/l ale!? 9M . 5(1ka watt?Q??'m (071.1 56?] 4/7 0 Ltd/V (3m Kaodbm ouiemfemmbu?e?gm :?Lco?i?f? can-mamma??u .c m?gr?mg ?i a Environmental Assessment City of Aspen Scoping Workshop March 2015 i CHUNTY AIRPURT IM PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT What we will discuss EA Background  Proposed Actions  Community Input to Date  Explain the purpose and need of the projects  Define next steps  Facilitate Scoping Comments  Purpose of This Environmental  Assessment (EA)     The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires  consideration of the environmental consequences of a  federal action before the action is taken An Environmental Assessment is prepared to determine if a  significant environmental impact may occur Provides an in‐depth review of the environmental impacts  for the proposed action and alternatives to those actions Discloses alternatives, impacts and mitigation to the public  and decision makers Environmental  Assessment Content  The Environmental Assessment will  consist of the  following key chapters:      Purpose and Need: Why is the  project needed? Alternatives: Proposed Projects and  the No Action Affected Environment: The  environment as it exists today Environmental Consequences: What  is impacted by the Proposed Action  and the Feasible and Prudent  Alternatives Mitigation Measures: How to off‐set  any impacts Proposed Actions  The Environmental Assessment will analyze the following  proposed actions:  Shifting the runway 80 feet to the west and widening the runway to  150 feet to meet FAA design standards for design group D‐III    Realignment of the perimeter road and Owl Creek Road and Bike Path to  account for the shift in the runway; will not impact conservation  easement Associated relocation of NAVAIDs, runway and taxiway lighting, perimeter  roadway, etc. Note: West Side Development (including a secondary FBO) is  no longer being considered. Airfield Reconfiguration and  Terminal projects were combined into one EA for efficiencies  and to analyze all impacts. Proposed Actions (continued)  The Environmental Assessment will analyze the following  proposed actions:  Construction of a replacement terminal (2 concepts)       Associated parking and roadway reconfiguration and integration with  public transit  Relocation of the ground service equipment building Demolition of existing facilities Commercial service apron expansion Piping of Owl Creek  Construction of a noise barrier along the GA apron area EA Proposed Projects \w *31? SERVICE. I . 0 AIRCRAFT APRON Ar" .n .. f. z? I FUTURE BUILDINGSIFACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROADIPARKING DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE SENSITIVE AREA EXCESSIVE SLOPE VISUALINOISE BUFFER RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL . . K. - ~g5~ i ISFEHIPITKIH .3 IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Proposed Projects Community Input    All community input received thus far will be included, plus  all future input Extensive coffee chats, public meetings, local presentations  were conducted during the Air Service Study regarding the  Airfield Reconfiguration So far, 4 public workshops on Visioning and Terminal  Preliminary Design Concept were conducted    February, April, September, October 2015 9 Coffee Chats on both the Airfield Reconfiguration and the  Terminal EA (Combined) Community Input: Terminal The comments from the Workshop and Public Open House had overlapping themes, which are summarized paraphrased below. ?Build to meet our needs? - Small-town feel of back-in parking works great already, keep it - Make terminal big enough to serve our needs but not an architectural monument ?Terminal should be integrated into landscape - Roof gardens and outdoor spaces are exciting ideas for passengers! - Keep beauty of surroundings, keep building as low as possible - Views of roof are important for nearby residents, roof gardens! ?Parking? . Structured parking is needed for capacity, convenience and accessible (ADA) use (general sentiment, with some opposite opinions) ?Connection to - The Airport needs to promote use of public transportation as much as they can Community Input: Terminal Upon tallying and averaging the ?scores? of the concepts, Concept 3 was the clear top choice with Concepts 2 and 4 sharing positions as alternate choice. Building Concept Tally BIC PUBLIC 033:;th Building Concept 1 ?Single Story? i ?0 all? fig-GI 13.7 10.7 17.8 Building Concept2 I 71% ?split Level? 15.9 12.7 18.5 26* 2115* 22.8~k 20.7 14.5 18.3 Recommendation #1 Concept 3l4 szrid - ?Setback? appearance to minimize visual impact (Concept 3) - Stack levels flat to allow for future expansion (Concept 4) I, 175-0" 34020? 6/ 46046:,? 7?51, ?1 JET BRIDGE SETBACK 120.4)" I ACCESS 1 PARKING l2>o~u Recommendation #2 Concept 2 - All functions on a single level - Split-level provides some grade mitigation opportunity 340-0" 17/ 120'-0" 17520? ?l JET SETBACK ?l ?l ACCESS PARKING Background to Purpose and Need:  Runway Reconfiguration   ASE currently has a 95 ft. wingspan restriction in place based  on runway to taxiway separation distance Aircraft trends indicated that the aircraft with wingspans less  than 95 ft. will be phased out, with half of the U.S. fleet  retired by 2021    With wingspan restriction still in place, current air carriers would not  be able to operate at ASE with future fleet FAA will not allow another MOD to allow larger wingspan without ASE  meeting FAA standards of 400 feet separation  In order to have future Design Group‐III air service at ASE,  the FAA is requiring the airfield to be brought into FAA  compliance for that Design Group Purpose & Need – Runway  Reconfiguration  Purpose: The purpose of this project is to meet FAA design standards,  allowing ASE to keep commercial service in the long‐term.  Need:  The implementation of the runway reconfiguration will address  the following needs:   The current airfield does not meet the FAA design standards for D‐III  aircraft due to the deficient separation distance between the runway and  taxiway. Purpose & Need – Terminal  Replacement & East Side Projects  East side improvements were recommended in the Master Plan due to:       Existing Terminal Area deficiencies Apron issues Operational issues Roadway/connectivity issues Purpose:  The purpose of the terminal replacement and associated east side  projects is to optimize the safety and efficiency of the airport. Need:  The implementation of the terminal replacement and associated  projects will address the following needs:     The existing terminal and terminal area is deficient in space with operational,  safety and functional issues that does not currently meet the needs of  passengers, staff and users. Apron is deficient in size and currently slopes into the terminal, creating safety  hazards. GA Apron noise has been identified as an issue for surrounding communities  and a need to mitigate this noise was identified in the master plan. What is Scoping?  An Open Process for determining the issues to be addressed in  the EA and identifying issues of critical concern related to the  proposed actions.  Scoping provides the opportunity to solicit input from those  interested and affected parties to:    Identify significant environmental issues to be analyzed Identify alternatives Identify other environmental processes occurring EA Process EA Elements Hold Public and Agency Scoping Meetings Conduct Environmental Studies Prepare and Publish Draft EA Public Involvement Solicit Public & Agency Concerns: 30-day Scoping Extensive Public Involvement Hold Public Hearing(s) 18-20 Prepare Final EA Addressing Public & Agency Comments Official Public/Agency Review and 30-day Comment Period Submit to BOCC for Local Review and Approval Public comment during BOCC Public Hearing Submit to FAA for Finding Environmental Consequences   Categories to evaluate per FAA Order 1050.1F  include:              Air Quality Biological Resources (fish, wildlife and plants) Climate Department of Transportation: Section 4(f) Farmlands Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources Land use Natural Resources and Energy Supply Noise and compatible land use Socioeconomics, environmental justice and children’s environmental  health and safety risks Visual Effects (including light emissions) Water Resources (wetlands, floodplains, surface waters, ground waters,  wild and scenic rivers) Visual Resources ma?a I AABC ?41-?33 HIGHWAY 82 HIGHWAY 82 (PRELIMINARY) VIEW 1 north approach on Highway 62 (PRELIMINARY) VIEW 2 south approach on Highway 82 .- ?r (PROPOSED) 351.?- . .- -- 3D SITE SECTION Visual Resources I?m-Ewe I OWL CREEK RD WEST BUTTERNIILK (PRELIMINARY) VIEW 3 from Buttermilk (PRELIMINARY) VIEW 4 from Owl Creek Rd ASPEN BLITTERMILK SNOWMASS VILLAGE . -- - .. . - a - NEW TERMINAL 3D SITE SECTION Visual Resources STAHWUDD MGCLAIN FLATS RD (PRELIMINARY) VIEW 5 from Starwuod (PRELIMINARY) VIEW 6 from McClain Flats L. - .- . . CREEK NEW TERMINAL 3D SITE SECTION roposed Bike Path Owl Cree oad Relocation PERIMETER ROAD 8. BIKE PATI-I - REALIGNMENT - - a. . . - OWLCREEK ROADSIBIKE PATH, 0 . FUTURE BUILDINGSIFACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT - i FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE RAIL CORRIDOR - ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Bike Path and Owl Creek Road Relocation Socioeconomic Impacts    Examine pillow count analysis relative to proposed projects Examine positive and negative impacts Examine impacts of No Action (potential loss of commercial  service) Proposed Noise 1 ASPEIHPITKIN IIRPIJRT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Buffer onitors Samoa Layer Credits: Source: Esri GeoEye: Hsubad os USDA AEX Aerognd, waspr and the GIS User Community ESPEIIFITIIH ll IMPROVEME FEE IN Commi- COUNTY NRPORY Legend 0 Rmsawsems) I ,4 Airport Property - Apron Noise Buffer Noise Monitors Air Quality & Climate     Aspen/Pitkin County is in attainment for all National  Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)  Currently in maintenance for Particulate Matter‐10 Examine Greenhouse Gases Planned analysis includes:   Modeled NAAQS emissions related to the project Modeled Greenhouse Gas emissions related to the project ESPEIIFITIIH IMPROVEM FEE Existing Water Resources - ?6!!an wt allml' Legend :3 Airport Property Genus Wetlands Aspen area Bike Path u. Freshwater Emergent Wetland Au Ditch Freshwater Forestedehrub Wetland waters ofthe .5. Freshwater Pant! Created Wetlands 1.3 ac Riven'ne ?133 'Wetland Area 3.0 1 9 I n?fl nn? H?Mll ?If .?il'lhlt?. PM smmnui?juxn ll?liill JIL IGN. IGP. man-DJ. and did 65 Uur ISFEIIJPITIHI l'rlHlIT'f Feel {mull-1hr ENVIRONMENTAL Water Resources Wetlands ESPEIIFITIIH IMPROVEM Historical Cultural RUNWAY SHIFT 0F 80? AND LEGEND Airport Ranch I PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM ENT Potential for Larger Aircraft Aircraft Technical Specifications ‐ ASE Aircraft Type Wingspan Feet/Inches CRJ‐700 Q‐400 CRJ‐900 CRJ‐1000 E‐170 E‐175 E‐190 E‐195 76' 3" 93' 3" 81' 7" 85' 11" 85' 4" 85' 4" 94' 3" 94' 3" E‐175 E2 E‐190 E2 E‐195 E2 MRJ‐70 Standard MRJ‐90 Standard CS100 Base CS300 Base 101’ 7” 110’ 6” 115’ 95' 9" 95' 9" 115’ 1” 115’ 1” Airbus A319 Boeing 737‐700 Boeing 717 111' 11" 117 '5" 93' 5" Meter ASE Performance  Capable Current Regional Aircraft 23.2 28.4 24.9 26.2 26 26 28.7 28.7 Future Regional Aircraft 31.0 33.7 33.7 29.2 29.2 35.1 35.1 Comparison Non‐Regional  Aircraft 34.1 35.7 28.5 Meets/Does Not Meet  ASE Operational  Restrictions Yes Yes No No No No No No Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Yes* Yes* TBD* TBD TBD Yes Yes Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Yes** Yes** Yes** Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Source: Air Service Study, Manufacturers Coordination, Jviation, 2014   *Data on E‐Jets E‐2 are preliminary ** Potentially performance capable, but likely limited during hotter summer months. Pending airline coordination will help  determine if these aircraft could meet airline safety requirements for performance. Comments on Other Resources      Biological Resources (fish, wildlife and plants) Farmlands Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Land use Natural Resources and Energy Supply Additional Comments  We are collecting additional scoping comments after the meeting,  at Kate.Andrus@meadhunt.com by end of March or on Pitkin  Connect (www.pitkincountyconnect.com) Environmental Assessment Welcome to the Scoping Workshop February 2015 i AIRPURT IM PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix 9 Public Involvement i COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Involvement Summary of Comments 1 COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ASE Scoping Meeting Comments (CIC and Public) March 2015 EA Proposed Projects  This is a must to keep adequate air service in Aspen  Would like a cross section of the runway  Will I see new aircraft in my neighborhood? Can I see a cross section?  Visual impacts – sound barrier  Traffic impacts of 2nd Hwy 82 intersection? Need for 2nd intersection?  Do it. It’s needed. It’s time. Make it a joy to come to daily.  Think Sydney Opera House. Do something spectacular with the terminal building. Do it.  Another FBO to cater to general aviation  Second FBO for smaller aircraft.  Small.  Do IT!  Please look at the impact of the intersection on traffic  Additional intersection adds a 4th light in this small section of Highway  Drainage improvements?  Why wouldn’t the bike path extend to airline trailhead?  Consider support facilities across Hwy 82  What does a “support area” mean?  Consider relocation of FBO building to gain ramp space  Is another intersection necessary? Will this help or compound Hwy Traffic issues?  Balance need of intersection-one use on the other side  Let neighbors know the construction time line as soon as possible  Parking as transit hub?  Concerned about apron expansion and noise in Meadowood Community Input: Terminal  I agree. Just do it!  Single story- love later turn into split  Good- no expansion into the South needed. Good.  No jet bridges Recommendation #1 Concept ¾ Hybrid and #2 Concept 2  Is there room for U.S. Customs?  Gate lounge area should be larger  I’m OK with no jet bridges  We should reconsider jet bridges  Right size it! Don’t want to build it again in 20 years.  Don’t make it so small it is obsolete before it is finished  Jet bridges are a must  Make it easier on shuttles, cabs, curbside pickups  No advertising - more videos of activities  Setbacks-yes. Low visual impact. Background to Purpose and Need: Runway Reconfiguration  Explain MOD Purpose & Need – Terminal Replacement and East Side Projects  How does new apron mitigate noise impacts?  Extra space for users, passengers, and staff  Noise at Hwy 82 at Harmony has increased since the runway expansion  The widened runway is essential. Do it.  When will the new airplanes be in use?  Make the runway wide enough now for future planes - even longer for the new planes to come.  Extend curfew 1 hour for pre-scheduled flights delayed from weather Visual Resources Preliminary View 1 and 2  As long as it blends and looks nice  Less setback and more consumer amenities in the gate area for our guests  Good to see it’s not a big edifice  Maintain a parklike setting; inviting and fits into the environment  Lead in lights so bright - hazard on the ground  Summer/winter open walls on roof terrace  OK to see planes - good to have lots of vegetation  Build and plan for future growth appropriate for current and future needs  Room for U.S. Customs  Keep view points- can see arriving and departing flights Preliminary View 3 and 4  Bleacher viewing of planes like at Stapleton  Past operations building should open now to terminal  What will Owl Creek Road moving look like?  Keep landscape buffer and trees around terminal  Don’t make it too small or compromise needed space  Provide comfortable furniture and food service for delayed passengers  Make it comfortable and have amenities for passengers  West Buttermilk Road view down- one shown not accurate  “smiley face”  Hybrid option is an appropriate response to site topography  What would it look like at night? Dark Skies  Go Big or Go Home Preliminary View 5 and 6  I have no problem with the airport - good landscaping needed  Wrong location for airport - in residential high-end RE  Location is so convenient  Observation deck, variation of roof lines  Lower McClain Flats Road  New from Meadowood with new aircraft staging area? Expanded apron?  Top deck - Starwood  Size and scale shown is not a problem at all  Roof is critical to visual impact now white reflection- green roof or natural cedars  Be aware of light pollution and shielding  No reflectivity if it has sda  Starwood would have potential light concerns  Revolving beacon ongoing shield (grand fathered in) re Starwood  Not too much glass on the east side please  Terminal building should be modern, but understated  Improve deice containment, current pad and runway  Use west of Maroon Creek Plan (WOMP) direction in analysis Proposed Bike Path & Owl Creek Road Relocation  Will Owl Creek Road need to be moved more for the west side development?  Moving the road and bike path should not be an issue. Move them.  Looks reasonable.  Can the bike path be improved to increase connectivity instead of just replaced?  Greater separation between path and owl creek- consider a vegetated buffer (written underneathYES!)  Improve separation between the bike path and road Socioeconomic Impacts  Consider incorporating affordable housing impacts  Fully integrate RFTA services into terminal design. Consider alignment of the project with AACP.  Accommodate current capacity- not as a growth emphasis. Coordinate of air services and aircraft size.  Consider affordable housing needs generated  Examine the relationship with other ground transportation systems, including light rail or other future systems. Beyond pillow count, examine the economic impact of guests arriving via the airport in winter and summer. Consider other transit needs, e.g. park and ride opportunities on airport property including transit and terminal needs.  Connection to RFTA + underpass  Integration of RFTA into the design would create a better customer experience  RFTA remote parking expansion or garage at Brush Creek  Increase in shuttles to Aspen/Snowmass resorts- reduction in cabs/private vehicles-don’t add to traffic  Valley wide pillow count  Do not preclude future potential fixed guidelines access to airport  Create safe and comfortable connection between RFTA BRT stop and the airport  Will the new terminal generation more FTEs then the current? Where will they live? What will traffic implications be?  Assess communal lodging growth management implications  Do not increase capacity at high peak times- Xmas, 4th of July  Work with county to spread events. Ideas in September or October?  I want to know if larger aircraft would create more economical travel options or does more people flying in create a higher demand in turn creating higher lodging prices, and higher costs in general?  Visitor and residential quality experience greatly reduced at peak capacity Proposed Noise Buffer & Monitors  Noise walls are a good idea around the terminal. Berms too.  Meadowood “Noise”?  Maybe a noise buffer across from Harmony Road. The planes take off there.  Updates for neighbors with specifics about current and anticipated events  Analysis for potential new aircraft as well as existing  Tons of trees  Consider starting this buffer before construction  Changes in expected noise from new planes versus current  Apron buffer location? Air Quality & Climate  Is there a way to disburse the aviation fuel fumes while aircraft are in line for takeoff?  Fumes in AABC aircraft departures  Plug-In to alleviate idling of aircraft  Air Quality-very important  Updates about current particulate and air quality levels- actual and anticipated  You should consider hazardous air pollutants and their effects on human health  Consider air quality effects on tourism and quality of life for residents  People live so close- what about hazardous air pollutants?  Smell?  Energy- use of terminal and buildings  Off-set additional carbon/air pollution with local conservation projects  Can we shared study results at the local government level for more informed local conversation?  Check hazardous air pollutants  Can you capture the hazardous gasses?  Look into air filters for the entire Airport air  Manage general aviation and commercial air traffic to reduce ATC delays and burning excess fuel with hold times on the ground and local air space  Effect on ghg from parking- how can parking be used to support decreased trips into town?  Consider the unique location of the airport- narrow valley at 8000ft. Poor air quality in dramatically increased apron buffer location.  Air quality must include pollutants and carcinogens such as jet fuel.  Plug-In to alleviate idling of aircraft  All kinds of air pollution under flight path Existing Water Resources  Pipe all Owl Creek to better protect the resource from potential spills. Coordinate mitigation banking with city parks and/or county parks.  Stapleton Ditch infrastructure west edge of Owl Creek- identify piping ditch move  West Buttermilk Metro district capacity additional water needs?  Containment of glycol. Electric ground equipment  Cozy Pt Ranch- City of Aspen. Redo Management Plan. Restoration on Brush Creek? North Star Restoration work? Historical & Cultural  Needs Current Photos  Please consider the social/cultural values of the community when planning the interior of the terminal. I.E., rather than all the commercial advertising, consider informational signage about Aspen culture, arts, environment, impact of climate change, history, etc.  Keep it real and unique- no mini LAX or NYC  True to character  How will the design take into consideration the communication of Aspen history and culture (e.g. the opposite of the ART museum)  Do we really want to move this runway 80 ft. closer to the rocks?  How will proximity of the runway effect the adjacent resource? Vibration?  The trail could take advantage of the Farmstead and Aspen Groves  Clean up of historic areas, junk removal?  Allow the possibility to improve Owl Creek Trail, to make it less steep! Potential for Larger Aircraft  Larger aircraft (737, A319) will leave a net negative effect on the valley in terms of noise and pollution. Not needed here.  Larger aircraft during peak seasons will reduce frequency and have less environmental impact  Less commercial frequency reduces ground ops equipment usage, glycol needs, etc.  Less frequency reduces ATC delay and aircraft holding in air and on ground- less burning excess fuel Comments on Other Resources  Consider fuel containment waste water of ramp  Is the D-III standard appropriate based on our commercial volume?  With the airport only 3 miles from Aspen and 3.2 from Snowmass 2 creeks, ground transportation solutions are the most critical environmental and traffic elements.  Ditto (referring to the above comment)  Energy use of buildings = GHG pollutants and cost  Consider spending wetland mitigation fees for local restoration projects  Educate- Coffee chat in Airline breakroom  Consider parking capacity as it relates to multi-modal approach  Note any potential impact to Aspen water agreement via west Buttermilk  Construction + demolition waste = big impact to landfill  Consider full containment wastewater of ramp  Balance need of intersection with use on the other side  Consider relocation of FBO building to gain ramp space  Consider support facilities across Hwy 82  Parking as transit hub?  Drainage improvements? Terminal Design Comments Some comments addressed terminal design of the project. The EA will cover approximately 25% design for the terminal and the site plan; final design will be included subsequent to the EA. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability. It will also take into account other local plans such as the West of Maroon Creek Plan. Many comments also dealt with the request to “right size” the terminal and that user experience goes down during peak capacity right now. When the 2013 Master Plan Update was completed, the predicted fleet mix changes of regional jets to longer wingspans was not known. Therefore, additional terminal work outside the EA will examine the sizing question and determine Level of Service needed based on the new potentially-larger aircraft fleet mix. This will include examination of room needed for specific functions such as the gate areas, TSA, etc. as well as final site development and curbside flow for shuttles, cabs, and parking. Comments on keeping viewsheds, options for a roof terrace, a park-like setting, concessions and amenities will be included in final design. This analysis will be included in final design. There will be additional community involvement during the full design process. Jet Bridges Some comments addressed the question of the addition of jet bridges for the new terminal. While there were comments both for and against jet bridges, it was determined that for now, jet bridges would not be included in the conceptual design due to a larger contingent focusing on the “Aspen experience” of stepping off the aircraft into the mountains. While having no jet bridges poses some operational considerations, the final design will take these types of operational considerations into account to make it functional, as well as ADA compliant. Visual Many comments addressed interest in the visual elements of the terminal and other projects. A qualitative analysis will be conducted to examine the visual impact of the projects on the community surrounding the airport. Visual renderings will be developed to conduct a site massing and viewshed analysis to determine if the proposed airport improvements would have any impacts on the aesthetics and view characteristics of the area. A night time view will also be examined. Additionally, the EA will confirm the projects compatibility with local laws and ordinances pertaining to visual changes along the highway corridor. Several viewpoints will be chosen from different areas of the airport, including from the north, south, east and west, based on areas of known interest. This analysis will include all projects including the terminal and associated roadways and parking, generalized site landscaping, the runway shift and widening, as well as the shift of Owl Creek and the Owl Creek Bike Path. The EA will examine two conceptual terminal alternatives, which were developed with coordination with stakeholders and the ability of the concepts to fit within the existing site constraints. However, final design considerations (such as light shielding and final roof design) will be coordinated with stakeholders after the EA. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability. It will also take into account other local plans such as the West of Maroon Creek Plan. Noise Some comments addressed a concern for changes in noise levels due to the project from the potential for larger aircraft and the expansion of the apron. The analysis of aircraft noise exposure in the EA will be prepared in compliance with FAA Orders. The order that was in effect when the project was scoped was 1050.1E, which requires the use of noise exposure contours using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) showing the area affected by 65 Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) and greater noise levels. The FAA and the County have taken steps over the years to assess existing levels of aircraft noise and develop noise abatement procedures to reduce the impacts on residential and other noise sensitive areas. As a result, under current conditions there are currently no noise sensitive uses exposed to 65 Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) noise levels at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. However, the EA will examine the With Project and No Action noise based on the addition of potentially larger aircraft and determine whether there will be significant impacts associated with the project. This analysis will also include the potential benefits of the proposed noise wall along the GA apron to reduce noise from aircraft on this apron. Some comments indicated that the buffer should be started prior to construction of the project. All projects need to be federally cleared in this EA, and final phasing of construction is dependent on funding availability. Some additional comments indicated that the curfew should be increased in the evening. It is important to note that the curfew at ASE is grandfathered in and any changes to a curfew would negate the entire curfew. Therefore, no changes to the curfew are recommended. Curfew changes are also outside of the scope of this EA. It is important to note that most of the new regional jets coming into the fleet in the future are considered Stage 4 aircraft, which have engines that are generally quieter than their existing regional jet counterparts. Relocation of Existing FBO Some comments related to the relocation of the existing FBO. The relocation of the Existing FBO was a project included in the 2013 Master Plan. One of the main purposes of this relocation was to tie into the parking garage that was proposed at the time to provide further efficiencies. Since the parking garage is no longer reasonably foreseeable due to funding issues, the relocation of the FBO is not being considered at this time. Second FBO Separate EA Some comments dealt with the question of a second Fixed Base Operator. Right now, the development of a parallel taxiway that could serve a second Fixed Base Operator is not reasonably foreseeable due to funding constraints. If this becomes reasonably foreseeable, a separate EA that includes a taxiway and Fixed Based Operator facility on the Airport’s west side would need to be considered, if and when funding is available at some point in the future. Public Involvement Some comments reflected the need for the community to be informed of project progress and timelines. A Public and Agency Involvement Program will be implemented during the preparation of the EA to facilitate coordination between the Airport, the County, FAA, agencies, community groups, and local governments. During the course of the Study, all viewpoints will be carefully weighed and solutions developed which will strive to serve the common interest of all parties to the extent possible. Throughout the planning process, all information will be posted to the project website: http://www.aspenairport.com/airport-improvements-ea/summary. Additionally, project information will be shared via social media and the Peak Democracy Tool. The project team will hold public meetings and workshops for the general public throughout the Study. These meetings will be held in the evening to encourage public participation and will be held at key points during the Study, specifically related to design elements/visualizations and other known community concerns. The purpose of these meetings will be to further refine the areas of concern the public has for various environmental issues and work through issues prior to the release of the Draft EA. Traffic Some comments addressed the need to examine traffic impacts relative to the proposed project. Surface transportation changes, both temporary and permanent, will be analyzed and disclosed for the Proposed Projects and feasible and prudent alternatives. Level of Service (LOS) and access to existing homes and businesses, and convenience will be examined as a result of the proposed project and be compared to the No Action Alternative. The Team will work with CDOT and the Airport on this task to examine the intersection with Highway 82 and Baltic Avenue. The site plan will incorporate the existing connection points to Highway 82. Air Quality and Climate Some comments addressed the question of how air quality and climate would be considered in the EA. The consultant team will prepare an existing conditions emissions inventory for criteria pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) for the sources of emissions that would be affected by the proposed project alternative(s). Sources that are expected to be included in the emissions inventory are: aircraft/APU, ground service equipment (GSE) fleet, ground access vehicles/roadways, stationary sources, and parking lots. This will examine the impact of the proposed project compared to the existing No Action Alternative in the EA. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, the EA will address climate separate from air quality. As an emissions inventory will be prepared for criteria pollutants, an inventory of greenhouse gases will also be prepared. Some comments referred to the ability of aircraft to plug in to reduce idling. Plug in power to replace the use of Auxiliary Power Units is an option that can be examined with the final design of the terminal and apron. The terminal will also examine ways to reduce energy consumption. Other comments relating to the ways to distribute fuel fumes, managing the general aviation/commercial traffic, or use of technology to reduce air emissions are outside the scope of this EA, but can be considered outside of the EA if the technology arises. Plan for existing and future needs Several comments mentioned that the environmental analysis should look at existing and future conditions. An Environmental Assessment does just that. FAA forecasts for aviation activity, size of aircraft and frequency, along with local and regional land use plans will be reviewed to ensure that the projects align with local needs. Bike Path and Owl Creek Road Some comments dealt with questions on the bike path and Owl Creek road relocation. The general plan is outlined in the Proposed Project figure, and will relocate the bike path and the Owl Creek Road alignments to the west within the CDOT Right of Way. The bike path must be outside of the Object Free Zone and Owl Creek Road must stay within right-of-way, therefore, increasing the separation between the two is likely not feasible. Bike path and Owl Creek Road alignments will be determined during the final design process. The figure shows only the relocated portion of the bike path; the existing connection to airline trailhead will still exist. Coordination with local agencies and the public will be conducted and the comment that there should be potential improvements to the grade in the switchback area. Socio-economics Several comments dealt with questions on how socioeconomic issues would be examined in the EA. Economic and demographic trends in the area will be analyzed to the extent that they may be affected by the proposed airport improvements. The analysis will focus upon the historic characteristics of the economy and projections of economic and demographic growth based on available statistical information. Housing trends, development changes, and demographic characteristics will be analyzed and described to provide a description of the social environment. For each of the alternatives an analysis will be conducted to assess the potential impacts to transportation patterns, social cohesiveness, and other pertinent issues identified (i.e., effect on affordable housing (increase in FTEs, etc.) and a valley wide analysis on pillow (number of available places to stay)). An objective analysis will be performed consistent with current FAA Orders, Executive Orders, and other guidance to define actual versus perceived impacts. Parking and Transit Comments: Several comments dealt with the importance of connectivity between the public transit system. The site plan included in the proposed project will work within the existing CDOT connections to Highway 82, the existing BRT RFTA station and underpass, as well as keeping the agreed upon space reservation for potential future additional transit improvements. Links to these resources will be examined to help identify ways to improve the connectivity/experience, and this can be tweaked in final design after the EA with stakeholder coordination. In the 2013 Master Plan Update, a parking garage was recommended to meet existing and future parking demand at the Airport. Since that time, with the addition of the runway shift project, the parking garage is not financially feasible within the planning period. The proposed project now includes replacing the existing number of parking spaces to maximize the parking within the site, but while meeting the Design Guidelines. However, the County has indicated that the new site plan should be flexible to incorporate a parking garage in the future, should it become financially feasible. This assumes that in the near term, the parking at the airport will be under the need, and people will have to use other modes of transportation to ASE (shuttles, public transit, etc.). Due to the fact that parking will not meet the airport needs, providing a park and ride system at the airport for people heading into town will not be possible at this time and is not included in this EA. Note that improvements for existing ground transportation systems (including light rail, bus or shuttles routes and times, or other future systems) and parking outside the ASE site plan are not in the scope for this particular project. Safety versus Capacity Questions - Runway Several comments dealt with the idea of not increasing capacity at the airport. It is important to note that this project is not a capacity project. This project is related to bringing the airfield up to FAA required safety standards to allow for future commercial service aircraft to continue to operate at ASE. Based on the Master Plan Update of 2013, the D-III standard was identified as the correct design group for ASE and therefore, ASE must meet those D-III standards. The demand for flying into ASE exists without the project and should not change with the addition of larger aircraft. Water Several comments dealt with the piping of Owl Creek and general water quality. Analysis will be conducted to identify any potential water impacts that could result from the proposed projects. The effects of the proposed airport improvements on water quality will be examined and documented. Methods to control peak flow and mitigate water quality impacts will be presented in the EA. This task will examine effects relative to the apron placement and GA and commercial activity locations. Surface and ground water resources in the vicinity of the proposed airport improvements construction site will be identified and described. The consultant team will coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies to determine permit requirements and mitigation plans as needed. An assessment of remediation requirements and potential impacts will also be documented in the EA to demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local water quality standards. Design of the project will consider of water needs and water quality protection, and drainage and infrastructure will be assessed to mitigate for any water impacts. It is not anticipated that there will be any increases in capacity on the West Buttermilk District. Because there is an area of Owl Creek that is proposed to be piped within the airport fence line, it is anticipated that some kind of mitigation will be required. This will be coordinated with Army Corps of Engineers as well as local agencies. Ideas for mitigation projects within the area are welcomed and further discussion will be included in the mitigation chapter of the EA. When considering mitigation projects local projects are always preferred. Historic Several comments related to the Airport Ranch, a potentially eligible property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Properties. Impacts on this resource will be examined in the Environmental Assessment based on 1050.1F, including the impacts of the runway relocation 80 feet to the west (closer to the property). Construction Waste Some comments addressed the question of construction impacts. Construction impacts will be included in the EA, including potential impacts on the local landfill. Timing Several comments addressed the timing question. Proposed timing is construction of the terminal being completed in 2022, with the runway shift being completed by 2027. Support Area One question asked for a clarification on what GA Support Area meant. Support area includes elements such as parking, roadways and other necessary elements that help support General Aviation activities Explain MOD MOD refers to the modification of standards that ASE currently operates under. It is a modification to the FAA design standards limiting aircraft to a 95 foot wingspan to account for the non-standard runway/taxiway separation. January 19TH Aspen Comments Surface Transportation Analyze impacts to capacity, capital and operating costs for RFTA given increase in service needed Analyze levels of service impacts on intersections and on HWY 82 with increase in vehicle trips anticipated. How many additional bus trips are required to address need? Identify opportunities to maximize public transit options A key goal is to maintain ADT into Aspen at 1993 levels. This will require shifting more trips to transit, HOV, etc. How will this impact RFTA? Can we really accommodate all these vehicle trips? What does this do to peak hour/peak period congestion? How does this impact character/quality of life or community? What are the ADTs on 82 from AABC past the S curves in each scenario? Terminal Area Improvements Focus on function and efficiency to minimize impact. Please involve Airport planning experts from commercial operators. Noise Walls should be designed to absorb rather than just reflect sound For aesthetics + sound absorption use more landscape than hardscape in wall design Design wall length to assure that sound doesn’t travel around edges. Noise Impacts greatest @Burlingame Seasonal and adjacent apts. Consider impacts and mitigation. Analysis should consider impacts of single event and overall noise levels (beyond DNL levels) on surrounding neighborhoods. Air Quality Has the air quality at the airport been measured on a regular basis? Review lighting levels (IE: The 2 new light poles at de-icing?) per previous discussion w/John Kinney (Meg from Starwood – let her know) I am concerned about increased air pollution. Meeting national standards is not adequate for this unique valley. Water Resources Drainage: Storm-water landscape filtration options (and fuel spill containment) . Comments from September 29th Public and CIC Meetings EA Building Concepts Evaluation Criteria CIC Meeting Card #1 “Do not preclude extending SH82 pedestrian tunnel from extending into terminal” Card #2 "Need to plane view and roof" - regarding Optimizing Views "Energy with windows?" - regarding Sustainable Design "Great"- regarding Prioritizing the Passenger Experience "Green roof?"- regarding Being A Good Neighbor "Can this be built onto?" - regarding Build It Once, Build It Right Card #4 "Dk - Don't know from Schematic” regarding Sustainable Design and Being A Good Neighbor "Impacts to community, traffic, food, hotels, energy should be modeled as soon as feasible. Train to train, Evs for rent Leave models on display at Library, encourage public input." Card #5 "Design the terminal to, at least, be capable of incorporating public transportation into it for a system to Aspen (3.0 mi) and underneath the new runway/or a system to Two Creeks (3.2 mi)" Card #6 "Build it out 140k!"- regarding Build It Once, Build It Right Card #7 "Concept 2 with parking at lower grade is favorable from Hwy 82" Card #8 "Not enough information" regarding Sustainable Design Card #11 "Love the Patio" regarding Strong Indoor-Outdoor Relationship for the Pavilion. "The volume of the ridge concept allows for expansive views, enhancing indoor-outdoor relationship. I feel this would be beneficial during periods of "holding". “While I love the terrace of the Pavilion option, given that hold periods are primarily during bad weather, would use of these spaces be optimized during passenger delays?” “Sustainable design - pavilion is likely more sustainable because of the stacked floors. Less volume to condition" Card #12 "Not important to me” regarding Optimizing Views “Too much glass on both buildings. ASE visitors got the view during their stay in ASE. Not important @the Airport. Would happily trade views for more energy efficient designs". Public Meeting Card #1 "Ridge plan sits into site better; less grading. Ridge plan is also much cooler. Inspiring sculptural architecture is awesome without being over the top". Card #4 "Pavilion roof should be green color" Card #6 "Love the plaza on the pavilion. Love the openness of the ridge - great design. I like the idea of optimizing the space by lowering the grade of the pavilion design" Comments from Aspen CIC Meeting and Public Meetings September 29th – October 25th, 2016 1.2 Purpose and Need: Runway Improvements “Purpose: To have a great airport that provides excellent service and work environment” “Cannot remain as is + be world class resort” “Let’s make an appropriate first impression!” “This would be terrible” regarding the Airport diverting to business jets. “No Action represents economic harm long term – not really an option” “Our Airport is our entrance & introduction to Aspen/Snowmass” “Purpose- A great welcome and send-off to locals and visitors. A positive airport experience is part of the goal” 1.3 Background: Terminal Area Improvements “Put as much parking underground as feasible. Work with G.A. in partnership. Explore venue ops for UGround parking.” “No!” 1.5 Terminal Sizing “Design for best service for customer” “Please build (arrow up) the infrastructure to support this number. We don’t want to have to do this again”. “Please build it sized for long-term use. Not just for today” 2.3 Analysis: Visual Background “YES!!” arrow points to Build it Once, Build it Right “Helps with sense of place. Keep outdoor walkways. No Jetways” 3.1 Building Concepts, Layout 1, The Ridge “I like this one better- not worried about views to Red Mtn” “No more lights on 82” 3.2 Building Concepts, Layout 1, The Ridge “Size for future and greatness. Worry less about size and more about greatness” “9.29.16. Is the large amount of glass energy efficient + sustainable?” “360 degree views from inside not that important” “I love this concept- let’s build it w/two fixes!” “I like the native plants” “Very airy & open – I like it” “Prefers the expanse of interior space” “Remove curbside roof cold/icy” “This design is contemporary. Take in future design aesthetics” “Great architecture a must. World renowned” “Max practical glass and views” “Now ticketed people have direct view space – even if small to tarmac” “Love that you can see through bldg. to planes & views” 3.3 “Add green roof to this one to lessen visual impact from afar” “Not concerned about size of building” 4.1 Building Concepts, Concept 2, “The Pavilion” “What is going to happen when aircraft expand again – will new runway accommodate? When might this occur?” “One separated grade intersection on 82” “No traffic lights” “Direct access to ABC” 4.2 Building Concepts, Concept 2, “The Pavilion” “Ok with a larger terminal. Let’s take care of our guests and locals!” “NET ZERO ENERGY!” “South facing glass will effect heating/cooling” “Little darker feel with this concept” “Size doesn’t matter – as big as needs to be for superb service in the future” “Goal: Beyond Leeds platinum” “Set international standard” “Angles on glass is a good idea to reduce reflectivity” “Overhang on north side makes interior a little darker” 4.3 Building Concepts, Concept 2, “The Pavilion” “Prefer the pavilion – green roof, green space. Would like to solar on site, roof & off site” Model “This is a lot smaller than I thought it would be” Online Meeting 1)Did we miss any community priorities in the concepts above? “Neither concept represents the character, values, culture and history of the communities it will serve. Both are way too contemporary for me. They look like the "flavor of the month" and I am concerned these designs will look dated by the time the project is completed (pg 8). You are wasting millions on over building an airport that will never have much traffic. It is ridiculous” (pg 16). 2) Take a look at the map above and let us know if you have any other comments about the relocation of the Owl Creek bike path and road? There appears to be a section of the bike path that could still be used to connect two sections of the relocation (pg 8). Why can’t we use a partially covered road with the bike path above in the open space. If it’s done that way the large retaining wall would not be visible. Make it similar to the mountain roads in Europe that are covered because of rock fall and or avalanches (pg 11). 3) No significant energy or natural resource impacts would likely result from airport improvements. Do you have other comments about the impacts on natural resource and energy? I would support using energy efficient and or renewable options in the terminal (pg 9). 4)The Alternatives are not expected to significantly change the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials and solid waste. Do you have any other comments about the impacts of hazardous materials and pollution prevention? Recycle as much of the construction waste as possible (pg 9). Comments from Aspen CIC Meeting Summary Comments Date: February 23rd, 2015 Below is a summary of those comments, as well as photos from the committee meeting. Sense of Place Themes  Qualities  Maximizing view of natural environment  “Everyone has a window seat”  Organic and warm – not boxy  Panoramic, yet intimate  Celebrate the arrival and departure experience  Indoor/outdoor connectivity  Small town feel  Features  Observation areas  Exterior gathering places  Examples of “Likes”  Airport Operations Center, Music School, Basalt Library, Woody Creek Community Center, Jackson Hole Airport Terminal, Palm Springs Terminal, Bozeman Airport Terminal 1 Sustainability Themes  Leadership in sustainability  Education  Operations  Technology  Outdoor connectivity  Connectivity to the community  Built for the long-term 2 i BOUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Neighborhood Compatibility Themes  Gateway experience  First and last experience in Aspen  Views to capture the essence of the area  Experience aviation  Noise and light sensitivities  Continue special programs, and look for ways to integrate  Transportation options and connectivity  Visual clarity between connections and ease of use  Balanced  Economic lifeline of community  Balance growth with being a good neighbor  Reflective of Aspen character 4 Passenger Experience Themes  Simplicity and efficiency  Love the existing ease of access/short distances  Keep the old Aspen flavor – small community feel  Convenience and comfort  Lack of space  Lack of amenities  Technology  Providing passenger comforts during peak times and excessive delays  Community connectivity  Aspen related experience  Outdoor feel 5 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM As with any public comment process, participation in Pitkin County Connect is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 86 All Responses: 13 Minutes of Public Comment: 39 This topic started on April 17, 2015, 10:20 AM. This topic ended on May 15, 2015, 3:41 PM. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 2 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Responses 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. Answered 11 Skipped 2 airport all aspen billboard billboards community could county displays down feel from guests history how like local make mcbride more mountain one place public sense some space t terminal than they town visitor ads advertising instead s step visitors windows 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. Answered 8 Skipped 5 all art aspen basalt building except how leading let library museum music out perhaps question reflect s use 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? Answered 8 Skipped 5 all approach aspen balance experience good other over reflect see things understated which wise Name not available (unclaimed) May 15, 2015, 2:49 PM All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 3 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. No Response _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. No Response 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? No Response All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 4 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not available (unclaimed) May 11, 2015, 12:15 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. One of the first things you see at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport when you step off a plane is the mountains. Walking to the terminal, sniffing the mountain air, the typical visitor knows they have arrived in Aspen. They feel a unique sense of place from the surroundings. Step inside the terminal, however, and our “guests” fall prey to a sterile, commercial blitz. Walls of advertising greet visitors with come-ons for Rolex, real estate, Audi and more. Is Aspen a mountain community with a rich history surrounded by the wonders of nature? Or are we Armani of Aspen, Prada of Pitkin and Rolex of the Roaring Fork? In a recent letter to the county commissioners, John McBride lamented the commercialized “Howdy!” experienced at the airport. McBride equates the backlit, flashy signs with highway billboards. Aspen and Pitkin County were enlightened enough to ban billboards decades ago in order to protect cherished views of the mountains from commercial blinders. “How ironic,” McBride wrote, “how contradictory that the same county that implemented this measure allows billboard advertising throughout one public space — their own county airport. They are everywhere in the airport — some 10 feet by 20 feet, some flashing, changing messages — selling cars, jewelry, houses, condos, etc., etc. “It is, I believe, a double standard for the county to stop billboard advertising visible from all public roads only to have it throughout their own public airport.” McBride makes an excellent point. Not only do airport ads create a visual context of commercialism; they also form a blatant first impression to our guests. Billboards in our airport are meant to target tourists. As soon as they step off the plane, our resort guests are hit with a commercialized message that Aspen is for sale. Under this arrangement, Aspen is less a community than it is a commodity. The message is money — about spending oodles of it on conspicuous consumption. Tourists become marks. Aspen is cheapened. Were these ads promoting local, cottage-industry businesses, then some promotion would be valid to share products that contain local flavor. But the current ads are high-end, generic and ubiquitous. They are seen everywhere, worldwide. There is nothing local about them. McBride suggested something different. Instead of greeting arrivals with commercialized sales pitches, how about providing displays that describe the character of our community, the nature of our environment, the history of our region and the sense of place we hope visitors latch onto? “Instead of commercialism,” McBride wrote, “wouldn’t it be great if our airport walls were covered with photos from the past — a museum of our own unique history? “There could be an area of mining and ranching from the turn of the last century. There could be an exhibit on skiing and the music tent and the Aspen Institute. Perhaps the Discovery Center could have an area. And our All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 5 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? music background, instead of playing hip-hop or rock, could feature actual recordings from the music tent or from Jazz Aspen.” How do generic ads for high-end products enrich the visitor experience? Not at all. They water down local color by pandering to consumerism. They neglect the values of the community, which could be highlighted through artful displays from the Aspen Historical Society, displays that also can strike a sense of pride for locals. Aspen is a beautiful place because of the mountains and the community. Every time I step off a plane, I want to kiss the ground in gratitude for this place, only to shade my eyes from the displays of consumption once I’m inside the terminal. Billboards block views with dubious commercial banners. Let’s not block the views of the heart and soul of Aspen for visitors and locals by confronting them with indoor billboards. More thoughtful, artful displays may actually inspire with depictions of the nature and culture of our beautiful setting and our richly endowed valley. “The airport could become a place to be proud of,” McBride summed up, “not just another marketing maze. God knows we have enough of that everywhere else.” _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. No Response 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? No Response All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 6 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not available (unclaimed) May 11, 2015, 12:13 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. One of My visions is an airport that doesn't look and feel like an electronic in your face real estate brochure. First impression about aspen is that everything is for sale and the aspen way is buy buy expensive stuff. Worse than arriving in Geneva. Frankly depressing. The public airport should not be a billboard for excess. Don't let the new terminal replicate the message that exists today. The County and the City have very conservative advertising guidelines and fortunately so. Otherwise the Hiway 82 corridor and town itself would be a billboard nightmare. Question then- why does the Pitkin County Airport allow such brazen advertising in its terminal? Is there a County approved different advertising standard for this public space because it's indoors? Does an Enterprise fund have a lower set of standards for its management of public spaces?Seems a bit duplicitous at a minimum. Is it the billboard revenue that trumps the aesthetic that we have all supported for so long? _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. No Response 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? No Response All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 7 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not shown inside District 1 (on forum) May 6, 2015, 1:02 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. I like the idea of stepping off the plane to the open air vs. jetway for the small town feel and almost more importantly, for the open design that will continue to allow for the waiting areas…big windows looking out to the mountains and the sky. In general, I'm not a fan of the flat roof modern style building although I imagine it may be easier/less expensive to build. I'd like to see more of that Mountain feel in the building like structures at the base of Highlands. At the very least, more wood inside and out! Less advertising and monitors everywhere!! Folks are trying to leave that behind when they come here. More pretty pictures and guides to what they can find here…maybe even one of those 3 dimensional relief type maps that you sometimes stand around at visitor centers…those give such a good sense of where everything is to even the most mapped challenged visitor! Like this one…http://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/photogallery/pwr/park/mora/ECFAAFEA-155D-45193EEEF4E8D9F6A8FB/ECFAAFEA-155D-4519-3EEEF4E8D9F6A8FB.jpg In fact, a lot of the elements of that Sunrise Visitor Center at Mount Rainer could be borrowed…displays of that style illustrating the mining history here, etc. Certainly one space that is rough and rugged like that visitor center vs. the polished LA feel that a lot of Aspen interiors are adopting…I don't think that look is as enduring as some think. _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. The one building out of that list that strikes a cord with me is the Basalt Public Library. The tall windows are amazing! That balanced with some sloped roof surfaces vs. flat and lots of wood and stone! 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? I would say Colorado Rocky Mountains hands down as not all travelers are coming specifically for the "Aspen" experience which I think, architecturally is getting a bit too modern for my taste. I imagine some clever planners/architects can strike a good balance between rough n' rugged and slightly sleek! Maybe one extreme to the other on the inside with a good continuous balance on the outside. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 8 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Ziska Childs inside District 1 (on forum) April 27, 2015, 12:33 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. After the presentation in March at the Limelight Lodge: 1. The most valuable asset for our guests is the view. Our visitors should be connected to that view from the second the wheels touch down. This means no jetways, large windows, no entry through underground parking. 2. The Aspen brand is green. We need to counter our reputation for excess with conservation and green practices. This is not optional- for *any* of our buildings. 3. Make this a year round facility. There should be uses during the off-season- like meeting space- which would be equally valuable during season as meeting rooms for our Guests who have been delayed due to weather. 4. Make this a destination in itself. Showcase local artists and rotate the shows like the San Francisco airport does. Have food choices equal or better than to those in town (maybe invite some down valley talent in like "Town") Help alleviate wait room boredom with learning opportunities about Aspen ("Fire on the Mountain" on the monitors instead of endless CNN, a display with Betty Phister's WWII uniform, Warren Miller Films, high end ski and outdoor industry retail - with boot fittings - maybe an indoor ski hill) 5. To repeat: No jetways. Walking out of an airplane down stairs immediately lets our Guests know that Aspen has a slower pace than where they normally live. We should not try and be the same as LAX we should be greener, more personal and friendlier. It's a "boutique" airport. _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. See answer #1- It's all about the view. 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? See answer #1 "We should not try and be the same as LAX we should be greener, more personal and friendlier. It's a "boutique" airport." This is our "first impression" of Aspen. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 9 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not shown inside District 5 (on forum) April 25, 2015, 7:10 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. It is extremely important the new building be in context, there is generally a desire to build something as big as will be permitted, the current airport is an operational chore but is loved just as it is for size and context. _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. The Basalt library is a phenomenal building. The art museum is completely out of context hence the generally poor feelings towards it. 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? If at all possible the building should attempt to return to an understated approach to things, things in Aspen are generally over sized, and over stated, personality wise and square footage wise, it would be nice to see a modest understated approach which reflects a lot of the silent majority. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 10 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not available (unclaimed) April 18, 2015, 10:48 AM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. Keep it simple and cheap. No global green nonsense _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. No Response 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? No Response All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 11 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? DAVE NIXA inside District 4 (on forum) April 18, 2015, 6:23 AM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. Aspen is a unique destination for our visitors and as a place to live. The design and construction should respect and reflect the historical legacy and natural beauty of our community, be a modern experience but not be more than what it is, a center for tranportation in our out of a small town. We aren't Denver. Make it memorable not a monument, make it functional not ostentatious, have it reflect and encourage our environmental values and natural surroundings. _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. Sort of a leading question with these examples. The art museum is art, this is not. Most of these building reflect an element of their use and have a somewhat modern flare except perhaps the Aspen Institute, but none really reflect what the Airport is, a center for transportation. Can't we think a bit more about how it fits into the environment and still provides for it primary function and use. How have others approached this issue? Let's make it environmentally friendly, easy to use and maintain, but welcoming. The current terminal has a small town feel and is very accessible. Let's stay with these themes. 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? Certainly Aspen to Carbondale, and reflect our mining, agricultural, recreational and environmental heritage as well. Denver has the Rockies covered. Look to Cincinnati and other examples that reflect their history and also provide for a contemporary experience. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 12 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not shown inside District 2 (on forum) April 17, 2015, 11:43 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. Exciting architecture, relating to the natural environment, something in the modernist tradition of the Aspen Institute would be great. Should be a signature building. _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. This is perhaps an unfortunately leading question, with the Aspen Art Museum as the likely response. Actually, they are all authentically part of Aspen as it has changed and evolved over the years. 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? Aspen. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 13 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not shown inside District 2 (on forum) April 17, 2015, 9:40 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. Well designed, low, fit into landscape, small feeling, not grand or "historic" looking, integrate outdoors(I.e. See through the windows to the outdoors), use of solar, lots of public art, very few real estate ads! _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. All except the art myse reflect an aspect of aspen and the valley 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? Aspen to Basalt...rooted in historic references, but a forward looking vision/attitude All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 14 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not available (unclaimed) April 17, 2015, 4:06 PM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. The revolving ad space that exists today shows restaurants, art galleries, etc. More shots of kids playing at the Wagner Park Playground as well as old and current skiing photos would be good as well. _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. Wheeler Opera House, Yes Hotel Jerome, Yes Maroon Bells, Yes Music Tent, Yes Aspen Music School Campus, Yes Aspen Art Museum, No Mountain Rescue, No 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? All of the above. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 15 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not shown inside District 5 (on forum) April 17, 2015, 10:31 AM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. Make it useful, efficient in moving passengers, and more comfortable than at present. The windows show all the "sense of place" needed. _ 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. Art museum. Art museum. Art museum. 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? No. Just make it open and easy to use. All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 16 of 17 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Terminal-Environmental Assessment How should the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport terminal reflect our community values? Name not available (unclaimed) April 10, 2015, 10:04 AM 1. What makes an authentic experience? Examples could include: small town feel, importance of the outdoors, art integrated, non-commercialized, etc. No Response 2. What buildings or landmarks do or do not exemplify this experience? Examples could include both positive and negative examples such as: the Mountain Rescue Station, the Aspen Chapel, the Aspen Music School, the Aspen Art Museum, Basalt Public Library, Aspen Institute. No Response 3. Should the airport reflect Aspen, the Roaring Fork Valley, or the Rocky Mountains? No Response All Responses sorted chronologically As of May 19, 2015, 11:12 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/2636 Page 17 of 17 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM Pitkin County Connect is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Pitkin County Connect is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 53 Registered Responses: 4 All Responses: 9 Minutes of Public Comment: 27 This topic started on September 30, 2016, 12:45 PM. All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 2 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Responses How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 1? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship % Count 1 - Unacceptable 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 33.3% 1 5 - Great! 33.3% 1 Reflecting Community Vision % Count 1 - Unacceptable 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 33.3% 1 5 - Great! 33.3% 1 Optimizing Views % Count 3 - Acceptable 66.7% 2 5 - Great! 33.3% 1 Sustainable Design % Count 1 - Unacceptable 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 33.3% 1 5 - Great! 33.3% 1 Prioritizing the Passenger Experience All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 3 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? % Count 3 - Acceptable 66.7% 2 5 - Great! 33.3% 1 Being A Good Neighbor % Count 3 - Acceptable 66.7% 2 5 - Great! 33.3% 1 Build It Once, Build It Right % Count 1 - Unacceptable 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 33.3% 1 5 - Great! 33.3% 1 How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 2? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship % Count 1 - Unacceptable 66.7% 2 4 - Good 33.3% 1 Reflecting Community Vision % Count 1 - Unacceptable 33.3% 1 2 - Marginal 33.3% 1 4 - Good 33.3% 1 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 4 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Optimizing Views % Count 2 - Marginal 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 33.3% 1 4 - Good 33.3% 1 Sustainable Design % Count 2 - Marginal 66.7% 2 3 - Acceptable 33.3% 1 Prioritizing the Passenger Experience % Count 2 - Marginal 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 66.7% 2 Being A Good Neighbor % Count 2 - Marginal 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 66.7% 2 Build It Once, Build It Right % Count 1 - Unacceptable 33.3% 1 2 - Marginal 33.3% 1 3 - Acceptable 33.3% 1 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 5 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Did we miss any community priorities in the concepts above? Answered 2 Skipped 2 look Take a look at the map above and let us know if you have any other comments about the relocation of the Owl Creek bike path and road? Answered 2 Skipped 2 bike path Outside of a ranch, no other historic or culturally significant properties have been identified. Do you have other comments about historical resources in the area? No response No significant energy or natural resource impacts would likely result from airport improvements. Do you have other comments about the impacts on natural resources and energy? Answered 1 Skipped 3 energy The Alternatives are not expected to significantly change the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials and solid waste. Do you have any other comments about the impacts of hazardous materials and pollution prevention? Answered 1 Skipped 3 All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 6 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Bob Sirkus inside District 4 October 20, 2016, 12:21 PM Please take a look at the two airport terminal concept ‘visualizations’ below. These concepts have been further designed from the ‘lego block’ concepts we showed you previously to actual architectural renderings. These renderings were created from feedback we received from you earlier in this process. We’d like you to score these concepts based on what you’ve told us is most important to you in a new terminal facility. Have we missed anything? Concept 1 "The Ridge" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 1 "The Ridge" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 1? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship: 1 - Unacceptable Reflecting Community Vision: 1 - Unacceptable Optimizing Views: 3 - Acceptable Sustainable Design: 1 - Unacceptable Prioritizing the Passenger Experience: 3 - Acceptable Being A Good Neighbor: 3 - Acceptable Build It Once, Build It Right: 1 - Unacceptable Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 7 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 2? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship: 1 - Unacceptable Reflecting Community Vision: 2 - Marginal Optimizing Views: 3 - Acceptable Sustainable Design: 2 - Marginal Prioritizing the Passenger Experience: 3 - Acceptable Being A Good Neighbor: 3 - Acceptable Build It Once, Build It Right: 1 - Unacceptable Did we miss any community priorities in the concepts above? Neither concept represents the character, values, culture and history of the communities it will serve. Both are way too contemporary for me. They look like the "flavor of the month" and I am concerned these designs will look dated by the time the project is completed. Take a look at the map above and let us know if you have any other comments about the relocation of the Owl Creek bike path and road? there appears to be a section of the bike path that could still be used to connect two sections of the relocation. Outside of a ranch, no other historic or culturally significant properties have been identified. Do you have other comments about historical resources in the area? No response All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 8 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? No significant energy or natural resource impacts would likely result from airport improvements. Do you have other comments about the impacts on natural resources and energy? i would support using energy efficient and or renewable energy options in the terminal. The Alternatives are not expected to significantly change the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials and solid waste. Do you have any other comments about the impacts of hazardous materials and pollution prevention? recycle as much of the construction waste as possible Note that additional resources such as noise, air quality, etc. will be addressed in a future outreach effort once analysis is completed All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 9 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Andrew Doremus inside District 1 October 4, 2016, 11:59 AM Please take a look at the two airport terminal concept ‘visualizations’ below. These concepts have been further designed from the ‘lego block’ concepts we showed you previously to actual architectural renderings. These renderings were created from feedback we received from you earlier in this process. We’d like you to score these concepts based on what you’ve told us is most important to you in a new terminal facility. Have we missed anything? Concept 1 "The Ridge" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 1 "The Ridge" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 1? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship: 3 - Acceptable Reflecting Community Vision: 3 - Acceptable Optimizing Views: 3 - Acceptable Sustainable Design: 3 - Acceptable Prioritizing the Passenger Experience: 3 - Acceptable Being A Good Neighbor: 3 - Acceptable Build It Once, Build It Right: 3 - Acceptable Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 10 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 2? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship: 4 - Good Reflecting Community Vision: 4 - Good Optimizing Views: 4 - Good Sustainable Design: 3 - Acceptable Prioritizing the Passenger Experience: 3 - Acceptable Being A Good Neighbor: 3 - Acceptable Build It Once, Build It Right: 3 - Acceptable Did we miss any community priorities in the concepts above? No response Take a look at the map above and let us know if you have any other comments about the relocation of the Owl Creek bike path and road? Why can't we use a partially cover road with the bike path above in the open space. If it's done that way the large retaining wall would not be visible. Make it similar to the mountain roads in Europe that are covered because of rock fall and or avalanches. Outside of a ranch, no other historic or culturally significant properties have been identified. Do you have other comments about historical resources in the area? No response All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 11 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? No significant energy or natural resource impacts would likely result from airport improvements. Do you have other comments about the impacts on natural resources and energy? No response The Alternatives are not expected to significantly change the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials and solid waste. Do you have any other comments about the impacts of hazardous materials and pollution prevention? No response Note that additional resources such as noise, air quality, etc. will be addressed in a future outreach effort once analysis is completed All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 12 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Name not shown inside District 2 October 3, 2016, 1:21 PM Please take a look at the two airport terminal concept ‘visualizations’ below. These concepts have been further designed from the ‘lego block’ concepts we showed you previously to actual architectural renderings. These renderings were created from feedback we received from you earlier in this process. We’d like you to score these concepts based on what you’ve told us is most important to you in a new terminal facility. Have we missed anything? Concept 1 "The Ridge" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 1 "The Ridge" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 1? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship: 5 - Great! Reflecting Community Vision: 5 - Great! Optimizing Views: 5 - Great! Sustainable Design: 5 - Great! Prioritizing the Passenger Experience: 5 - Great! Being A Good Neighbor: 5 - Great! Build It Once, Build It Right: 5 - Great! Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 13 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 2? Strong Indoor - Outdoor Relationship: 1 - Unacceptable Reflecting Community Vision: 1 - Unacceptable Optimizing Views: 2 - Marginal Sustainable Design: 2 - Marginal Prioritizing the Passenger Experience: 2 - Marginal Being A Good Neighbor: 2 - Marginal Build It Once, Build It Right: 2 - Marginal Did we miss any community priorities in the concepts above? No response Take a look at the map above and let us know if you have any other comments about the relocation of the Owl Creek bike path and road? No response Outside of a ranch, no other historic or culturally significant properties have been identified. Do you have other comments about historical resources in the area? No response No significant energy or natural resource impacts would likely result from airport improvements. Do you have other comments about the impacts on natural resources and energy? All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 14 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? No response The Alternatives are not expected to significantly change the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials and solid waste. Do you have any other comments about the impacts of hazardous materials and pollution prevention? No response Note that additional resources such as noise, air quality, etc. will be addressed in a future outreach effort once analysis is completed All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 15 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? william bernstein inside District 5 October 3, 2016, 1:14 PM Please take a look at the two airport terminal concept ‘visualizations’ below. These concepts have been further designed from the ‘lego block’ concepts we showed you previously to actual architectural renderings. These renderings were created from feedback we received from you earlier in this process. We’d like you to score these concepts based on what you’ve told us is most important to you in a new terminal facility. Have we missed anything? Concept 1 "The Ridge" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 1 "The Ridge" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 1? No response Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Perspectives Click to download PDF Concept 2 "The Pavilion" Neighborhood Views Click to download PDF How did we do on incorporating community priorities into Concept 2? No response Did we miss any community priorities in the concepts above? you are wasting millions on over building an airport that will never have much traffic. it is ridiculous. All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 16 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Take a look at the map above and let us know if you have any other comments about the relocation of the Owl Creek bike path and road? No response Outside of a ranch, no other historic or culturally significant properties have been identified. Do you have other comments about historical resources in the area? No response No significant energy or natural resource impacts would likely result from airport improvements. Do you have other comments about the impacts on natural resources and energy? No response The Alternatives are not expected to significantly change the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials and solid waste. Do you have any other comments about the impacts of hazardous materials and pollution prevention? No response All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 17 of 18 Aspen Airport EA We're completing an Environmental Assessment for potential redevelopment of the Aspen Airport. Have we missed anything? Note that additional resources such as noise, air quality, etc. will be addressed in a future outreach effort once analysis is completed All Registered Responses sorted chronologically As of October 25, 2016, 12:44 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/4048 Page 18 of 18 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM As with any public comment process, participation in Pitkin County Connect is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 80 All Statements: 9 Minutes of Public Comment: 27 This topic started on February 10, 2016, 3:24 PM. This topic ended on March 31, 2016, 4:09 PM. All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 2 of 5 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? Name not available (unclaimed) March 25, 2016, 1:12 PM That it fit in, in relation to the size of the valley and not overwhelm everything around it. There are housing both for locals and 2nd home owners, a ski area, and businesses located nearby. We all must drive by it constantly. It needs to be an airport that serves a small valley and Historic town not the other way around. If it changes the character of the area negatively it will diminish the very reason it is being proposed. It will degrade the tourist and local experience, and the future attractiveness of the area. Lowered attractiveness translates to less business in the future not more. That it not take open space. Open Space should be inviolate. It is inviolate from an individual citizen and should be under the same rules for the Government. The same with large buildings. They are despised if proposed by an individual and should be despised for the same reasons for a government building. Maybe even more as an example to everyone. The old structure used solar originally which was a statement about what is part of the Aspen character, we care for the environment and want to lead in this arena. Noise is an issue and hasn't been dealt with well enough yet. It should absolutely be addressed and the most helpful mitigating items should be installed be it sound barriers or whatever. Beauty and landscaping should be first class. The trees there now are specimen quality and should be replaced with specimen quality. My main environmental concern is that the airport is going to alter the environment too much and it won't resemble what we have today. One more feather off the goose! John Bennett inside District 5 (on forum) March 23, 2016, 3:06 PM My Top Four Concerns: 1. The new terminal should be as small as possible (given our average passenger volume) and designed to (A) conserve energy and (B) reflect the traditional small town character, beauty, charm and uniqueness of Aspen and Pitkin County. It's absolutely okay for the terminal to feel a little crowded on the busiest day of the year. 2. Runway expansion should be avoided if it opens the door to commercial 737 flights. That idea was voted down by a 2-to-1 margin last time and would likely be defeated by a similar vote today. Nothing would degrade our community character more quickly than the noise and industrial tourism symbolized by "heavy metal" commercial aircraft. 3. The airport's parking and rental car policy should be designed to lure people out of their cars and into mass transit, preferably some form of fun and comfortable fixed guideway system into Aspen. 4. Let's get rid of the marketing billboards that clutter today's terminal and replace them with flowers, art and educational materials designed to inform and excite our visitors about the upper valley's arts & culture, commitment to reducing climate change, recreational opportunities, colorful history and refreshing uniqueness. In short, let's give our residents and visitors a terminal that reflects the beauty of our valley and the highest values of our community – something to make us all truly proud! Name not shown inside District 3 (on forum) March 22, 2016, 7:25 PM All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 3 of 5 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? My concern is that this project exceeds what is strictly necessary, creates an unneeded parking structure, and utterly fails to incorporate public transit. There is no need for more parking and rental cars should be eliminated from the airport. Additionally, there should be some sort of statement regarding whether this plan assumes some sort of expansion of existing operations (as the parking would suggest). None of the County Commissioners are frequent flyers, so some perspective from some who do would be helpful. I fly at least twice a month, sometimes more, and have lived here for about twenty-five years. I see no need for huge expansion, especially around parking. The current ads in the airport are an eyesore. If that's where the BOCC is going with all of this, then we should stop all of this now. Name not shown inside District 4 (on forum) March 17, 2016, 3:37 PM I hear people talk about needing expansion so that we can continue to grow.......aren't we pretty much at capacity in many respects? We no longer are the unique, charming little ski town with interesting shops. The greedy landlords have priced out the local shops and replaced them with shops you can go to in any city. Don't get me wrong....we still have one of the most beautiful, safe and fun places in the world to call home but I no longer go into town to find a unique gift or relaxing cup of coffee. For the majority of our guests, the first and last impression of Aspen/Snowmass is at our airport. Let's keep that a charming and friendly place. I do see the need for a newer and more efficient commercial terminal. A two story building , with adequate underground parking, would be good. The restaurant, bar and shops could be on the upper level and would create a better calmness during the weather and crazy days. As for the widening of the runway, I am very much against any plan that causes us to relocate Owl Creek Road and the bike path. The Teacup might be a good idea if an aircraft needs to move off the end of the runway, rare, and the taxiway is full but if it causes Owl Creek Road to be moved then I think we should maybe look at alternative options. The noise during the high seasons, with 34 commercial flights a day along with the private aircraft, is to be expected. We seem to want all of the aircraft to come in but we don't want to hear them? It's the visual implications of more, more and more that are my deepest concerns. Name not available (unclaimed) March 8, 2016, 9:50 AM What are my top 4 environmental concerns? How about just one? Widening the runway will INCREASE the number of aircraft coming into the airport by allowing bigger planes to land here. That will INCREASE the County's carbon footprint and INCREASE the noise in the Valley. This is all very bad and NOT what most of the citizens want. How can the Aspen Skiing Company support this? Isn't carbon killing our snow? Growing the airport will also make it much more likely that commercial flights will be delayed with all the increased private aircraft use. It is simple math, if it is bad now it will be worse with more private planes. We have heard that we will lose commercial service before and miraculously aircraft were "qualified" to come in. The new pro-growth agenda that Pitkin County and the new LAX airport manager have taken up is not going to make the community better. Enough development! Name not shown inside District 5 (on forum) March 8, 2016, 7:39 AM All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 4 of 5 Environmental Considerations of Proposed Airport Improvements What are your top 4 environmental concerns regarding a proposed new terminal and runway widening/reconfiguration at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport? to reduce environmental impact best to do this job right the first time to avoid need for new future projects. population and air traffic not likely to grow. better airport may reduce flight cancellations which unnecessarily waste aviation fuel and auto fuel of failed travelers. all else is nonsense. Name not shown inside District 3 (on forum) March 1, 2016, 2:25 PM Please give due heavy consideration even beyond the areas listed; for instance beyond just woody crk, star mesa, white star ranch all suffer planes repeatedly lining up above our homes as well as disobeying existing air space airport rules and coming in at different angles as well (helicopters, fixed wings, gliders etc). The visual blight is as bad as the noise which is becoming more and more formidable already without addition and expansion. Jet fuel odor can now be detected, too. Is this what a rural area deserves here in paradise? May result in an inordinate property value devaluation eventually, also. Has anyone looked up from a McLain Flats meadow and seen literally hundreds of contrails mid day? Not such a very pretty site in our blue skies. We fervently hope for single story building, keep footprint as small as possible as bigger is not always better. Is public transport area appropriately sized or do we want more cars, more taxies, more congestion, more exhaust? We used to see early AM owls and various wide life right off the planes in the 70's. Where are they now? Are you building any ways into the plane to be sure they are not harmed or run off further? Will Owl Creek Road ultimately be decimated by your plans down the road a few years? How sad this valley is becoming, maybe the UTES were right to settle a curse on the area, we deserve what we sow. Wake up planners-not too late? Remember the airport being a solar building back then? What happened to any forward approaches beyond the standard apo norm? Name not shown inside District 1 (on forum) February 27, 2016, 7:26 AM Any increase in air traffic or size of planes is asking for disaster and tragedy. Already the world's best musicians are insulted by having their performances punctuated by the noise of aircraft. One cannot take a hike anywhere in Colorado without having the peace of nature interrupted by aircraft. My morning coffee is being accompanied by the noise of jets as I write this. The major thing that preserved Aspen above other resorts was that it was difficult to get to. Let's leave this expansion on the table for later - much later. 1 Supporter bill hunt inside District 2 (on forum) February 19, 2016, 8:07 PM now is the time to stop further air quality loss. bring the environmental benefits of light rail to workers driving to aspen and to tourists, who are trying to escape traffic jams. build adequate underground parking so all can use our good (and improve it to world class) system. otherwise we become just another urban mistake and the shape of the airport building is irrelevant. 2 Supporters All Statements sorted chronologically As of March 31, 2016, 4:43 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3416 Page 5 of 5 Public Involvement - Presentations 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mead i COUNTY AIRPORT DE Work Session Objective  Kick-off the Eastside Terminal Environmental Assessment  Discuss schedule, milestones and process  Outline the proposed community involvement process Project Background  Master Plan recommended updates to the Eastside due to:  Terminal Area and Eastside deficiencies  Apron issues  Operational issues  Roadway/connectivity issues  Master Plan described solutions to these issues  The Environmental Assessment will analyze the potential environmental impacts Proposed Action – Eastside Redevelopment  Terminal Area Re-development, including new terminal building, transit center and ancillary auto parking, roadway improvements, apron improvements, FBO relocation, noise wall and other ancillary projects  Will not change the classification of the airport  Will not change type of aircraft operating at the airport  Forecast of aircraft operations will be the same with or without project Pro osed Action Eastside Re evelopment inn 'u . Counrl" (- . a IKIN COLNIV AIRFORI v1 HIM I - . TEMINAL #1 '4 W. NOISENISUALBUF .5 "n I EXISTING FBO TERMINAL (TO BE RELOCATED) . I I . I GROUND SERVICE K. EQUIPMENT V, FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESS CONTROL PLAN GA HANGAR y. 'iv FUTURE FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK Purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA)  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of the environmental consequences of a federal action before the action is taken  An Environmental Assessment is prepared to determine if an environmental impact may occur in any of the NEPA defined categories  Provides an in-depth review of the potential environmental impacts for the proposed action and alternatives to those actions  Provides disclosure of the alternatives, potential impacts and potential mitigation to the public and decision makers Environmental Assessment Content  The Environmental Assessment will consist of the following key chapters:  Purpose and Need  Alternatives—Including the Proposed Action  Affected Environment  Potential Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and the Feasible and Prudent Alternatives  Potential Mitigation Measures Environmental Considerations  Categories to Evaluate Per FAA Order 1050.1E Include:  Air Quality/Climate  Costal Resources  Compatible Land Use  Construction Impacts  Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources  Light Emissions and Visual Impacts  Cumulative Impacts  Natural Resources and Energy Supply  Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f)  Noise  Farmlands  Fish, Wildlife, and Plants  Floodplains  Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste  Water Quality  Secondary (Induced) Impacts  Socioeconomics Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks  Wetlands  Wild and Scenic Rivers Responsible Parties  John Kinney/Airport Director  Aspen/Pitkin County Airport – (970) 429-2851  Ryk Dunkelberg/Project Director  Mead & Hunt – (918) 586-7272  Kate Andrus/Project Manager  Mead & Hunt – (303) 825-8852 2015 2016 2017 Project Elements JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Nov DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT Nov DEC JAN - Projectllickoff . I Terminal Alternatives Programming I Initial Terminal Planning I conceptual Terminal Design SCOPING AND PIE-PLANNING I lntennediateTenninaI Design I Purpose and Need I Alternative Development I Terminal Engineering Design to 25% I Affected Environment I Environmental Consequences lMitigation I FAA Review TimeFramePllASEl H?memeeP?ASEll comm AIRPORT 0 ?mm EASTSI DE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mead &Hunt i Unique Project Elements  Extensive Community/Public Workshops  Public Workshops, Coffee Chats/Small Group Meetings, Social Media Outreach  Extensive Study Input Committee Involvement  Detailed working sessions with the committee  Extensive Visioning/Design Concept Process  Maximum Allowable Architecture and Engineering Design, 25% Next Steps  Consider list of members for the Study Input Committee  February 10th work session to finalize committee list  Team Kick-off to finalize first meetings  Schedule Visioning Session and first Study Input Committee Meeting (Tentative Date: February 24th) Mead i COUNTY AIRPORT DE Update on the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements and EA Process September 2015 i AIRPURT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Ems- Meeting Objectives Explain what has changed since we last met and  how it will affect the overall EA project  Provide a background understanding of  proposed improvements  Understand the Environmental Assessment (EA)  process and how it relates to the updated  projects  Define next steps   Purpose of This Environmental  Assessment (EA)     The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires  consideration of the environmental consequences of a  federal action before the action is taken An Environmental Assessment is prepared to determine if a  significant environmental impact may occur Provides an in‐depth review of the environmental impacts  for the proposed action and alternatives to those actions Provides disclosure of the alternatives, impacts and  mitigation to the public and decision makers 2012 Master Plan  Recommendations   Premised on the continuation of the 95 foot wingspan restriction  and the Modification to Standards (MOD) for airfield  development granted by the FAA     MOD allowed ASE to operate with a 320 ft. runway taxiway separation 2012 Master Plan recommended development projects for both  the east side and the west side Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) developed for the Master Plan  recommended projects was feasible and fundable In August 2013 the FAA approved the Airport Layout Plan (ALP),  for east side and west side development with the exception of  the proposed future runway/taxiway separation of 320 feet on  the west side due to the fact that it did not meet FAA separation  standards. 2012 Master Plan – Continued    The ALP approval does not apply to the proposed  runway/taxiway separation distance of 320 feet on the  west side of Runway 15/33 FAA determined that the MOD allowing the 320 foot  separation on the west side was not acceptable and any  development had to meet separation standards (400 feet) BOCC undertook a Future Air Service Study to determine  the feasibility, consequences and costs to comply with the  400 foot runway to taxiway separation PROVE - RELOCATED EQUIPMENT BUILDING FUTURE INTERSECTION PER CDOT ACCESSACONTROL PLAN . . ?59. . EMERGENCY ME ICAL AIR AFT PARKINGIDEICE PAD FUTURE FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT . . . . . . I -- FUTUREROADIPARKING AREA RESERVED FOR . . -- DEVELOPMENT ?30 TIE-DOWNS . .. . GENERAL AVIATION A .. . . . SUPPORTAREA 5.AIRPORT OPERATION CENTERE . - . . . WIT MPROVEMEMTS AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE EBO I-IANGAR AND SHOP SENSITIVE AREA GAIFBO TERMINAL #2 SLOPE VISUALINOISE BUFFER CORRIDOR - ROADWAY SETBACK a POTEN11AL TRAIL Figure 6-1 Master Plan Update Recommended Improvement Plan - Future Air Service Study (2014)   ASE currently has a 95 ft. wingspan restriction in place based  on runway to taxiway separation distance Aircraft trends indicated that the Regional Jets with  wingspans less than 95 ft. will be phased out, with half of  the U.S. fleet retired by 2021    With wingspan restriction still in place, current air carriers would not  be able to operate at ASE with future fleet FAA will not allow another MOD to allow larger wingspan without ASE  meeting FAA standards of 400 feet separation  In order to have future air service at ASE, the FAA is requiring  the airfield to be brought into FAA compliance Future Air Service Study (2014) TABLE 3.2 AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AIRCRAFT TYPE WINGSPAN FEET/ INCHES CRJ‐700 Q‐400 CRJ‐900 CRJ‐1000 E‐170 E‐175 E‐190 E‐195 76' 3" 93' 3" 81' 7" 85' 11" 85' 4" 85' 4" 94' 3" 94' 3" E175‐E2  E190‐E2 E195‐E2 MRJ‐70 Standard MRJ‐90 Standard CS100 Base CS300 Base 101’ 8” 110’ 7” 110’ 7” 95' 9" 95' 9" 115’ 1” 115’ 1” MEETS/DOES NOT MEET  MAX LW  ASE PERFORMANCE  CURRENT OPERATIONAL  (LBS) CAPABLE RESTRICTIONS Current Regional Aircraft 67,000 Yes Meets 62,000 Yes Meets 73,500 No Meets 81,500 No Meets 72,312 No Meets 74,957 No Meets 94,799 No Meets 99,208 No Meets Future Regional Aircraft Yes* 86,201 Does Not Meet Yes* 107,431 Does Not Meet 116,911 TBD* Does Not Meet 79,807 TBD Does Not Meet 83,776 TBD Does Not Meet 110,000 Yes Does Not Meet 121,500 Yes Does Not Meet Source: Manufacturers; *E‐Jets E2 data are preliminary  Next generation of regional aircraft have a larger wingspan Future Air Service Study (2014)  Future Air Service Study examined ways to  meet the FAA standards so air carrier service  could be kept at ASE as fleet mix changes  Worked within Master Plan goals and  recommendations   Included extensive public involvement  Future Air Service Study recommendations  included:     80‐ft  Runway shift to the west and widening Full‐parallel taxiway Second west side FBO Updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and a Capital  Improvements Plan (CIP) to be submitted to  FAA pending BOCC approval on Sept. 9th  Future Air Service Study (2014)  Preferred alternative would require a runway shift  and 400 ft runway/taxiway separation to meet FAA  standards to keep future air service East Side EA Focus  Master Plan recommended updates  to the east side due to:        Terminal Area and east side deficiencies Apron issues Operational issues Roadway/connectivity issues Transit center Visioning Sessions conducted on  terminal redevelopment in early  2014 EA focused on the potential  environmental impacts of just the  east side projects Things have changed…   FAA funding availability was analyzed and determined that not all  projects are fundable within reasonably foreseeable timeframe Based on financial constraints, priorities of the FAA and the Airport were  based on:       Safety Meeting FAA required standards  Operational efficiency Reasonable Foreseeable Project Priorities Have Shifted: Previous Priorities New Priorities 1. West side Development/2nd FBO 1. Terminal Redevelopment 2. Terminal Redevelopment 2. Runway Shift 3. Runway Shift West side Development/2nd FBO Based on the estimated funding shortfalls the west side parallel taxiway,  the 2nd FBO and the multi‐modal transit center are not considered within  the current planning horizon The proposed ALP has been revised to reflect future and ultimate  improvements phases What this means for the EA Process  Both the runway shift and the terminal replacement will be  considered in one EA    Separate purpose and needs, but in one document EA will rely on Future Air Service Study Alternatives analysis Benefits to the project include:     Greater ability to analyze updated existing and future conditions based  on new information  Analysis of future fleet mix with runway shift that meets FAA  standards Take advantage of combined public outreach process Minimizes confusion concerning link of terminal redevelopment to  airfield redevelopment What this means for the EA (cont.)     The multi‐modal transit center, west side parallel taxiway  and 2nd FBO (west side) will not be part of the EA Multi‐modal transit center, west side taxiway and second  FBO are not reasonably foreseeable, but still considered  on the ALP for future development when feasible and  demand dictates Parking options will need to be analyzed to meet parking  needs since the multi‐modal transit center recommended  from the Master Plan is not fundable at this time Parking options may include both on‐site and off‐site  alternatives What additional elements will be  analyzed?  As stated in the Future Air Service Study, the runway shift  to meet FAA standards will allow for aircraft with a greater  wingspan          Future fleet mix will be examined and used for the air, noise, terminal sizing and  other analyses for the EA While many newer aircraft are larger, they also offer improved efficiencies  Winglets or blended wings improve fuel efficiency and climb gradient Lower carbon footprint Quieter Improved range/comfort Because of the potential for increased enplanements,  analysis will also examine “pillow count” Removal of transit center will result development of single  level parking options Will examine cumulative impacts related to both projects,  as well as other past, present and reasonably foreseeable  actions Updated EA Proposed Projects PER - .. CDOT CONTROL PLAN RELOCATED GROUND SERVICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING - FUTURE BUILDINGSIFACILITIES OWL CREEK ROAD BIKE PATH REALIONMENT, FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROADIPARKING DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE SENSITIVE AREA EXCESSIVE SLOPE VISUALINOISE BUFFER RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL Environmental  Assessment Content  The Environmental Assessment  will consist of the  following key chapters:      Purpose and Need Alternatives—Including the  Proposed Action Affected Environment – Environment as it exists today Environmental Consequences of  the Proposed Action and the  Feasible and Prudent Alternatives Mitigation Measures Environment Categories  Categories to Evaluate Per FAA Order 1050.1E Include:            Air Quality Coastal Resources Compatible Land Use Construction Impacts Cumulative Impacts Department of Transportation  Act: Section 4(f) Farmlands Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Floodplains Hazardous Materials, Pollution  Prevention, and Solid Waste Water Quality         Historical, Architectural, Archeological,  and Cultural Resources Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Natural Resources and Energy Supply Noise Secondary (Induced) Impacts Socioeconomics Impacts, Environmental  Justice, and Children’s Environmental  Health and Safety Risks Wetlands Wild and Scenic Rivers Next Steps   Community Input Committee Meeting (September 10th) Public Meeting September 10th    4:30‐6:30 pm at the Limelight Hotel Coffee Chats over the next two weeks Community meetings over the next two weeks 28 .2588 :25 EE ac?foz, :2me as 5:253: 32. 21' 1?11] ,x .11. . t? rt?! Table of Contents 1 Community Visioning Summary 2 What’s Happened 3 Terminal & Site Concepts 4 Workshop Outcome 2 i ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY AIQPURT KIM 1 Community Visioning 1 Community Visioning Summary The vision session occurred in February of 2015 and was organized into (4) general themes for discussion. Community input and insights were documented during the session and have been consolidated into general themes. 4 1 Community Visioning Summary General Themes: “A Balanced Approach” • Economic lifeline • Operational efficiency • Good neighbor • Part of the community “Embrace the Outdoors” • Views • Inside / outside spaces “The Gateway Experience” • Reflect the community vision “Connectivity to the Community” • Ground transportation / accessibility 5 i ASPENIPITKIN CUUNTY AIRPURT MM 2 What?s Happened 2 What’s Happened Site Constraints SEE SHEET 3 OF 23 TERMINAL AREA PLAN IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 23) UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE Area of Study RSA RSA TOFA ROFA ROFA CS100 0 10 CS CS100 CS100 CS100 TOFA RSA T/W A5 RSA 400' RSA TAXIWAY A ROFA T/W B8 320' TOFA RSA TOFA RSA RSA T/W B9 150' RUNWAY 15/33 RSA T/W A8 ROFA T/W A7 ROFA TAXIWAY A TOFA RSA TOFA ROFA TOFA Y 82 TAXIWAY B TAXIWAY B ROFA TOFA TOFA ROFA 50' AOC HANGAR TOFA ROFA TOFA ROFA 50' RSA 400' blincoln May 28, 2014 - 8:39am TAXILANE A 150' RUNWAY 15/33 T/W A3 RSA 320' RSA ROFA 400' T/W A1 RSA HW TOFA TOFA TAXILANE A ROFA NORTH GA RAMP IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 4 OF 23) 00 CS1 T/W A6 TOFA ROFA F.B.O. T/W A4 EXTENDED TAXIWAY A FAA T/W A2 TOFA ROFA TERMINAL SOUTH GA RAMP IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 3 AND 4 OF 23) CS100 EXTENDED T-SHADE HANGARS HANGAR CS100 GSE BUILDING T/W A9 HWY 82 TO FA TOFA OWL CREEK ROAD OWL CREEK ROAD I:\Projects\ASE\Engineering\ASE LOC 14-01 - Future Air Service Study - Phase II\Phase II\Phase II alternatives\ASE 14-01 ALT 12.dwg F.B.O. WEST SIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 4 OF 23) AIRPORT RANCH SEE SHEET 4 OF 23 MASTER PLAN COMPARISON TO PROPOSED LAYOUT FROM STUDY  IMPACTS - CURRENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LAYOUT TERMINAL AREA/COMMERCIAL RAMP SOUTH AND NORTH GA RAMP WEST SIDE DEVELOPMENT - ALL RSA'S, ROFA'S, AND TOFA'S SHOWN ARE FOR PROPOSED AIRCRAFT PAVEMENT PROPOSED AIRFIELD AND ROAD LAYOUT FROM AIR SERVICE STUDY ASE PROPERTY LINE BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY LINE CDOT PROPERTY LINE HIGHWAY 82 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK N LEGEND ® MASTER PLAN LAYOUT AIRCRAFT PAVEMENT MASTER PLAN LAYOUT BUILDINGS MASTER PLAN LAYOUT ROADWAYS AND PARKING LOTS 300 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 300 600 Aerial Map with Area of Study Highlighted ( IN FEET ) 900 S. BROADWAY SUITE 350 PHONE: 303-524-3030 DENVER, CO 80209 FAX: 303-534-3031 WWW.JVIATION.COM ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT ASPEN, COLORADO FUTURE AIR SERVICE STUDY - PHASE II ALTERNATIVE 12 DATE: MAY 30, 2014 SHEET 2 OF 23 *Based on Masterplan Update Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (12/2012) 7 2 What’s Happened Site Constraints SEE SHEET 3 OF 23 Section A TERMINAL AREA PLAN IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 23) Area of Study HWY 82 TERMINAL T/W A5 RSA = Runway Safety Area Boundary RSA ROFA T/W A7 RSA 400' RSA TAXIWAY A RUNWAY 15/33 RSA TOFA = Taxiway Object Free Area Boundary BRL = Building Restriction Line 150' TOFA RSA RSA TOFA RSA N T/W B9 T/W B8 TOFA RSA TOFA CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation TAXIWAY B TAXIWAY B ROFA Keyplan TOFA TOFA ROFA 50' AOC HANGAR TOFA ROFA TOFA ROFA 50' ROFA CS100 0 10 CS CS100 CS100 ROFA 320' 400' RSA Y 82 TOFA ROFA TAXIWAY A T/W A4 T/W A3 TAXILANE A 150' 400' 320' T/W A2 RSA RUNWAY 15/33 ROFA CL = Centerline HW TOFA TOFA TAXILANE A ROFA T/W A6 TOFA NORTH GA RAMP IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 4 OF 23) 00 CS1 T/W A8 FAA F.B.O. CS100 SOUTH GA RAMP IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 3 AND 4 OF 23) CS100 EXTENDED T-SHADE HANGARS HANGAR CS100 GSE BUILDING T/W A9 UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE TO FA TOFA OWL CREEK ROAD OWL CREEK ROAD Legend F.B.O. WEST SIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 4 OF 23) AIRPORT RANCH SEE SHEET 4 OF 23 ED ® 300 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 300 600 900 S. BROADWAY SUITE 350 PHONE: 303-524-3030 DENVER, CO 80209 FAX: 303-534-3031 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT ASPEN, COLORADO FUTURE AIR SERVICE STUDY - PHASE II ALTERNATIVE 12 Layout Diagram - Section A (through proposed airfield layout, terminal and parking) ( IN FEET ) WWW.JVIATION.COM DATE: MAY 30, 2014 SHEET 2 OF 23 Proposed Runway Layout Demonstration *Based on Masterplan Update Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (12/2012) 8 2 What’s Happened Site Constraints Layout Diagram - Plan of Proposed Commercial Terminal Area *Based on Masterplan Update Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (12/2012) N 9 2 What’s Happened Site Constraints N Impact of airfield and existing site slopes to terminal planning. 3D Diagram Aerial - Ground Slope Relationships 10 2 What’s Happened Site Constraints N Site Sections along site show topographic contours and grade differences. 3D Diagram Aerial - Ground Slope Relationships 11 2 What’s Happened Jet Bridges Jet bridge alternatives have been evaluated against both the community goals and priorities established during the visioning session and the airport’s operational objectives. It has been determined that the inclusion of jet bridges is counter to the community goals and priorities and not required to maintain safe and efficient operations. Pros Cons • Separated passenger and ground crew operations • More Expensive • Less risk of passenger injury during bad weather events • Significant exterior visual presence • Obstructed views from departure lounges • No “outdoor arrival experience” • No “small town feel” • Less flexible aircraft loading • Taller building Conceptual Terminal Elevation with Jet Bridges *Based on Masterplan Update Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (12/2012) 12 2 What’s Happened Structured Parking The financial plan associated with the EA does not currently include structured parking or multi-modal transit as a near-term project. It is important to conceptually study any given terminal concept’s compatibility with future structured parking (see below) as a means to “future-proof” the project. The parking count total is shown as two targets (see right). This is because there is an opportunity to move rental storage off-site and allow more screening and vegetation at the terminal. parking count target (existing) short term long term employee rental car ready rental car storage commercial 115 155 69 58 265 0 total total (off-site rental car storage alternative) 662 397 Structured Parking Future Location Diagram 13 7< KIM PROVE MENTS 3 Terminal Site Concepts 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concepts Matrix Building Concept 1 “Single Story” Building Concept 2 “Split Level” Building Concept 3 “Nested” Building Concept 4 “2-Story” 15 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concepts Matrix Building Concept 1 “Single Story” Building Concept 2 “Split Level” Building Concept 3 “Nested” Building Concept 4 “2-Story” 16 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concept 1 “Single Story” Pros: Cons: • Gate Lounge finish floor same elevation as aircraft apron grade • Large building footprint in north / south direction • All program on single level • Large grade transition required between Terminal curbside and HWY 82 17 3 Terminal Site Concepts IMPROVE Building Concept 1 ?Single Level? ea SHUHE TERM PARKING CUHBSIUE :1 TERMINAL I SHUHLE a; 1an I HEP-HM READY Site Plan 18 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concepts Matrix Building Concept 1 “Single Story” Building Concept 2 “Split Level” Building Concept 3 “Nested” Building Concept 4 “2-Story” 19 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concept 2 “Split Level” Pros: Cons: • Gate Lounge finish floor same elevation as aircraft apron grade • Large building footprint in north / south direction • Finish floor split helps mitigate grade difference between air- and landside • Medium grade transition required between Terminal curbside and HWY 82 • Stair / Escalator / Elevator required on building interior 20 3 Terminal SIte Concepts IMPROVE Building Concept 2 ?Split Level? ea SHUHE TERM PARKING CUHBSIHE I TERMINAL I SHUTTLE 8e t-tEt-ll?L READY Site Plan 21 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concepts Matrix Building Concept 1 “Single Story” Building Concept 2 “Split Level” Building Concept 3 “Nested” Building Concept 4 “2-Story” 22 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concept 3 “Nested” Pros: Cons: • Gate Lounge finish floor same elevation as aircraft apron grade • Stair / Escalator / Elevator required on building interior • Curbside at (or close to) HWY 82 grade • Reduced overall building footprint • Overall building mass is visually reduced • Better integration with future structured parking 23 3 Terminal SIte Concepts KMPROVE Building Concept 3 ?Nested? 8Q SHUHF PARKING CUHBSIUE SHUHLE a ttErll?L READY EXISTING TERMINAL :tXtte+KW>emm{ Site Plan 24 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concepts Matrix Building Concept 1 “Single Story” Building Concept 2 “Split Level” Building Concept 3 “Nested” Building Concept 4 “2-Story” 25 3 Terminal & Site Concepts Building Concept 4 “2-Story” Pros: Cons: • Gate lounge finish floor same elevation as aircraft apron grade • Stair / Escalator / Elevator required on building interior • Curbside at (or close to) HWY 82 grade • Largest perceived building mass • Smallest overall building footprint 26 3 Terminal SIte Concepts KMPROVE Building Concept 4 ?2-Story? 89 SHUHF PARKING 55050? au-H' CUHBSIHE SERVICE TEIRMINAIL SHUTTLES TAXI ttErll?L READY EXISTING TERMINAL thttetxmwa 9% Site Plan 27 1K 4 Workshop Outcome 4 Workshop Outcome Community Input Process The scorecard (see below) assessed community (CIC & Public) opinion on how well each concept met community goals and priorities established during the visioning session and the airport’s operational objective. Workshop Building Concepts WorkshopWorkshop Building Concepts Building Concepts Scorecard Comments? Please write any additional comments / thoughts / concerns below. Rating System: A Good Neighbor Operational Efficiency Operational Efficiency Passenger Experience Passenger Experience View of the Outdoors View of the Outdoors Inside/Outside Spaces Inside/Outside Spaces Ground Transportation and Accessibility Ground Transportation and Accessibility Total Total October 2015 Please write any additional comments / thoughts / con Thank you! 5 4 3 2 1 “2-Story” “Nested” Concept 3 “2-Story” A Good Neighbor Great! = Good = Acceptable = Marginal = Unacceptable = Concept 4 Input Guide: you! covers the (4) concepts as they relate to the The following Thank input matrix general themes discussed in the visioning session. During the workshop, please use this scorecard as a tool to discuss and evaluate potential benefits by giving each concept a number score in the below categories. Tally up the total in each column at the bottom when finished. “Split Level” 5 4 3 2 1 Concept 4 “Nested” Concept 3 “Split Level” Concept 2 “Single Story” Concept 1 Great! = Good = Acceptable = Marginal = Unacceptable = Comments? Concept 2 Rating System: “Single Story” Input Guide: The following input matrix covers the (4) concepts as they relate to the general themes discussed in the visioning session. During the workshop, please use this scorecard as a tool to discuss and evaluate potential benefits by giving each concept a number score in the below categories. Tally up the total in each column at the bottom when finished. Concept 1 Scorecard Workshop Building Concepts October 2015 October 2015 29 4 Workshop Outcome Community Input Outcome The comments from the CIC Workshop and Public Open House had overlapping themes, which are summarized / paraphrased below. “Build to meet our needs” • Small-town feel of back-in parking works great already, keep it • Make terminal big enough to serve our needs but not an architectural monument “Terminal should be integrated into landscape” • Roof gardens and outdoor spaces are exciting ideas for passengers! • Keep beauty of surroundings, keep building as low as possible • Views of roof are important for nearby residents, roof gardens! “Parking” • Structured parking is needed for capacity, convenience and accessible (ADA) use (general sentiment, with some opposite opinions) “Connection to RFTA” • The Airport needs to promote use of public transportation as much as they can 30 4 Workshop Outcome Community Input Outcome Upon tallying and averaging the “scores” of the concepts, Concept 3 was the clear top choice with Concepts 2 and 4 sharing positions as alternate choice. Building Concept Tally CIC PUBLIC PITKIN CONNECT Building Concept 1 “Single Story” 13.7 10.7 17.8 Building Concept 2 “Split Level” 15.9 12.7 18.5 Building Concept 3 “Nested” 26« 21.6« 22.8« Building Concept 4 “2-Story” 20.7 14.5 18.3 31 4 Workshop Outcome Summary Recommendation #1 Concept 3/4 Hybrid • “Setback” appearance to minimize visual impact (Concept 3) • Stack levels flat to allow for future expansion (Concept 4) Recommendation #2 Concept 2 • All functions on a single level • Split-level provides some grade mitigation opportunity 32 ThankYbu 33 Environmental Assessment Scoping Comments Summary BOCC Presentation Apn 2016 i AIRPURT kl PROVE NTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT What we will discuss What is Scoping?  Meetings held  Community Input  Update on Terminal  Update on EA Process  Define next steps  What is Scoping?   An Open Process for determining the issues to be addressed  in the Environmental Analysis (EA) and identifying issues of  critical concern related to the proposed actions. Scoping provides the opportunity to solicit input from those  interested and affected parties to:    Identify significant environmental issues to be analyzed Identify alternatives Identify other environmental processes occurring EA Proposed Projects \w *31? SERVICE. I . 0 AIRCRAFT APRON Ar" .n .. f. z? I FUTURE BUILDINGSIFACILITIES FUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT FUTURE ROADIPARKING DEVELOPMENT RECONFIGURED GENERAL AVIATION SUPPORT AREA AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE SENSITIVE AREA EXCESSIVE SLOPE VISUALINOISE BUFFER RAIL CORRIDOR ROADWAY SETBACK POTENTIAL TRAIL . . K. - ~g5~ i ISFEHIPITKIH .3 IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Proposed Projects Meetings Held  Agency Scoping Meeting   Community Input Committee Meeting   February 17, 2016 Public Meetings  Opportunities for the community to share their thoughts on potential  environmental, historical, architectural, socioeconomic, and cultural  concerns.    February 17, 2016 February 16, 2016 in Aspen February 18, 2016 in Snowmass City of Aspen Scoping Meeting  March 21, 2016 Comment Breakdown  Approximately 180 comments from Agency meeting, CIC  meeting, and two Public meetings   Approximately 20 comments from City of Aspen Meeting   Both written and “sticky notes” All verbal Nine (9) comments from Pitkin Connect Community Input: Proposed Projects The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Traffic” • • • • Please consider the impact of the intersection on traffic Interested to see how many parking spots will be included  How do rental cars and their needs fit into the picture? Traffic is an issue for the Valley; parking alternatives need to be examined “Jet Bridges” • We should reconsider jet bridges • Like not having jet bridges  “Just do it!” • • • • • Don’t make it so small that it’s obsolete before finished Right size it! Don’t want to build it again in twenty years Gate lounge area should be larger No expansion to the south needed. Love the terminal as a split level Consider the “Aspen” experience Community Input: Runway Reconfiguration,  Terminal Replacement, and East Side Projects The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Noise Impacts” • Noise at Hwy 82 and Harmony has increased • How will a new apron mitigate noise impacts? • Changes in expected noise from new planes versus current “Runway” • Make the runway wide enough now for future planes. • Extend curfew 1 hour for pre‐scheduled flights delayed from weather. • The widened runway is essential. Do it. Community Input: Visual Resources The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Appearance” • Should blend and look nice • Should fit in with the character of Aspen (small valley, historic town) • Keeping character will be good for business; destroying character will be bad  for business • Good to see it’s not a big edifice • Terminal building should be modern but understated • Summer/winter open walls on roof terrace “Future Growth” • Room for U.S. Customs • Build and plan for future growth appropriate for current and future needs “View” • • • • Bleacher viewing of planes like at Stapleton Bright lights could be a hazard on the ground Keep view points so we can see arriving and departing flights Potential visual impact of larger aircraft Community Input: Visual Resources continued…. The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Make it the right size” • • • • Don’t make it too small or compromise needed space (but also not too big) Should fit in with the character of Aspen (small valley, historic town) Make it comfortable and have amenities for passengers Size and scale is not a problem at all “Landscaping” • Keep a landscape buffer and trees around the terminal • Keep/replace trees to same quality standard • Maintain a park like setting; inviting and fits into the environment • Hybrid option is an appropriate response to site topography “Terminal Appearance” • • • • Not too much glass on the east side please Observation deck, variation of roof lines Solar integration Not so many advertisements Community Input: Socioeconomic Impacts The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Ground Transit and Parking Concerns” • Fully integrate RFTA services into the terminal design • • • • • • • Consider alignment of the project with AACP Examine the relationship of the airport to other ground transportation systems.  Integration of RFTA into the design would create a better customer experience  and reduce number of people who rent cars Increase in shuttles to resorts = a reduction in cabs/private vehicles. Integrate with mass transit to take advantage of the great public transit Build underground parking Reduce the number of available spots to force people into public transit “Socioeconomic Impact” • • Would larger aircraft would create more economical travel options or do more  people create high demand, lodging prices, costs in general? Will the new terminal generate more FTE’s than current? Community Input:  Proposed Noise Buffers & Monitors The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Separation, landscaping and noise” • • • • • • Noise walls…Berms good ideas Maybe a noise buffer across from Harmony Road Tons of trees Apron buffer location? Consider starting this buffer before construction Noise concerns for area and music disturbances in town during summer  “Communication” • Updates for neighbors with specifics about current and anticipated events • Analysis for potential new aircraft as well as existing  Community Input: Air Quality & Climate The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Air Quality” • Concern of larger/more aircraft and associated Greenhouse gases • Better airport may reduce waste of fuel, decrease flights decrease emissions • Consider hazardous air pollutants and their effects on health and air quality‐ for  tourists, residents, and neighbors – jet fuel odor • Community updates about current particulate and air quality levels • Plug‐in to alleviate idling aircraft • Look into air filter for the entire Airport • Can you capture hazardous gases? • Study and share results of air quality research at the local government level for  more informed local conversation • Manage general aviation and commercial air traffic to reduce • Worse air quality in a dramatically increased apron buffer location • Air quality must include pollutants and carcinogens such as jet fuel • Off set additional carbon/air pollution with local conservation projects Community Input: Existing Water Resources The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Water Quality Comments, Concerns and Potential Mitigation Ideas” • Pipe all Owl Creek to better protect the resource from potential spills. Coordinate  mitigation banking with city parks and/or county parks. • Stapleton Ditch infrastructure west edge of Owl Creek‐ identify piping ditch move West Buttermilk Metro district capacity additional water needs? • Containment of glycol. Electric ground equipment • Cozy Pt Ranch‐ City of Aspen. Redo Management Plan. Restoration on Brush  Creek? North Star Restoration work?  • Consider spending wetland mitigation fees for local restoration projects • Consider full containment wastewater of ramp Community Input: Historical & Cultural The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Historic or Cultural Resources Comments and Concerns” • Rather than all commercial advertising, consider informational signage about  Aspen culture, arts, environment, impact of climate change, history, etc.  • How will the design take into consideration the communication of Aspen history  and culture (e.g. the opposite of the ART museum) • How will proximity of the runway effect the adjacent resource? Vibration? • The trail could take advantage of the Farmstead and Aspen Groves • Clean up of historic areas, junk removal? • Allow the possibility to improve Owl Creek Trail, to make it less steep! Community Input: Potential for Larger Aircraft The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Larger Aircraft” • Larger aircraft (737, A319) will leave a net negative effect on the valley in terms of  noise and pollution. Not needed here.  • Larger aircraft during peak seasons will reduce frequency and have less  environmental impact • Less commercial frequency reduces ground ops equipment usage, glycol needs,  etc. • Less frequency reduces ATC delay and aircraft holding in air and on ground‐ less  burning excess fuel • Do we really want to move this runway 80 ft. closer to the rocks? Community Input:  Comments on Other Resources The comments are from the Agency and City Scoping Meetings, CIC Workshop and Public Open  Houses. They are summarized below: “Other Resources” • • • • • • Note any potential impact to Aspen water agreement via west Buttermilk Construction + demolition waste = big impact to landfill Consider relocation of FBO building to gain ramp space Consider support facilities across Hwy 82 Drainage improvements? Happy that it will not infringe into Open Space Terminal Planning Challenges     Master Plan assumed continuation of 70 seat regional jets  serving the community Assumptions have changed, 70 seat regional jets to be  phased out of the fleet New regional jets to have greater seating capacity, 90 – 140  seats, resulting in more passengers per peak hour Intent of EA is to environmentally clear sufficient area to  accommodate determined size of terminal and ancillary  development—NOT to identify final terminal design or size Terminal General Parameters 2012 2015 2027 2032 Enplanements 229,984 235,860 275,877 310,457 Operations 12,123 8,986 10,349 11,242 Commercial Aircraft/Peak Hour, Peak Day, Passengers  Small Regional Jet Aircraft at Gate (av. 75 seats) 6 6 0 0 Large Regional Jet Aircraft at Gate (av. 100 seats)  0 0 9 0 Large Regional Jet Aircraft at Gate (av. 110 seats)  0 0 0 10 Total Regional Jet Aircraft at Gate 6 6 9 10 450 450 900 1,100 Peak Hour Passengers Update on Progress  Met with FAA to determine:  Years of analysis for EA  2015 (existing); 2022 (year of implementation Terminal); 2027  (year of implementation runway/out year Terminal); 2032 (Out  year runway) Include a “what if” scenario in appendix to include  potential increase in enplanements as a result of project  Continue using the INM model to be consistent with other  analyses  Next Steps      Air Carrier discussions to determine fleet mix Create detailed fleet mix for analysis Refine Purpose and Need, Alternatives and Affected  Environment Chapters Start Environmental Consequences Analysis that hinges on  fleet mix Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment Open House September 2016 i ASPENIPITKIN AIRPURT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental  Assessment Content  The meeting goals are:   Review preliminary findings of  several environmental resources  categories including visual  resources, historic resources,  farmlands, among  others. (Subsequent meeting will  address the rest of the resources  after analysis has been  completed).  Engage the community in dialogue,  receive public comments on the  preliminary findings Meeting Goals  The Environmental Assessment  will consist of the  following key chapters:      Purpose and Need Alternatives—Including the  Proposed Action Affected Environment – Environment as it exists today Environmental Consequences of  the Proposed Action and the  Feasible and Prudent Alternatives Mitigation Measures Background to Purpose and Need:  Runway Reconfiguration   ASE currently has a 95 ft. wingspan restriction in place based  on runway to taxiway separation distance Aircraft trends indicated that the aircraft with wingspans less  than 95 ft. will be phased out, with half of the U.S. fleet  retired by 2021    With wingspan restriction still in place, current air carriers would not  be able to operate at ASE with future fleet FAA will not allow another MOD to allow larger wingspan without ASE  meeting FAA standards of 400 feet separation  In order to have future Design Group‐III air service at ASE,  the FAA is requiring the airfield to be brought into FAA  compliance for that Design Group Purpose & Need – Runway  Reconfiguration  Purpose: The purpose of this project is to meet FAA design standards,  allowing ASE to keep commercial service in the long‐term  Need:  The implementation of the runway reconfiguration will address  the following need: The current airfield does not meet the FAA design  standards for D‐III aircraft due to the deficient separation distance  between the runway and taxiway Runway Reconfiguration Alternative   No Action Alternative    Airfield will remain “as is” operating under the 95 foot wingspan Air service will be reduced to turboprops; some operations will divert  to business jets Runway Reconfiguration Alternative   Airfield will be reconfigured:   Airfield brought into compliance with FAA design standards    Runway shift 80 feet west; Runway widening to 150 feet Aircraft up to 118 feet wingspan will be able to fly into ASE All other alternatives in the airfield study would either not meet  project purpose and need or would result in more impacts on the  airport environs Therefore, the minimal shift required to meet FAA design standards is  the only Runway Reconfiguration Alternative brought forward into the  EA (along with the No Action) Runway Reconfiguration Alternative PUTURE AVIATION USE PAVEMENT - FUTURE ROADIPARKING DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE SENSITIVE AREA EXCESSIVE SLOPE .-, - 3 . A - 1- 1'3' RAILCORRIDOR - ROADWAY SETBACK i BUUNTY MRPDET POTENTIAL TRAIL IM PROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Figure 3.1 Runway Reconfiguration Alternative Future Air Service Study (2014) Aircraft Technical Specifications – ASE Wingspan Aircraft Type Feet/Inches Meter CRJ‐700 Q‐400 CRJ‐900 CRJ‐1000 E‐170 E‐175 E‐190 E‐195 76' 3" 93' 3" 81' 7" 85' 11" 85' 4" 85' 4" 94' 3" 94' 3" 23.2 28.4 24.9 26.2 26.0 26.0 28.7 28.7 E‐175 E2 E‐190 E2 E‐195 E2 MRJ‐70 Standard MRJ‐90 Standard CS100 Base CS300 Base 101’ 7” 110’ 6” 115’” 95' 9" 95' 9" 115’ 1” 115’ 1” 31.0 33.7 33.7 29.2 29.2 35.1 35.1 Max Landing  Weight (lbs.) Current Aircraft ASE  Performance  Capable Meets/Does Not  Meet ASE  Operational  Restrictions Yes Yes No No No No No No Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Yes* Yes* TBD* TBD TBD Yes Yes Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet 80 97 118 70 90 110‐135 135 Yes** Yes** Yes** Does not meet Does not meet Does not meet 126‐144 118‐143 110 67,000 62,000 73,500 81,500 72,312 74,957 94,799 99,208 Number of Seats 64‐70 70 76 100 70 78‐88 97 106 Future Regional Aircraft 86,201 109,018 118,498 79,807 83,776 110,000 121,500 Comparison Non‐Regional Aircraft Airbus A319 Boeing 737‐700 MAX Boeing 717    111' 11" 117 '5" 93' 5" 34.1 35.7 28.5 138,000 128,928 100,000 Aircraft up to 118 feet could theoretically serve Aspen under the proposed Runway Alternative *E‐Jets E2 data are preliminary ** Potentially performance capable, but likely limited during hotter summer months. Pending airline  coordination will help determine if these aircraft could meet airline safety requirements for performance Purpose & Need:  Terminal Area Improvements  East side improvements were recommended in the Master Plan due to:       Existing Terminal Area deficiencies Apron issues Operational issues Roadway/connectivity issues Purpose:  The purpose of the terminal replacement and associated east side  projects is to optimize the safety and efficiency of the airport Need:  The implementation of the terminal replacement and associated  projects will address the following needs:     The existing terminal and terminal area is deficient in space with operational,  safety and functional issues that do not currently meet the needs of passengers,  staff and users Apron is deficient in size and currently slopes into the terminal, creating safety  hazards GA Apron noise has been identified as an issue for surrounding communities  and a need to mitigate this noise was identified in the master plan Terminal Area Improvement  Alternatives   No Action Alternative    Terminal will remain “as is” Existing needs of passengers and operations will continue to not be  met Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2  Terminal Alternatives assume:     The same disturbance footprint (entire East Side Terminal Area) for  Terminal Replacement, roadway and parking improvements, noise wall and  other associated projects.   Only one parking alternative brought forward (meeting existing number of  spaces). Expansion of parking onsite through a garage or expansion of the  lots was determined to not be feasible.  Pedestrian integration with public transit will be enhanced Two Terminal Alternatives differ in visualizations Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 EAST SIDE COMMERCIAL g; TERMINAL AND PARKING i I I . I. '1 JET BRIDGE SETBACK If 120.4}. ff, ACCESS PARKING I antenna 5/ . murmur-II a/f/?X/?ijil . . .1 . 8 ,5 EAST SIDE COMMERCIAL 3 5g TERMINAL AND PARKING gg I i/ sauna? ?1 JET BRIDGE ?l 120.4}, 15:4,y- j; ACCESS PARKING To?! 754:Terminal: Functionality     Some areas of  deficiency includes:  Hold Room, TSA,  baggage screening,  among others Terminal is undersized for  current conditions New terminal needs to  take into account future  conditions Including new aircraft fleet Forecast Assumptions for EA Summary of Aviation Activity Forecasts, 2015‐2033 Actual A/C Operations by Type Forecasts 2015 2023  2028 2028  2033  2033  Actual No Action and  No Action  With Project  No Action  With Project  With Project:  Runway Runway: First Year  Out Year Runway: Out  Terminal Air Carrier Aircraft Scheduled Commuter (less than 50 seats) 0 0 0 0 0 Total Air Carrier 8,950 10,012 9,245 10,877 10,037 11,808 Less  8,950 10,012 9,245 6,877 10,037 938 8,950 10,012 4,623 3,439 0 0 0 0 4,622 3,438 10,037 938 0 0 0 4,000 0 10,870 New generation regional jets 0 0 0 3,453 0 9,228 737‐MAX 0 0 0 547 0 1,642 GA and Air Taxi Total  30,001 27,550 30,059 28,427 31,106 29,335 Single Piston 3,935 3,614 3,729 3,729 3,848 3,848 Twin Piston 2,097 1,926 1,987 1,987 2,050 2,050 Total Air Carrier (wingspan less than 95’) Total than 95  CRJ‐700 ft. Turboprop Greater  Total Air Carrier (wingspan greater than 95’) than 95  Aircraft Single TP 998 917 946 946 976 976 1,662 1,526 1,574 1,574 1,625 1,625 20,816 19,116 21,356 19,724 22,125 20,354 Helo 493 453 467 467 482 482 Military Local 81 30 30 30 30 30 Military Itinerant 156 107 107 107 107 107 39,224 37,699 39,441 39,441 41,280 41,280 233,541 263,153 258,860 296,140 281,036 333,259 Twin TP Jet tary  GA and Air Taxi  Mili Year 36 ft. Total Aircraft operations TOTAL of Implementation Total Enplanements *Note: 2014 Air Service Study identified the 737 as potentially performance capable under D‐III standards (not  yet confirmed by airlines); Fleet mix assumes a small number of these operations to be conservative Terminal: Functionality and  Assumptions    Terminal is undersized for current conditions Some areas of deficiency include: Passenger Hold Room, TSA  checkpoint and baggage screening, restrooms, airline operations  area, bag claim area, among others 2012 Master Plan recommended sizing for terminal based on 70  seat regional jet aircraft:     80,411 square feet based on forecasts for 2017 97,939 square feet based on forecasts for 2027 New planning years are 2023, 2028, 2033  2014 Air Service Study determined that future aircraft will be  larger, with more seats  Air carrier peak hours are increasing     More aircraft will be arriving and departing around the same time More people will be in the terminal at the same time Due to ASE’s high delay (about 30% in winter months), passengers tend to  be stuck for long periods in the hold room). Terminal Area Improvements:  Sizing Assumptions for the EA  New conditions for planning years 2023 (first year of terminal  operation) and 2028 (out year of terminal and first year of  runway reconfiguration) and 2033 (out year for runway):   Increased aircraft seating capacity (assuming CS100 – with 110‐135 seats) Spatial requirements would need to increase for functionality     Primary area of size increases for the Hold room, TSA passenger screening and  baggage screening, airline operations, bag claim, restrooms, concessions Timeline based on funding Environmental Assessments examine potential environmental  impacts from footprint    An EA looks at a potential disturbance footprint Assumes a footprint of the entire east side terminal area for the final design  of the terminal, parking and associated improvements EA will be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with final design prior to  construction Terminal Size Industry Standards  High Level Size Range outlined in the Airport Cooperative Research Program  (ACRP) Report #25 (Airport Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1)     Methodology premised on number of sq.ft. per narrow body aircraft gate ACRP planning assumption:  Small domestic airports = 15,000 to 18,000 sq. ft. per  narrow body gate ASE currently operates with 8 gates Master Plan recommended 10 gates: Larger CS‐100s can be accommodated with 8‐ 10 gates in the planning years (2023, 2028, 2033)  ACRP Industry Standard Sizing Range (high level)  Conditions Today (CRJ‐700): 90,000‐108,000    Future Conditions (2028): 8 gates with CS‐100 aircraft: 120,000 – 144,000    8 gates x 15,000 sq.ft. per gate and 8 gates x 18,000 sq.ft. per gate Future Conditions (2033): 10 gates with CS‐100 aircraft): 150,000 – 180,000    6 gates x 15,000 sq.ft. per gate and 6 gates x 18,000 sq.ft. per gate 10 gates x 15,000 sq.ft. per gate and 10 gates x 18,000 sq.ft. per gate Based on local conditions, EA will examine 140,000 square feet in terms of footprint  and visual impacts Terminal Size Industry Standards  Note: These are planning level estimates based off industry standards for the  purpose of the EA (environmentally clearing the space); not a design process  or decision point  Terminal Programming during subsequent design phase will update numbers  for each terminal space specific to Aspen to ensure functional needs,  community compatibility and compliant with FAA requirements   BOCC will make a decision on size during terminal programming design phases EA •Step 1: Environmental Assessment (Current Step) •Environmentally Clear Space based on Industry Standards for Terminal; Allow room for options and  phasing •Step 2: Terminal Programming •Determine space, functionality, and level of service needs for Aspen, allow for community  compatibility and be consistent with FAA requirements Programming Design Construction •Step 3: Terminal Design •BOCC to finalize space, functionality and level of service goals, Terminal Design, and local clearances  •EA will be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with final design prior to construction. •Step 4: Construction Workshop Time!    How to participate: As you review the boards, there are several ways to  comment Grab a Terminal Visualization evaluation card      Grab some post its   This score card is relative to the terminal visualizations to let us know  how the previous comments from the public have been integrated  going forward Score the two terminal alternatives on these factors Write any additional comments you might have on the back Drop off the score card in the marked box in the center of the room  before you leave Do you have other comments?  Please put your comments on a post it  and place it on the board in question Questions?   Ask anyone with a nametag to help you out Next Steps  Complete Environmental Consequences Analysis    Public meeting on noise and other environmental categories (Later in  Fall of 2016) Release Draft EA with public comment period Public Hearing Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment BOCC Update December 2016 i IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Meeting Goals  Update BOCC on:     EA Content Overview of content of last public  meetings Comments from the meetings and  Pitkin Connect Upcoming analysis     Socioeconomic analysis Traffic, air quality, noise Next Steps Public Meeting Content  Forecasts and Fleet Mix   Terminal Sizing Assumptions for the EA: Based on industry  standards   Assuming a conservative estimate up to 140,000 square foot terminal to  cover a large disturbance footprint in the Environmental Assessment First half of Environmental Consequences Analysis     Including the assumptions for fleet mix (CS100s and potential for 737s) Visual Impacts: Visual renderings for two concepts from multiple vantage  points Historic and Cultural Resources Natural Resources and Energy Supply  Most comments focused on:   Terminal visualizations  Additional interest in next set of environmental consequences (noise, air  quality, etc. – Next Steps) 3.2 Building concepts 1 viewfrommnraz?oad Banding Exterior fookr'ngnormwesr 5? VIEW from 00-82 scum bound lookr?ng south 3 IEPEIIFITIIH Building 30M Its ?rmu?e: 1 View from Werrfaz Road .?ar ?Jim ?'16 N?l'a'?iih'l mm: nunnrconnecmum .- tn.nn.?.lr.rnzr Ln 'Mw?'h 1m: 'rtki on ?ctmm amniwg Henfaz?oad 6 viewfrom 60?82 50th bound . u: Meeting Summary  Meetings included:      One community input committee  meeting (CIC) – 20 people One public meeting at the library  attended by approximately 25 people Pitkin Connect online public town hall  (open for approximately one month) Comment cards evaluating the two  terminal visualizations in terms of  meeting visioning criteria were filled  out “Post it” Comments also received on  other environmental consequences Example Written Comments  Do not preclude extending SH82 pedestrian tunnel from extending into terminal”  Energy with windows? ‐ regarding Sustainable Design  Can this be built onto? ‐ regarding Build It Once, Build It Right  Impacts to community, traffic, food, hotels, energy should be modeled as soon as feasible.   Too much glass on both buildings. ASE visitors got the view during their stay in ASE. Not important @the Airport.  Would happily trade views for more energy efficient designs.  Leave models on display at Library, encourage public input.  Design the terminal to, at least, be capable of incorporating public transportation into it for a system to Aspen  (3.0 mi) and underneath the new runway/or a system to Two Creeks (3.2 mi)  Concept 2 with parking at lower grade is favorable from Hwy 82  Love the Patio ‐ regarding Strong Indoor‐Outdoor Relationship for the Pavilion.  The volume of the ridge concept allows for expansive views, enhancing indoor‐outdoor relationship. I feel this  would be beneficial during periods of "holding”.  While I love the terrace of the Pavilion option, given that hold periods are primarily during bad weather, would  use of these spaces be optimized during passenger delays?  Sustainable design ‐ pavilion is likely more sustainable because of the stacked floors. Less volume to condition  Love the plaza on the pavilion. Love the openness of the ridge ‐ great design. I like the idea of optimizing the  space by lowering the grade of the pavilion design  Neither concept represents the character, values, culture and history of the communities it will serve. Both are  way too contemporary for me. They look like the "flavor of the month" and I am concerned these designs will  look dated by the time the project is completed Example Written Comments                   Purpose: To have a great airport that provides excellent service and work environment Cannot remain as is + be world class resort Let’s make an appropriate first impression! This would be terrible ‐ regarding the Airport losing commercial service No Action represents economic harm long term – not really an option Purpose‐ A great welcome and send‐off to locals and visitors. A positive airport experience is part  of the goal Put as much parking underground as feasible. Work with G.A. in partnership. Explore venue ops  for Under‐Ground parking. Design for best service for customer; Please build it sized for long‐term use. Not just for today Helps with sense of place. Keep outdoor walkways. No Jetways Size for future and greatness. Worry less about size and more about greatness 360 degree views from inside not that important What is going to happen when aircraft expand again – will new runway accommodate? When  might this occur? One separated grade intersection on 82 Direct access to ABC Remove curbside roof cold/icy Now ticketed people have direct view space – even if small to tarmac Love that you can see through bldg. to planes & views You are wasting millions on over building an airport that will never have much traffic. It is  ridiculous Comment Summary Concept 1 – Ridge Concept Strong Indoor‐Outdoor  Relationship Reflecting Community  Vision Optimizing Views Sustainable Deisgn Prioritzing the Passenger  Experience Being A Good Neighbor  Build It Once, Build it  Right Total CIC  Public Concept 2 – Pavilion Pitkin  Connect Total CIC Public  Pitkin  Connect Total 4.6 4.8  3.0  4.4 4.3 4.0  2.0  3.9 4.0 4.8  3.0  4.1 3.6 4.0  2.3  3.5 4.3 4.4  3.7  4.3 4.2 4.0  3.0  4.0 3.4 4.4  3.0  3.6 3.6 4.7  2.3  3.8 4.4 4.4  3.7  4.3 4.0 4.0  2.7  3.8 4.0 4.4  3.7  4.1 3.8 4.6  2.7  3.8 4.2 4.4  3.0  4.1 4.1 4.5  2.0 3.9 28.9 31.6  23.1  28.9 27.6 29.8  17.00  26.7 Socioeconomic Methodology General Analysis Method  Define socioeconomic concerns  Identify primary impact area – Aspen/Snowmass and surrounding  upper valley area    Obtain relevant data   Inventory existing socioeconomic conditions  Identify project alternatives and pertinent assumptions     No Action Build Alternatives What‐If Scenario Identify effects of alternatives on existing conditions  (within primary impact area) Socioeconomic Methodology Socioeconomic Concerns  Effects on Aspen, Snowmass Village & surrounding upper‐valley economy  Effects on recreation/tourism opportunities  Effects on airport use and demand  Effects on quality of life within the primary impact area   Small‐town character – perception of growth  Traffic  Socioeconomic Methodology Analysis Components  Part 1 – Existing Conditions Inventory (Affected Environment)  Identify and describe existing economic conditions and trends       Aspects to be analyzed include: demographics, jobs, housing, lodging,  recreation/tourism, development activity Historic economic trends Available projections of economic and demographic growth Existing and pending future lodging inventory Housing market trends Part 2 – Environmental Consequences Assessment (terminal &  runway)     Analyze No‐Action, build alternatives and “What‐If” scenario Evaluate both beneficial and adverse economic impacts Report primary and secondary or induced impacts (pillow analysis) Impacts assessed relative to existing socioeconomic environment Socioeconomic Methodology Existing Conditions Inventory ‐ Data Categories        Demographics:  Population, households, household size, median household  income, poverty statistics, etc. Jobs Data:  Aspen‐Snowmass jobs by sector (tourism, retail, construction, etc.) Lodging:  Existing and planned future lodge units and pillows for the Aspen‐ Snowmass Area, including available data regarding RBO units, and historic  occupancy (by month, season, year and trend summary)… Recreation/Tourism:  Historic data  for annual skier visits, Food & Wine  attendees, back‐country use, other tourism and recreation industry data Housing Market: Total dwelling units, dwelling unit breakdown by type,  affordable housing inventory, property values, real estate sales data, average  monthly rent Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Data:  Historic economic data for Airport  operations, capital improvements and other on‐airport commercial businesses Public Policy Plans:  Master plans, zoning regulations, and other planning  documents that provide direction regarding planned future growth and  development Note – Analysis will be based on available data, no new surveys are contemplated. Socioeconomic Methodology Environmental Consequences Assessment Assumptions:      No‐action alternative results in reduction in enplanements/resort visitors but increase in operations  (Turboprops only in out years) Build alternatives (terminal and runway) reflect increase in enplanements/resort visitors similar to what would  occur under current fleet mix (status quo)…FAA‐approved forecast (reasonably foreseeable) What‐If scenario reflects increase in enplanements/resort visitors that could occur from combined factors of  greater aircraft capacity and potential increase in lodging capacity (growing RBO market)… Not FAA‐approved  forecast (not reasonably foreseeable) Socioeconomic Methodology Environmental Consequences Assessment  Beneficial Economic Impacts:  Major source – CDOT 2013  Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports  Initial Impacts – Generated by on‐airport uses, capital improvements  and visitor spending   Multiplier Effect – “The multiplier  effect is a reflection of the  additional times an initial economic  impact re‐circulates in the  economy being studied.” Socioeconomic Methodology Environmental Consequences Assessment  Adverse Economic Impacts (all alternatives):    Impacts to resort economy from reduced commercial airline service    Effect on other economic sectors     Skier visits, Lodge occupancy Other tourism/recreation supporting business Construction, Retail, Service, Professional, Technical…  Potential for growth in excess of what is anticipated in AACP and other  governing planning documents (What‐If Scenario) Effects on airport revenues and other on‐airport commercial entities Documentation of findings:   No action and build alternatives contained in main body of EA, FAA‐ approved forecast (reasonably foreseeable)   What‐If Scenario analysis contained in Appendix, Not FAA‐approved  forecast (not reasonably foreseeable) Next Steps  Complete Environmental Consequences Analysis     Public meeting on noise, air quality, traffic, socioeconomic and other  environmental categories (Early 2017) Results of What If Scenario Appendix Release Draft EA with public comment period (Spring 2017) Public Hearing Welcome! 1.1 Background Welcome to the Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport Improvements EA Public Meeting Project Refresher: Two Primary Projects: 1. Terminal Area Improvements, including a new terminal, parking and associated projects 2. Runway Shift, 80 feet to the west and widening up to 150 feet Proposed Projects What is an Environmental Assessment? • An Environmental Assessment looks at the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project • EA environmentally clears space for the projects per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • It is a formal, national process based on Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and FAA orders for how to comply with NEPA Meeting Goals: • Review preliminary findings of several environmental resource categories including visual resources, historic resources, farmlands, among others (subsequent meeting will address the rest of the resources after analysis has been completed) • Engage the community in dialogue, receive public comments on the preliminary findings How to Participate: As you review the boards, there are several ways to comment • Grab a Terminal Visualization evaluation card • This score card lets us know how well the previous comments from the public have been integrated into the current terminal visualizations • Score the two terminal alternatives on these factors • Write any additional comments you might have on the back • Drop off the evaluation card in the marked box in the center of the room before you leave • Grab some post its • Do you have other comments? Please put your comments on post it notes and place on the board in question • Questions • Ask anyone with a nametag on to help you out Thank you for your participation! Next Steps: • Complete Environmental Consequences Analysis • Public meeting on noise and other environmental categories (later in 2016) • Release Draft EA with public comment period • Public Hearing for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com Runway Improvements 1.2 Background Background • ASE currently has a 95 ft. wingspan restriction in place based on runway to taxiway separation distance • Aircraft trends indicated that the aircraft with wingspans less than 95 ft. will be phased out, with half of the U.S. fleet retired by 2021 • With wingspan restriction still in place, current air carriers would not be able to operate at ASE with future fleet • FAA will not allow another MOD to allow larger wingspan without ASE meeting FAA standards of 400 feet separation • In order to have future Design Group-III air service at ASE, the FAA is requiring the airfield to be brought into FAA compliance for that Design Group Purpose & Need • PURPOSE : The purpose of this project is to meet FAA design standards, allowing ASE to keep commercial service in the long-term • NEED: The implementation of the runway reconfiguration will address the fact that the current airfield does not meet the FAA design standards for D-III aircraft due to the deficient separation distance between the runway and taxiway Runway Alternatives No Action Alternative • Airfield will remain “as is” operating under the 95 foot wingspan • Air service will be reduced to turboprops; some operations will divert to business jets Runway Reconfiguration Alternative • Airfield will be reconfigured: • Runway shift 80 feet west; Runway widening to 150 feet • Airfield brought into compliance with FAA design standards • Aircraft up to 118 feet wingspan will be able to fly into ASE • All other alternatives in the airfield study would either not meet project purpose and need or would result in more impacts on the airport environs • Therefore, the minimal shift required to meet FAA design standards is the only Runway Reconfiguration Alternative brought forward into the EA (along with the No Action) Future Air Service Study (2014) Aircraft up to 118 feet could theoretically serve Aspen under the proposed Runway Alternative *E-Jets E2 data are preliminary ** Potentially performance capable, but likely limited during hotter summer months. Pending airline coordination will help determine if these aircraft could meet airline safety requirements for performance Runway Reconfiguration Alternative for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com Terminal Area Improvements 1.3 Background Purpose & Need • East side improvements were recommended in the Master Plan due to: • Existing Terminal Area deficiencies • Apron issues • Operational issues • Roadway/connectivity issues • PURPOSE: The purpose of the terminal replacement and associated east side projects is to optimize the safety and efficiency of the airport • NEED: The implementation of the terminal replacement and associated projects will address the following needs: • The existing terminal and terminal area is deficient in space with operational, safety and functional issues that do not currently meet the needs of passengers, staff and users • Apron is deficient in size and currently slopes into the terminal, creating safety hazards • GA Apron noise has been identified as an issue for surrounding communities and a need to mitigate this noise was identified in the master plan Terminal Alternatives • No Action Alternative • Terminal will remain “as is” • Existing needs of passengers and operations will continue to not be met • Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 • Terminal Alternatives assume : • The same disturbance footprint (entire East Side Terminal Area) for Terminal Replacement, roadway and parking improvements, noise wall and other associated projects. • Only one parking alternative brought forward (meeting existing number of spaces). Expansion of parking onsite through a garage or expansion of the lots was determined to not be feasible. • Pedestrian integration with public transit will be enhanced • Two Terminal Alternatives differ in visualizations 340’-0” CDOT ROW CDOT RESERVED CORRIDOR APRON TOFA 175’-0” 100’-0” 120’-0” ACCESS VIEW OPPORTUNITY PARKING GATE LOUNGE TICKETING / BAG CLAIM HWY 82 145’-0” Terminal Conceptual Alternative 1 : The Ridge 340’-0” CDOT ROW CDOT RESERVED CORRIDOR APRON TOFA 175’-0” 100’-0” 120’-0” ACCESS VIEW OPPORTUNITY GATE LOUNGE MECH VIEW OPPORTUNITY PARKING VIEW OPPORTUNITY TICKETING / BAG CLAIM HWY 82 145’-0” Terminal Conceptual Alternative 2 : The Pavilion for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com Terminal Sizing 1.4 Background Terminal Functionality & Assumptions • Terminal is undersized for current conditions • Some areas of deficiency includes: Passenger Hold Room, TSA checkpoint and baggage screening, restrooms, airline operations area, bag claim area, among others • 2012 Master Plan recommended sizing for terminal based on 70 seat regional jet aircraft: • 80,411 square feet based on forecasts for 2017 • 97,939 square feet based on forecasts for 2027 • New Planning years are 2023, 2028, and 2033 • 2014 Air Service Study determinded that future aircraft will be larger, with more seats • Air carrier peak hours will be increasing • More aircraft will be arriving and departing around the same time • More people will be in the terminal at the same time • Due to ASE’s high delay (about 30%) in winter months, passengers tend to be stuck for long periods in the hold room and terminal • New conditions for planning years 2023 (first year of terminal operation) and 2028 (out year of terminal and first year of runway reconfiguration of the out year) and 2033 (out year for runway): • Increased aircraft seating capacity (assuming CS100 - with 110-135 seats) • Spatial requirements would need to increase for functionality • Primary areas of size increases for Hold Room, TSA passenger screening and baggage screening, airline operations, bag claim, restrooms, and concessions • Timeline based on funding • Environmental Assessments examine potential environmental impacts from footprint • An EA looks at potential disturbance footprint • Assumes a footprint of the entire east side terminal area for the determination of impacts of the terminal, parking and associated improvements High Level Terminal Steps: EA • Step 1: Environmental Assessment (Current Step) • Environmentally Clear Space based on Industry Standards for Terminal; allow room for options and phasing • Step 2: Terminal Programming • Determine space, functionality, and level of service needs for Aspen, Programming allow for community compatibility and be consistent with FAA requirements Design • Step 3: Terminal Design • BOCC to finalize space, functionality and level of service goals, terminal design, and local clearances • EA will be reviewed to ensure it is consistent with final design prior to construction • Step 4: Construction Construction for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com Terminal Sizing 1.5 Background Terminal Functionality & Assumptions • High Level Size Range outlined in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report #25 (Airport Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1) • Methodology premised on number of square feet per narrow body aircraft gate • ACRP planning assumption: Small domestic airports = 15,000 to 18,000 square feet per narrow body gate • ASE currently operates with 8 gates • Master Plan recommended 10 gates: Larger CS-100s can be accommodated with 8-10 gates in the planning years (2023, 2028, 2033) • ACRP Industry Standard Sizing Range (high level) • Conditions Today (CRJ-700): 90,000-108,000 • 6 gates x 15,000 square feet per gate and 6 gates x 18,000 square feet per gate • Future Conditions (2028): 8 gates with CS-100 aircraft: 120,000 – 144,000 • 8 gates x 15,000 sq. ft. per gate and 8 gates x 18,000 square feet per gate • Future Conditions (2033): 10 gates with CS-100 aircraft): 150,000 – 180,000 • 10 gates x 15,000 sq. ft. per gate and 10 gates x 18,000 square feet per gate • Based on local conditions, EA will examine approximately 140,000 square feet in terms of footprint and visual impacts • NOTE: These are planning level estimates based off industry standards for the purpose of the EA (environmentally clearing the space); not a design process or decision point • Terminal programming during subsequent design phase will update numbers for each terminal space specific to Aspen to ensure functional needs, community compatibility and compliant with FAA requirements • BOCC will make a decision on size during terminal programming design phases with robust community involvement Aviation Activity Forecast Table (2015-2033) *NOTE: 2014 Air Service Study identified the 737 as potentially performance capable under D-III standards (note yet confirmed by airlines); Fleet mix assumes a small number of these operations to be conservative for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Consequences 2.1 Analysis Environmental Categories Categories to Evaluate per FAA Order 1050.1F Include : • Air Quality • Land Use • Biological Resources • Natural Resources and Energy Supply • Climate • Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use • Coastal Resources • Socioeconomics Impacts, Environmental Justice, • Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f) and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety • Farmlands Risks • Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and • Visual Effects Solid Waste • Water Resources (Wetlands, Floodplains and Wild and Scenic Rivers) • Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources • Cumulative Impacts • Green highlights denotes categories with preliminary environmental consequences available today; remaining categories will be addressed in a subsequent public meeting • Farmlands: All area is per-disturbed, no prime farmlands impacted • Coastal Resources: Area is 500+ miles from the nearest coastal area; no impacts Natural Resources & Energy Supply • Runway Alternatives • Increased water usage and fuel consumption would occur during construction. This usage would be temporary and is not expected to place undue stress on the environment. • Sustainable Construction Management Plan: Techniques would be employed for conservation of resources and energy. • No long-term net increase of energy use • Terminal Alternatives • Increased water usage and fuel consumption would occur during construction. This usage would be temporary and is not expected to place undue stress on the environment. • Energy use: • Terminal size would increase however, terminal has option to increase energy efficiency/integration of renewable energy options • No significant impact on energy resources expected Hazardous Materials & Pollution Prevention Summary • Runway and Terminal Alternatives • The Alternatives are not expected to change the handling, use or disposal of hazardous materials and waste • No known hazardous waste sites would be impacted • Construction activities could generate hazardous waste as materials commonly consist of paint, oil, solvents, etc. and solid waste. Impacts would be temporary and not significant • No long term increases in solid waste expected. Terminal expansion would meet existing demand • Solid waste would increase during construction: • Landfill has a 15 year lifespan • Sustainable Construction Management Plan would be followed to reduce solid waste creation during construction for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Consequences 2.2 Analysis Historical, Architectural, Archaeological & Cultural Resources • Runway Alternative • A historic property, Airport Ranch, sits near the project site. While not on the National Register of Historic Places, the ranch was determined eligible in 1988 • The ranch is located outside the Area of Potential Effect, and is not expected to incur impacts • Terminal Alternatives • No historic or historically eligible properties exist on the east side • Therefore, no impacts to historically eligible properties Historic Area of Potential Effect Department of Transportation Section 4(f) • Section 4(f) resources include publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or lands of historic sites that are of national, state, or local significance. • Runway Alternative • A historic property, Airport Ranch, sits near the project site. The historic property is located outside the Area of Potential Effect, and would not incur impacts • Approximately 1,657 feet of Owl Creek Bike Path would be relocated between 13 feet and 58 feet to the west, outside of the Object Free Area • Temporary closure during construction • No long term impact on the bike path, its uses or users • Terminal Alternatives • No negative Impacts Bike Path & Owl Creek Road Relocation for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com Visual Background 2.3 Analysis Summary of Visioning Meeting The vision session occurred in February 2015 and was organized into (4) areas for discussion: 1. “SENSE OF PLACE” 2. “SUSTAINABILITY” 3. “NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY” 4. “PASSENGER EXPERIENCE” During the open house, we documented community input, insights and consolidated the comments into general themes. Evaluation Criteria Strong Indoor-Outdoor Relationship Reflecting Community Vision Optimizing Views Sustainable Design Prioritizing the Passenger Experience Being a Good Neighbor Build it Once, Build it Right General Themes “A Balanced Approach” • Economic lifeline • Operational efficiency • Good neighbor • Part of the community • Build it once, build it right “Embrace the Outdoors” • Views • Inside / outside spaces “The Gateway Experience” • Reflect the community vision “Connectivity to the Community” • Ground transportation / accessibility for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com What’s Happened 2.4 Analysis Site Influencing Factors - Horizontal Our area of study for a new terminal and associated site operations (parking / access/ enplanement strategy) is bound by the proposed runway changes and Highway 82. SEE SHEET 3 OF 23 Section A TERMINAL AREA PLAN IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 23) UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE Area of Study HWY 82 GSE BUILDING RSA RSA TOFA ROFA RSA T/W A5 CS100 1 CS CS100 CS100 CS100 RSA ROFA ROFA T/W B8 320' TOFA RSA TOFA RSA RSA T/W B9 150' RUNWAY 15/33 RSA T/W A9 RSA TOFA RSA TOFA ROFA TOFA 00 CS100 TAXIWAY A TAXIWAY A TAXIWAY B TAXIWAY B ROFA TOFA ROFA TOFA ROFA TOFA ROFA 50' RSA 400' blincoln TOFA AOC 50' May 28, 2014 - 8:39am ROFA 150' RUNWAY 15/33 TAXILANE A ROFA T/W A8 RSA T/W A3 RSA 400' NORTH GA RAMP IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 4 OF 23) ROFA TOFA T/W A7 TAXILANE A ROFA T/W A1 RSA Y 82 TOFA TOFA 400' ROFA 00 CS1 T/W A6 TOFA 320' ROFA F.B.O. T/W A4 EXTENDED TAXIWAY A SOUTH GA RAMP IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 3 AND 4 OF 23) HW FAA T/W A2 TOFA HANGAR CS100 EXTENDED T-SHADE HANGARS TERMINAL HANGAR TO FA TOFA OWL CREEK ROAD OWL CREEK I:\Projects\ASE\Engineering\ASE LOC 14-01 - Future Air Service Study - Phase II\Phase II\Phase II alternatives\ASE 14-01 ALT 12.dwg F.B.O. WEST SIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS (SEE SHEET 4 OF 23) ROAD N AIRPORT RANCH Aerial Map with Area of Study Highlighted SHEET 4 OF 23 *Based on Masterplan Update Aspen/Pitkin County AirportSEE(12/2012) MASTER PLAN COMPARISON TO PROPOSED LAYOUT FROM STUDY  IMPACTS - CURRENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN LAYOUT TERMINAL AREA/COMMERCIAL RAMP SOUTH AND NORTH GA RAMP WEST SIDE DEVELOPMENT - ALL RSA'S, ROFA'S, AND TOFA'S SHOWN ARE FOR PROPOSED AIRCRAFT PAVEMENT PROPOSED AIRFIELD AND ROAD LAYOUT FROM AIR SERVICE STUDY ASE PROPERTY LINE BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY LINE CDOT PROPERTY LINE HIGHWAY 82 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK LEGEND ® MASTER PLAN LAYOUT AIRCRAFT PAVEMENT MASTER PLAN LAYOUT BUILDINGS GRAPHIC SCALE 300 MASTER PLAN LAYOUT ROADWAYS AND PARKING LOTS 0 300 600 ( IN FEET ) 900 S. BROADWAY SUITE 350 PHONE: 303-524-3030 DENVER, CO 80209 FAX: 303-534-3031 WWW.JVIATION.COM ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT ASPEN, COLORADO FUTURE AIR SERVICE STUDY - PHASE II ALTERNATIVE 12 DATE: MAY 30, 2014 SHEET 2 OF 23 Site Section A Site Influencing Factors - Vertical The general topography of the valley has an overall effect of making the airport slope at an average of 2% consistently along the runway which impacts the terminal planning. 3D Diagram A Airfield-to-Apron 3D Diagram B Apron-to-Landside 3D Diagram A & B (see above) N 3D Diagram Overall Airport Topography for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com What’s Happened 2.5 Analysis Existing Neighborhood Views 1 view from Trentaz Road 1 night view from Trentaz Road 2 view from McLain Flats Road 3 view from CO-82 north bound 4 view from W Buttermilk Road 5 view from Owl Creek Road 6 view from CO-82 south bound 1 view from Trentaz Road 2 view from McLain Flats Road 6 view from CO-82 south bound 5 view from Owl Creek Road 4 view from W Buttermilk Road for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com 3 view from CO-82 north bound 2 Concept 1 “The Ridge” 3.1 Building Concepts Terminal Layout CDOT ROW CDOT RESERVED CORRIDOR APRON TOFA 175’-0” 340’-0” 100’-0” 120’-0” CURBSIDE VIEW OPPORTUNITY PARKING GATE LOUNGE TICKETING / BAG CLAIM HWY 82 145’-0” Site Section Typical East-West L S OU B CURBSIDE LOADING/ STORAGE AIRLINE OPS TSA BAG SCREEN AIRPORT ADMIN. AIRLINE TICKET OFFICE CIRCULATION / RESTROOMS TICKETING BAGGAGE CLAIM SECURITY CHECKPOINT OUTBOUND BAGGAGE Plan Legend MECHANICAL DEPARTING PASSENGER ARRIVING PASSENGER OUTBOUND BAGGAGE INBOUND BAGGAGE VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION Level 1 CURBSIDE DEPARTING PASSENGER ARRIVING PASSENGER OUTBOUND BAGGAGE OPEN TO BELOW INBOUND BAGGAGE VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION GATE LOUNGE APRON Level 2 Plan Diagrams RFTA Station RFTA Station Long Term Short Term Employee Rental Ready Rental Car Service Long Term Commercial Apron Site Plan Conceptual Layout for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com 2 3.2 Concept 1 “The Ridge” Building Concepts Perspectives A Site integration achieves a smaller scale while capitalizing on thermal mass of the ground B Low profile roof “hugs” the landscape to create a neighborhood scale C Potential green roof patio provides an extended outdoor experience D Structure & building form respond to internal program & spatial needs E Interconnected spaces create layered views & intuitive wayfinding F Overhangs protect passengers from the elements, limit light pollution & solar gain, and maximize natural daylight F B D C F E A Building Cross Section looking north A Pedestrian-scale approach & curbside experience B Low profile roof “hugs” the landscape to create a neighborhood scale C Landscaped area provides an extended outdoor experience D Southeast corner lifts to frame views of Buttermilk Ski Area E Overhangs protect passengers from the elements, limit light pollution & solar gain, and maximize natural daylight D B E E A C Building Exterior looking northwest A Framed view to Buttermilk Ski Area B Landscaped area provides an extended outdoor experience C Building form allows ticketing, bag claim & gate lounge to share volume, daylight & views D Amenities & seating in non-secure area creates a relaxed & pleasant public space C A B D Building Interior looking south for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com 2 Concept 1 “The Ridge” 3.3 Building Concepts Neighborhood Views 1 view from Trentaz Road 1 night view from Trentaz Road 2 view from McLain Flats Road 3 view from CO-82 north bound 4 view from W Buttermilk Road 5 view from Owl Creek Road 6 view from CO-82 south bound 1 view from Trentaz Road 2 view from McLain Flats Road 6 view from CO-82 south bound 5 view from Owl Creek Road 4 view from W Buttermilk Road for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com 3 view from CO-82 north bound 2 Concept 2 “The Pavilion” 4.1 Building Concepts Terminal Layout 340’-0” CDOT ROW CDOT RESERVED CORRIDOR APRON TOFA 175’-0” 100’-0” 120’-0” CURBSIDE VIEW OPPORTUNITY VIEW OPPORTUNITY GATE LOUNGE PARKING VIEW OPPORTUNITY TICKETING / BAG CLAIM MECH HWY 82 145’-0” Site Section Typical East-West L S OU B CURBSIDE LOADING/ STORAGE ENTRY PLAZA AIRLINE OPS AIRPORT ADMIN. AIRLINE TICKET OFFICE CIRCULATION / RESTROOMS TICKETING TSA BAG SCREEN SECURITY CHECKPOINT OUTBOUND BAGGAGE BAGGAGE CLAIM Plan Legend MECHANICAL DEPARTING PASSENGER ARRIVING PASSENGER OUTBOUND BAGGAGE INBOUND BAGGAGE VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION Level 1 CURBSIDE DEPARTING PASSENGER ARRIVING PASSENGER OUTBOUND BAGGAGE INBOUND BAGGAGE VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION GATE LOUNGE APRON Level 2 Plan Diagrams RFTA Station RFTA Station Long Term Short Term Employee Rental Ready Rental Car Service Long Term Commercial Apron Site Plan Conceptual Layout for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com 2 Concept 2 “The Pavilion” 4.2 Building Concepts Perspectives A Site integration achieves a smaller scale while capitalizing on thermal mass of the ground B Expansive views from gate lounge C Potential green roof patio provides an extended outdoor experience D Skylights optimize natural daylight E Entry plaza creates a welcoming & pleasant public space F Overhangs protect passengers from the elements, limit light pollution & solar gain, and maximize natural daylight F F B C F D E A Building Cross Section looking north A Stepped building massing reduces building scale B Entry plaza creates a welcoming & pleasant public space C Potential green roof patio provides an extended outdoor experience D Southeast corner lifts to frame views of Buttermilk Ski Area E Overhangs protect passengers from the elements, limit light pollution & solar gain, and maximize natural daylight D A C E E B B Building Exterior looking northwest A Skylights optimize natural daylight B Amenities & seating in non-secure area creates a relaxed & pleasant public space C Entry plaza creates a welcoming public space, as well as a setting for local artist, interactive amenities & events A C B Building Interior looking south for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com C 2 Concept 2 “The Pavilion” 4.3 Building Concepts Neighborhood Views 1 view from Trentaz Road 1 night view from Trentaz Road 2 view from McLain Flats Road 3 view from CO-82 north bound 4 view from W Buttermilk Road 5 view from Owl Creek Road 6 view from CO-82 south bound 1 view from Trentaz Road 2 view from McLain Flats Road 6 view from CO-82 south bound 5 view from Owl Creek Road 4 view from W Buttermilk Road for more information: add to the conversation online: http://www.aspenairport.com http://www.pitkincountyconnect.com 3 view from CO-82 north bound 1.1 Welcome! Background Welcome to the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements Environmental Assessment (EA) Public Meeting Project Refresher: Two Primary Projects: 1. Terminal Area Improvements: a new terminal, parking and associated projects. 2. Runway Shift: 80 feet to the west and widening up to 150 feet. Proposed Projects What is an Environmental Assessment? • Requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. • Formal, national process based on Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and FAA orders for how to comply with NEPA. Meeting Goals: • Review preliminary findings of several environmental resource categories including air quality, noise, and wetlands, among others, that were not addressed at the previous public meeting on September 29, 2016. • Engage the community in dialogue and receive public comments on the preliminary findings. Environmental Categories Categories to Evaluate per FAA Order 1050.1F include: • Air Quality • Land Use • Biological Resources • Natural Resources and Energy Supply • Climate • Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use • Coastal Resources • Socioeconomics Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks • Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f) • Farmlands • Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste • Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources • Visual Effects • Water Resources (Wetlands, Floodplains and Wild and Scenic Rivers) • Cumulative Impacts • Green highlights denote categories with preliminary environmental consequences addressed at today’s meeting; remaining categories were addressed at the previous public meeting on September 29, 2016. • Note: in addition to the FAA-required resources, potential impacts to surface transportation were also evaluated as part of the EA. How to Participate: As you review the boards, there are several ways to comment: • Post-It Notes • Do you have other comments? Please put your comments on post-it notes and place on the board in question. • Ask Questions! • Ask anyone with a nametag for assistance. Next Steps: • Review Public Comments • Release Draft EA with public comment period • Public Hearing for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Thank You for Your Participation! Runway Improvements 1.2 Background Background • ASE currently has a 95 feet wingspan restriction in place based on a non-standard 320 foot runway to taxiway separation distance. • Aircraft trends indicate that the aircraft with wingspans less than 95 feet will be phased out, with half of the U.S. fleet retired by 2021. • With wingspan restrictions still in place, current air carriers would not be able to operate at ASE with future fleet. • FAA will not allow another modification to standard to allow larger wingspan without ASE meeting FAA standards of 400 feet runway to taxiway separation. • In order to have future Design Group-III air service at ASE, the FAA is requiring the airfield to be brought into FAA compliance for that Design Group. Purpose & Need • PURPOSE: The purpose of this project is to meet FAA design standards, allowing ASE to keep commercial service in the long-term. • NEED: The implementation of the runway reconfiguration will address the fact that the current airfield does not meet the FAA design standards for D-III aircraft due to the deficient separation distance between the runway and taxiway. Runway Alternatives No Action Alternative • Airfield will remain “as is” operating under the 95 foot wingspan restriction. • Air service will be reduced to turboprops; some operations will divert to business jets. Runway Reconfiguration Alternative • Airfield will be reconfigured: • Runway shift 80 feet west; Runway widening to 150 feet • Airfield brought into compliance with FAA design standards. • Aircraft up to 118 feet wingspan will be able to fly into ASE. • All other alternatives in the airfield study would either not meet project purpose and need or would result in more impacts on the airport environs. • Therefore, the minimal shift required to meet FAA design standards is the only Runway Reconfiguration Alternative brought forward into the EA (along with the No Action). Future Air Service Study (2014) Aircraft up to 118 feet could theoretically serve Aspen under the proposed Runway Alternative *E-Jets E2 data are preliminary ** Potentially performance capable, but likely limited during hotter summer months. Pending airline coordination will help determine if these aircraft could meet airline safety requirements for performance Runway Reconfiguration Alternative for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com 1.3 Terminal Area Improvements Background Purpose & Need • East side improvements were recommended in the Master Plan due to: • Existing Terminal Area deficiencies • Apron issues • Operational issues • Roadway/connectivity issues • PURPOSE: The purpose of the terminal replacement and associated east side projects is to optimize the safety and efficiency of the airport. • NEED: The implementation of the terminal replacement and associated projects will address the following needs: • The existing terminal and terminal area is deficient in space with operational, safety and functional issues that do not currently meet the needs of passengers, staff and users. • Apron is deficient in size and currently slopes into the terminal, creating safety hazards. • GA Apron noise has been identified as an issue for surrounding communities and a need to mitigate this noise was identified in the Master Plan. Terminal Alternatives • No Action Alternative • Terminal will remain “as is”. • Existing needs of passengers and operations will continue to not be met. • Terminal Alternatives 1 and 2 • Terminal Alternatives assume: • The same disturbance footprint (entire East Side Terminal Area) for Terminal Replacement, roadway and parking improvements, noise wall and other associated projects. • Only one parking alternative brought forward (meeting existing number of spaces). Expansion of parking onsite through a garage or expansion of the lots was determined to not be feasible. • Pedestrian integration with public transit will be enhanced. • Two Terminal Alternatives differ in visualizations. 340’-0” CDOT ROW CDOT RESERVED CORRIDOR APRON TOFA 175’-0” 1100’-0” 00’-0” 120’-0” ACCESS VIEW OPPORTUNITY PARKING GATE LOUNGE TICKETING / BAG CLAIM HWY 82 145’-0” Terminal Conceptual Alternative 1 : The Ridge 340’-0” CDOT ROW CDOT RESERVED CORRIDOR APRON TOFA 175’-0” 100’-0” 10 00’-0” 120’-0” ACCESS VIEW OPPORTUNITY VIEW OPPORTUNITY GATE LOUNGE MECH PARKING VIEW OPPORTUNITY TICKETING / BAG CLAIM HWY 82 145’-0” Terminal Conceptual Alternative 2 : The Pavilion for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Resources 2.1 Analysis Air Quality • Per requirements of the Clean Air Act, the EA will identify criteria pollutant emissions: • carbon monoxide (CO), • ozone (precursor pollutants NOx and VOC), • sulfur oxides (SOx), • particulate matter (fine and course particles - PM2.5 and PM10). • Pitkin County area is subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) because the region had previous exceedances of the standard for course particulate matter (PM10). • Air Quality in the region meets the standards (attainment) for all other criteria pollutants. • Terminal Alternatives • Construction emissions: emissions due to the construction process. • Operational emissions: Relative to No Action, the With Project scenario would increase emissions due to a slight increase in aircraft taxiway length. • Conformance with the SIP: Project is expected to be de minimis* (100 tons per year). * de minimis emission levels are a threshold for air emissions caused by a federally funded project for an area that does not meet the standards. • Runway Alternatives • Construction emissions: emissions due to the construction process. • Operational emissions: Relative to No Action, the With Project scenario would increase emissions due to additional passengers and larger aircraft. • Conformance with the SIP: Project is expected to be de minimis (100 tons per year). Biological Resources • All proposed improvements are located primarily on pre-disturbed ground. • No listed endangered, threatened, or special status species are commonly found within the survey area. • The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with the EA assessment of no impacts and sent a letter of “no concerns.” Biological Resources - Vegetation Types • With the piping of a section of Owl Creek (see Water Resources board) animals that once inhabited the area may move downstream or to another riparian system. Climate • Consuming fossil fuels/energy has been shown to contribute to climate change. • The project is expected to change the quantity of energy consumed by airport facilities and airport activity. • The EA will quantify greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation of the project. • Runway Alternative • Runway improvements are expected to increase aircraft-related energy consumption due to the larger aircraft and more passengers being served. • Terminal Alternatives • Terminal facility-related emissions per square footage are expected to decrease. • Slight increase in taxi distance associated with terminal improvements would result in an increase in aircraft emissions. for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Resources 2.2 Analysis Noise • Overview • 65 DNL noise contours were generated for existing (2015) and future (2023 and 2028) conditions for the No Action and Development Alternatives. Additionally, noise was modeled for the out year (2033) to show noise after five years of project implementation. Summary of Aviation Activity Forecast (2015-2033) • DNL (day-night average sound level) is the noise metric used for environmental analysis. DNL is the average noise level over a 24-hour period. • Noise between the hours of 10pm and 7am is artificially increased by 10 dB to take into account the increased sensitivity to noise during this period. • Noise contours are a series of superimposed lines that represent various DNL levels used to assess the relative aircraft noise exposure levels of different project alternatives. • Per FAA regulations, the threshold of significance for noise is an increase in noise by 1.5 decibels (dB) or more for a noise-sensitive area at the 65 DNL noise contour or higher. Noise: Existing (2015) 2015 represents the existing/baseline year for noise analysis. • There are no noise-sensitive land uses located within the existing 65 DNL contour. 2015 Noise Contours Noise Walls • The purpose of a noise wall is to mitigate for aircraft ground operations (including running auxiliary power units when the aircraft engines are off). 10 Foot Noise Wall Project Contours • Analysis for the noise walls was conducted using the Lmax metric, a single event noise metric. • Goal is to reduce noise levels by 5 db. 14 Foot Noise Wall Project Contours for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Resources 2.3 Analysis Noise: Future (2023) 2023 represents the opening year of the terminal. • The 2023 DNL contour represents the first year of the completed terminal. This contour represents both the No Action Terminal and With Project Terminal Alternatives since they would be the same (no changes in operations or fleet mix). 2023 With Project Noise Contours Noise: Future (2028) 2028 represents the first year of operation for the runway • No Action: • The No Action Alternatives would result in a change in noise due to a change in fleet mix over time. (Note that this contour represents the No Action Runway/With Project Terminal as well, since the terminal project would not result in a change in operations). 2028 No Project Noise Contours • With Project: • The first year of implementation assumes a phase-in of regional jets with a wingspan greater than 95 feet. 2028 With Project Noise Contours for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Resources Noise: Future (2033) Out Year 2033 Out Year represents fiveyears hence for operation with the runway • No Action: • The No Action Alternatives would result in a change in noise due to a change in fleet mix over time. (Note that this contour represents the No Action Runway/With Project Terminal as well, since the terminal project would not result in a change in operations). 2033 No Project Noise Contours • With Project: • The Out Year condition assumes a general change in fleet mix over time as older aircraft are retired, the business jet fleet is all Stage 3, and all CRJ-700 aircraft would be phased out. 2033 With Project Noise Contours Noise: What if Scenario The What If Scenario discloses potential effects that might arise if the project induced enplanements or resulted in additional city destinations. Therefore, the What If Scenario assumes a high load factor. 2033 What If Noise Contours for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com 2.4 Analysis Environmental Resources 2.5 Analysis Land Use • Aviation-related land use planning is integral to safe, sustainable operations. There are no noise-sensitive land uses within the 65 DNL contour. • The proposed improvements would not result in the disruption of any communities, the relocation of residences or businesses, or result in any changes to existing or planned land uses or zoning designations. Generalized Land Use Map Surface Transportation Vehicle Ground Movements Table 2. Vehicle Ground Movements Vehicle Movements Vehicle Type Projected Passenger Enplanements Rental Vehicles Car Van SUV/Truck All Commercial Vehicles Car Van SUV/Truck Limo All Non-Commercial Vehicles Car Van SUV/Truck Large SUV RFTA (Public Bus) Limo All Total Vehicles Car Van SUV/Truck Large SUV RFTA (Public Bus) Limo All Average % of Passengers Per Passengers Vehicle 2015 Actual 2023 No Action with Project: Terminal 2028 No Action Runway 2028 With Project: Runway First Year of Implementation Projected Passenger Enplanements 233,541 263,153 258,860 296,140 467,082 526,306 517,720 592,280 Projected Total Passengers 27.2% of Passengers 14.3% 1.46 6,205 6,992 6,878 7,869 19.5% 2.24 5,540 6,243 6,141 7,025 66.2% 2.02 20,832 23,473 23,090 26,416 100.0% 1.97 32,578 36,708 36,109 41,310 29.6% of Passengers 50.0% of Vehicles pickup passengers when dropping off other passengers 1.7% 2.00 879 990 974 1,115 89.0% 1.96 47,026 52,988 52,124 59,631 8.9% 2.33 3,955 4,457 4,384 5,016 0.4% 1.00 439 495 487 557 100.0% 1.98 52,300 58,931 57,970 66,318 43.2% of Passengers 19.5% of private vehicles go to on-site parking (car, van, SUV. Large SUV) 11.9% 1.46 14,805 16,682 16,410 18,773 16.3% 2.24 13,218 14,895 14,652 16,762 55.2% 2.02 49,701 56,003 55,090 63,024 4.7% 2.00 4,230 4,766 4,688 5,364 5.2% 1.64 6,446 7,263 7,145 8,174 6.7% 2.88 4,688 5,282 5,196 5,944 100.0% 1.98 93,088 104,892 103,180 118,040 7.8% 45.9% 36.4% 2.8% 3.1% 4.1% 100.0% 1.50 2.02 2.05 2.00 1.64 2.67 1.98 21,889 65,785 74,489 4,230 6,446 5,127 177,965 24,664 74,126 83,934 4,766 7,263 5,778 200,531 24,262 72,917 82,564 4,688 7,145 5,683 197,259 27,756 83,418 94,455 5,364 8,174 6,502 225,668 2033 No Action 2033 With Project: Runway Out Year 2033** What If Scenario 281,036 562,072 333,259 666,518 548,356 1,096,712 7,467 6,667 25,068 39,203 8,855 7,906 29,727 46,488 14,570 13,009 48,913 76,492 1,058 56,589 4,760 529 62,936 1,254 67,105 5,644 627 74,631 2,064 110,417 9,287 1,032 122,800 17,815 15,907 59,809 5,090 7,757 5,641 112,020 21,126 18,863 70,923 6,036 9,198 6,690 132,835 34,762 31,037 116,699 9,932 15,135 11,007 218,572 26,340 79,163 89,637 5,090 7,757 6,170 214,158 31,235 93,874 106,294 6,036 9,198 7,317 253,954 51,395 154,463 174,900 9,932 15,135 12,039 417,864 • The breakdown in passengers by vehicle type (based on a 2009 curbfront survey) was applied to the forecasts of passengers to project the number of vehicle ground movements that would occur under various passenger enplanement scenarios. • Ground vehicle movements each represent a roundtrip vehicle movement, which is a trip to the airport to drop-off the passenger and a trip from the airport back to the vehicles origin. • Minor modifications to surface traffic routing at the airport could occur with implementation of the terminal improvements. However, there would be no changes to access points. • The proposed projects would not cause any Pitkin County arterials or any Colorado State Department of Transportation (CDOT), City of Aspen or City of Snowmass intersections to change from acceptable to deficient levels of service. Terminal Site Plan 1: The Ridge. for more information: www.aspenairport.com Terminal Site Plan 2: The Pavilion. add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Resources 2.6 Analysis Water Resources Wetlands & Water Features Near Airport • Water Resources in Survey Area (area surveyed by certified specialists): • Owl Creek • Owl Creek 100 Year Floodplain • Three wetlands • Two Tributaries to Owl Creek • Four Ditches • Note that only those resources in the Study Area (proposed disturbance area for improvements) were evaluated for potential impacts • The Terminal Alternatives would not have any significant impacts on water quality and no impacts to wetlands or non-wetlands. • The Runway Alternative would require the piping of 1,670 linear feet of Owl Creek and would result in 1.5 acres of riparian area impact, which is associated with the 100-year floodplain of the creek. Piping of the creek would decrease sedimentation and wildlife hazards on the airfield. • Coordination with US Army Corps of Engineers is ongoing. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions.” • The proposed improvements would not result in an adverse impact to land use compatibility, noise, or other environmental resources, aside from wetlands. • The piping of Owl Creek is viewed as beneficial from the standpoint that sedimentation and wildlife hazards would be reduced. In addition, piping of Owl Creek would reduce evaporation and is of benefit in continuing drought conditions in the arid west. Because the purpose and need of the projects are to address safety requirements, and are not directed towards increasing capacity, cumulative impacts to water resources such as increased development near the Airport are unlikely to occur. • The proposed improvements would not significantly combine cumulatively with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Resources 2.7 Analysis Socioeconomic Conditions Overview • Socioeconomic indicators provide background for understanding social and economic development in an area. These indicators serve as a basis for assessment of potential socioeconomic impacts. • For evaluation in the EA, the area of development includes: • The socioeconomic indicators evaluated include: • Population • Aspen • Income • Snowmass Village • Employment • Pitkin County • Tax Revenue • Western Slope • Tourism • Colorado • Lodging • No Action: The No Action Alternative would result in a reduction in enplanements/resort visitors (compared to the With Project scenario), but would increase operations of turboprops (only in out years). • With Project: The proposed improvements would increase enplanements/ resort visitors similar to what would occur under current fleet mix (status quo). (Note that this scenario reflects the FAA-approved forecast, and is reasonably foreseeable.) • What-if Scenario: What-If scenario would result in an increase in enplanements/resort visitors that could occur from combined factors of greater aircraft capacity and potential increase in lodging capacity (growing RBO market). (Note that this scenario is not an FAA-approved forecast, and is not reasonably foreseeable.) Population • Annual growth rates in Aspen (1.3%) and Pitkin County (0.8%) are less than the 2% objective discussed in past planning documents. • The State Demography Office population forecast for Pitkin County assumes that growth will continue at 2% or less through 2035. Source: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Income • While median household income is relatively high, the cost of housing, health care and other expenses makes families more vulnerable to changes in the economy. for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com Environmental Resources Socioeconomic Conditions Employment • Sectors most impacted by tourism constitute 62.5% of total jobs in the County. • Accommodations and food services make up 33.8% of total jobs. • Overall economy more than $610,000,000. Tax Revenue • Retail sales show steady increase in recent years despite drop in total population (visitors plus residents) due to loss of hotel units in Aspen. • Projections continue to show an increase in retail sales tax revenue. Source: Pitkin County 2016 Budget Report Tourism Skier Visits Trend • Skier visits relatively flat but generally increasing since recession. • WRNF visitation increased substantially with greatest growth occurring during summer season. • Tourism economy generally stable and growing. Source: Aspen Skiing Company for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com 2.8 Analysis 2.9 Environmental Resources Analysis Socioeconomic Conditions Lodging (Traditional Lodge Units) • Traditional lodging inventory has seen a slight reduction since 2009. • Economy lodge rooms have been identified as the most underserved segment of the current inventory. • While annual and peak-season occupancy have increased in recent years the market has room to accommodate additional visitors. Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May 2015. Lodging (RBO Market) Aspen p Listing Count Trend d – All Listings • RBO market very dynamic and growing. • Over 200 units added to RBO inventory in Aspen/Snowmass Village since May of 2015 (inventory at 994 as of November, 2016). • Occupancy rate of RBO units is rising with peak occupancy occurring during summer. • Currently no efforts to regulate the number of RBO units by local jurisdictions. Source: AirDNA Market Report/Aspen – 11/2016 Snowmasss V Village Viillage Listing Count Trend d – All Listings Source: AirDNA Market Report/Snowmass Village – 11/2016 Source: DestiMetrics, “Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study,” May 2015. Economic Benefits of Project (Runway) Potential New Upvalley Lodging Guests (Annual) Forecast Scenarios Enplanement Increase (Over 2015) Visitors1 New Lodge Guests2 No Action Runw ay w /Terminal 29,612 22,031 15,422 2028 No Action 25,319 18,837 13,186 2028 w /Project 62,599 46,574 32,602 2033 No Action 47,495 35,336 24,735 2033 w /Project 99,718 74,190 51,933 244,739 182,086 127,460 2033 What-I f 1 Demand seats x .744 (from the Colorado Department of Transpotation, Division of Aeronautics report entitled "2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports") 2 Visitors x .70 (based on average of 2015/16 Aspen Skiing Company on-mountain survey data and ACRA data from 2012 summer visitor survey regarding acommodation type) Source: TGMC, llc Economic Benefits of New Visitors (Annual) All Scenarios Assume Commecial Passenger Terminal Redevelopment 2028 2023 No Action (Runway) No Action (Runway) 2033 With Project 3 (Runway) Reduction w/o Runway Project No Action (Runway) With Project (Runway) 2033 Reduction w/o What-If Scenario Runway Project Enplanement I ncrease (ov er 2015) 29,612 25,319 62,599 37,280 47,495 99,718 52,223 Additional Visitors1 22,031 18,837 46,574 27,736 35,336 74,190 38,854 182,086 $50,694,085.73 $43,344,710.14 $107,165,982.46 $81,308,780.28 $170,711,631.79 $89,402,851.51 $418,979,462.62 Annual Visitor Spending2 $63,821,272.32 1 Enplanement increase x .744 (from the Colorado Department of Transpotation, Division of Aeronautics report entitled "2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports") 2 Based on estimate of visitor spedning obtained from the Colorado Department of Transpotation, Division of Aeronautics report entitled "2013 Economic Impact Study for Colorado Airports") 3 First year of relocated runway implementation for more information: www.aspenairport.com add to the conversation online: www.pitkincountyconnect.com 244,739 Source: TGMC, llc Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Involvement - Sign in Sheets 1 COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT i CUUNTY AIRPORT EASTSIDE lg ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Visioning Session Meeting #2 April 16, 2015 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS MM C. wo-mgwd, Meomwhf ?moi MW MM Lam/l 75er (/04 Momdk?" 13x My 5? 3/6/ {70633?59 5 ?lambs/a?) 60,11 @5574ch fancier 51022! 67% 60 @Mm cow; $114261 Ma?a/I Pg 30% 91/6 Miner?- 4 $7512 727?? 1093 ~91? Zy? o: 8 61m: [.COrq 90% in 3?25; 379th Low [@22 UJDQ 373395 5 fin/yew (?60 MCN. mini, Meg/u 301 7259?5 (Jen?G 9,3 gm, Mm 530mm - qugegs 9?06qu 119:) el?/l 5774939 [445 ef?ng] cam WarMJ/k ij pr, pen ScLUm/?an 303 4,74% 1: (co el? A Warm?. @cu: W. 8v bet a ?0 6:70;: 53%7 sdusfuamah ?Em: 770930}; Agra? wooww set. all: mam? ??355 60% was) \?uc?is at: ?1 92517770 mew cam We Wm POP: teem MSAEWQ ZLSKA 091 LP: 3-01: qquxogo Zl KACH-ILDS - (av-x 0?06 NEt/m/ SZVEn/aalc b? Asgc/J ?Zo -Duu ?nneasea?of? 6Md-u.. Com. THANK i BOUNTY AIRPORT EASTSI DE I I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Visioning Session Meeting #2 April 16, 2015 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS SENT Richar?g Blake 'va' Sq? 170 13% 0375 @L?wi?sm . ?0.1.1 Wag-2F: [acid/?4 mm- ism {Ht/1&5 umers Lucia Lieu: 3999 @mw?ne?a @471?)an 3101 Mar CamM?umsQasmemhvday. nef Lem soc. BMW sas'swmo MW asewwq - or? TENN Kmubemj eASfmJ Mal L01 3 MW: Li COM ?3425?70/0 Ae?no?tq agqhwer, cam THANK - i COUNTY AIRPURT 5'9 .1 IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Input Meeting Meeting #3 September 10. 2015 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS $9124. 5.241% (Ba-x rzeg Gig-g tz?s Mtge/1&4 4/ m. 441/?4/6 Wm?r Ire?'4 ?fl?epnqgut 4'3. 60% (gig?4675" ?na?w?aaugd? .tU Coo 5M1 ?Ahcom ?ay/1A . (5,94. Aggie/MIL" (pH. 01%? ??1420 hhb?txnh? m?net? hp?g?omat?tl/LM no 353 Gm 9?1K'3'33l ,ng ?(Wwadmwc?cw?k rm ?2:0an 34??ng WWI an, @3546 $l?iacl?ft? "5.93 06.3 ?3 37"4 43 GM Showings-r3; you/E3 we, 224 We em 59?4:qu a Ibrawz?>u? 31444.1!me 4' (0N1 ??5595 A: QM 0 w?fELbAbif-V Mer (0/4 as 3/ 19? 5270?3?7? m? 67% THANK i ASPENIPITKIN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Sign Publiclnput Meeting Meeting #3 September 10, 2015 TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS 3/ 7-a?70 Jam, ADDRESS 2?06? (?00 cr 1/ moi/w, 29:413. 2422 29171216 MUE 44 39%! 251/ Qmmumcom 125a SOMQLEWHL my 92(2) ?wz? Jmakwdg? 62; Mr: A \(cl magma/gob; 5 J?m 73ci-5ig?szmm?H?mwmda '1 89-435 1391:?" myaw. Com r501 ?nave" Bax ZUPMFEU CZDUNW MIL PW Oi Veazr cz'mwm '5 exempm @850 #5ngc?dzm Na?m hunch Ii mmlMu 19 time, THANK 1 EDUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS I I '1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Input Meeting Meeting #3 Septemberlo, 2015 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS 2 5 7?70 j?ane??i a?ai-rmeream THANK I i CUUHTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Input Meeting Meeting #4 October 22, 2015 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAILADDRESS 3 . ND Veda 3 0? GYM oiiw??sse'm?enmm 55\ Coo?? Tm. Amtafh? 203A/5eqy1J ST (61/5 Merl)?- Wn Imam-i crease. We: 9 can-- {57" MM ch?ff??Lb 9mg.? COTWM Ezra ?d ?22m. f0 par 6x arr; 13? 05:23 THANK I i EOUHTY I (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Input Meeting Meeting #4 October 22, 2015 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS 47; 7/7022? 24ml, ek? 5?:ch Madcom ?1 r4 Ea/ 7?7? 7-7?szquL aw)? 6/?3f?gw?dm THANK I i ASPEHIPITKIN BOUNTY AIRPORT (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Input Meeting Meeting #4 October 22, 2015 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS (19% Sari/tweak Rt?wmc??pgw Qoub .Cm 577?:de Con/1 Gamma/act; WNW Le?h?e \esLie - 8M1 Calk I i ASPENIPITKIH BBUHTY AIRPORT 5' IMPROVEMENTS 9 ,3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Snowmass Public Meeting - February 18. 2016 Sr; Elem wB/?deiz?u 7417(? jg?rljp rile-C JSUJ ngJnE-i?? ?g m/mk. aaou! 0w giant (.9 rig/1min em gafhl (lynx-11% aqu (071-1 ?fcd sza-TI) L61, (3m Kaodbm ONieuJA?i'?LbAbf :eegfm' (?tam PM I i ASPENIPITKIN BOUNTY AIRPORT - -- (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Meeting February 16, 2016 EMAILADDRESS Ho ONOUGH 9929.0. kQ??dmx??w. Co an}; We?; [Let/L vow/E ?aw 31" em?ye \y (NM Sva$hmm Sisz?ng :7 0m? 8mg TONinu/AfCLM/oh?ggm?rCCO/? KW bad 5 ,5 {Make f??rcom . Mu "hm was: 69W i CUUHTY AIHPURT Sign (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3 Public Meeting February16 2016 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS Fm/mmc/V Meg (A1105- (C (moi/0. WC rau\ $0 0L3 W5 54; O?vrd?N 5607f Cari/l J-f? ?mac Mo 3. H?m Spy/tug May/W I i BBUNTY AIHPIJRT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Meeting February 16, 2016 ?pad? 1216 [54 C) VIA (ad M373 Sigm Public Meeting September 29. 2016 NAME DAVIV Emmi Smtfex \Kw? Mushy? Hemwe QAHM ?us?bm Daem?w 775m mew Mm (Lu memes-ram ??ew?ie 5M3 N?Qt/k \ij o?hftS FAULT \4 a or? (:21 0 1 CUUHTY AIRPORT EMAIL ADDRESS 20? 23mm ?on, kw? 44-10140? WW I fawn?- HBA Con adam?weubquh?e/ Mm -W GM (15624!" S'flduUM?js. (?om Tm AFOMTOLUR (L bia?ammi COW) Scnf?f-ww war $7 urn-L ?049? 1 (Om (:lep 06/40? Wow/Mg}. ?ful?a?o?a (5&7 5/d?A QQJ.COA. THANK Q) I 1 BIJUHTY -- (MPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Meeting - September 29. 2016 EMAIL ADDRESS jg}? ch/Tl/?ML/c/ ?a??axa?r?n/qu??c (DR VJQm/ng?o/?H mmu/ac Cow-? d. ?gal/M (M ?70 45C: ?96597 2 (512%: 229%? i y/S ?lg/y CerS 341 llag?sfzu?eW?t-Co W1 0 ?rm {Rama Weigw ye Hoowm DH 0 WW Vim/A men ?(we [twp/Dru?! Dd (or. 0/16- "1 1? ASPEHIPITKIN AIRPUHT IM PROVEM ENTS I . I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Meeting September 29, 2016 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS ?Meg U0 6, aspinwgu 939.] ?9 Com THANK I 1 BBUHTY AIRPURT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Meeting September 29. 2016 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS Ton. QARQ-L 3&1stan THANK I i BOUNTY AIHPUHT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Open House - January 19, 2017 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS :06 ages? 397750 c? 97. :37:ng Mg?gn? (1 y?f?y?.cw1 ?wo?Sc/? 33231996 Sabiuai?w?zr rm Td-Lerdawu PA .vax (mg-(538 @5ti926 Qc, cum Ni? HWAAOW {?ng QZS??Lfoi?l Ni ?emaswxMorsc. Lav-x jail-N Clo/Lara? 3Q Ln IAOW gr anr-r? Jot-n can. $001141 1?0 5- tool-LED.? ?JollLra?C?lo DA. $rmlm/ .9an 67/ 5- {Ara fr rat/Kramr f?d?l? 3'05 6 N) 5 Ida-51' 5y) . Ju (Aka; 3 \q ARGL um-t ?21- (.5 tan Bulgam 0% ca?) mm qa?S '75 3Q NR Ita?c ram /0thC'\ C0 ?927. 473/56. Ila?Mr: Co?s WW SS 470-33l-3?ll3 um; (gm (9/15 kph-L 4 876(2, f?mam 97+ Wan khlnarohogro?n?r? or?hiH I30 VIKML HM Pu,? Alc??anL 1-:th Cam. I ASPEHIPITKIN CHUNTY MRPURT IMPROVEMENTS - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Open House January 19, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS TM (and WW 1 CUUNTY AIRPORT EASTSIDE lg ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting #1 February 23, 2015 Hag Vi 85 5977 Cid"! {"51 Roars? [03 ?193m ?17 W1 83 por?g/ citing Ram 4261.2?9 {414 as. beam eamueem.m pllw??mw 329 @661? ?lly-a W5 Tilt/twat: 41,) mm jwa ?742% WMA WWQ 7'74? ?25- 6' ?004 {1?ch W??4w?t 25267 M6 5210; @525er 4/ SOFQWS ?5 6&9! 640?; 96/5??3/ mfg-Em gar/?ied M1 (may, Cow?; {22' imamwh 97min S'o?o A4065: CKJ geegmiezwq gamie 5 [70 Law 37$ - Urmga.?\ (3.6-4 ?jf?y??p /i0r. It; W20 #502403 A 9 ao/??a?f?f?w a e. ?p?n 7 am as: Qo?g'cm 1.4- am glad .J ?Tbbt?z-VNT/ a705?50 {49.4 512/ 4mm [019 aka 774/ (2224 k; 0/141 THANK COUNTY AIRPORT EASTSIDE lg ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting #1 February 23, 2015 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS Eyre, 7927 2.055 mwn?vredg mar cm; apt F/?L?jcrmau L. Hm ?$832775 lzdb@ (~qu ,9 v97} '21" gr 7o} 96:7er a. an: on 727-970/ I74 557%," @hsaifgd ELEV ?70 736?W?lx/1Mf?0ux?dq 0053' :Vd?fa?a?m 257%?; f,qm (0 Mic-S was} 19235 far/rd? 7&7? 2355 A?v4/ 0 gag/WM 23X Aa?w 9723 4332? DNEOHYWWIQ Lamas Vt/ 1?7 R7 851? 6 [369 5?51; 617?2? 2276 59% Fatigue tub/IBM 7M gt?b bcgj?rAfw?UDoQ/Q ?ggw Ad Cork, 7 (Of-g re! (a 43-47%; .. -EZEEJM Mud} Mud T?vg?u? W974 PWEWCO (593? 77901- 5122?) THANK I 1 ASPENIPITKIH BOUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee September 10, 2015 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL a. [.mbn CROOKQT 05550.69 iomckojfgublal/?QAOMW biz/L Vac ago cake/mm 4m 77-we- almris weww?? 151er 012056910 al-lma New rn .- 860 a lawn Aw. ml.? jkgi??ol Fil?sg?ry?a'? Us): 9?492 A 925' 9242?? skelazoq? 2 69 pic. JMCU- Ml. 9?41 :20 ifo ?wt-CausQ Gnu/W wk": (74% 949% we t?cor?a? WSQCOMA ed?" art 1555 tLueaercf be 9.251736% wad ?ay/V3 85 am 6 2 5 9nn?recd? Lea/40k 7- 5?5 r) Asp-re A #5753? {47/ ?Melt/44?. ,4 rnn/ {cam 77!? ml THANK i BIJUHTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS I I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee October 22. 2015 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS won a moor??71 255 u) n5 3162! 235-0 0 ,9ng Cazomdomm ed :55 95,6? satjgt 014?? $21.6 ?129]. 7? ?(be [330 So Quinn SLIS '1 [cumu? :leJK? 'hc?duw'gj ?jun Mm 74w}: 6'ng ?1 Wk? Lo p0 pix 523$ ?w gsqf?/a raf?e SW5 {but/18M raw Mo>huk 2y Ian?X Sewn/95$ 9?0 073?) If; ?iygu/?/ 725?377'9f?72 Q46 ?/Wr THANK I 1- BOUNTY AIRPORT g, . IMPROVEMENTS I I I I . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting - September 29. 2016 EMAIL ADDRESS Law?Den LCM Mag 30 Lawoz. SMC VPPS "ku1?dvW56?jM?i- ww? l??tlicuwl Vulta. ?9?69 5 71b5,. (92.51,? inM my ?nAcc?cQJ/z7 45 mamrfugg/n ?Ea/21m Sir/2L ?p?vw H4650 CK uwm 0:49:2sz mc?a Pei 3.47059 (Lon-Ix. dam lm??i? 9m com wigajav a?am._ ngstI/CDM Y?vgri'k Maew? VP ask/sapw? (and mm GJUW 4 u? 5 m5? 93? I 150% Egg Ui??Vh/?f Zlabuem'?g BMW mni?ea com 7149 . mew-mm Jot, M3 rim @JUl?H-z?m ?0?qu7 JIHL, Y. V14, 094- 503?? 5 gamma 151(16)er gimme; my??wm Dam. Ui-Zi (gglj?lyb IQS - Chef GICOM mm [Dal/1C] 32>th W764 cC/jamwa r?zwp i BOUNTY IMPROVEMENTS I . I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting September 29, 2016 W357 all: {721/0 aanmwd?j?ym I i ASPEHIPITKIH BOUNTY IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting September 29, 2016 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS WM AaPmoe? THAN I i AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Community Input Committee Meeting January 19, 2017 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS imm Wk?? idondomih ?mob Irma .eSumql'LTJOOd ace/?37k bf??n. End-k! 636W ism/N O?lom MW all.? :7 giant?'4 C9 r4: 1 ()an UEpA/uom ?24.43 2%00 can Appendix 10 Forecast Approval Letter 1 COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 0 Denver Airports District Office U.S. Department 26305 E. 68th Avenue, Room 224 Of Transportation Denver, Colorado 80249 Federal Avlotion 303-342-1250; FAX303-342-1260 Administration March 18, 2016 John S. Kinney, CM. Aspeanitkin County Airport 0233 E. Airport Road, Suite A Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspeanitl-(in County Airport Aspen. Colorado Aviation Forecast Approval Dear Mr. Kinney: The Federal Aviation Administration has completed its review of aviation forecast information for the Aspeanitkin County Airport. dated August 7, 2015. We found it to be developed using appropriate forecasting methodologies and supported by reasonable planning assumptions and current data. Accordingly, this aviation forecast is approved for use in the Aspeanitkin County Airports Airport Layout Plan Update. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (303) 342-1264 or by email at linda.bruce@faa.gov. Sincerely, Linda A. Bruce Colorado State Planner cc: Jviation Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendix 11 Public Hearing and Public Comment Period 1 COUNTY AIRPORT PROVEM ENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pitkin County Website Public Comments Through End of Comment Period (10/4/2017) and Responses Submitted by Paul McDonough Howard Vagneur Date Received August 27, 2017 August 28, 2017 Comment Summary Response Wonderful news! We are looking forward to finally getting a state of the art terminal and runway! Our family has enjoyed our 2nd home and the area for decades, however the getting to and fro has always been the worst part! We would love to the improved efficiencies and amenities of a new terminal! Also, a longer runway would allow more direct flights, leading to more skiers & customers to our businesses! The proposed action includes the relocation of the runway to address deficiencies and meet FAA standards, which does not include a longer runway. Hi, I've reviewed all of your plans, drafts, etc. and it appears to me that you only address areas at the airport. An Extended current EA is needed for areas outside the airport envelope. I have been impacted by low flying, loud and off course aircraft over my property in Woody Creek for many years impacting my property and lowering the property value. Past advisement to airport authorities have fallen on deaf ears. HV Preparation of the Draft EA followed the policies, procedures, and guidelines as outlined in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. These orders outline FAA accepted methodologies, methods, models, techniques, and thresholds of significance for the impact assessment and preparation of EA documents. The EA was prepared in compliance with NEPA, and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Please note that the project is needed to accommodate current and forecasted users and that it will not allow more flights (i.e. add capacity). The study area varies based on the resource being analyzed and can extend beyond the airport boundary. For example, the study area for noise is the three dimensional geographic area with the potential to be impacted by noise from the proposed project and must be large enough to include the area within the DNL 65 dB contour. The study area for each resource category has been defined in this EA (in Chapter 4). To determine if the Proposed Action will result in impacts, the No Action Alternative is compared with the Proposed Action. Based on the evaluation completed for this EA, no significant noise impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project relative to federal thresholds. Noise compatibility or non-compatibility of land use is determined by comparing the DNL value at a location to the values in the FAA’s land use compatibility guidelines. In this case, the 65 DNL noise contour encompasses 1 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response primarily airport property and does not contain any non-compatible land uses. Air quality is analyzed relative to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards; there are no significant impacts relative to any of the air quality standards. Since the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley due to federal grant assurances (with the exception of the grandfathered curfew already in place). According to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes; in general, there are minimum standards for operations of fixed wing aircraft (excluding when necessary for takeoff/landing). Over congested areas, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet is required, except for under take-off and landing procedures. Complaints on low-flying aircraft may be filed with the FAA, Office of Flight Standards, which monitors aircraft operations. Once the facts have been recorded, an FAA aviation safety inspector attempts to identify the offending aircraft operator. For more information on low flying aircraft complaints, please visit the following website: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ Ron Thompson August 30, 2017 I fail to remember the voters approving an enlargement to the airport and you work for the voters. This voter is against your plan. Enlarging the airport will fundamentally change our city, we are popular because of our small town charming character. Our commissioners and the city council disrespect the federal government's immigration laws, therefore if you go ahead with this costly plan you should have a strategy for how to fund it without federal funds. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) was presented with the Draft EA and all comments during fall 2017. and unanimously voted to submit the document to the FAA. This action does not require a direct vote by the community. The BOCC has submitted the Final EA to the FAA for their review. The proposed airport improvement projects evaluated in this EA are unlikely to occur without funding from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is the federal grant-in-aid program that represents a major source of funding for airport development and planning, and is used to ensure that 2 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response airport upgrade projects necessary for a facility to remain open and viable, are completed. In general, eligible projects include those improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. The proposed improvements evaluated in this EA are eligible for funding; however, timing of these projects will depend largely on availability of federal funding. With federal funding, the County will be responsible for covering the costs associated with the local share of the federal grant, components of the project that are ineligible for federal funding, and costs that exceed the grant. Peter Grenney August 30, 2017 Section - 2.2.2 Terminal Circulation Road Requirements and Parking Needs seems outdated based on 2012 parking calculations. How is the parking management plan accounting for car-share, ride-share, autonomous vehicles, and e-bikes? Is there any opportunity to make the terminal a shared hub for other regional transportation services (i.e. Union Station) whether it's for buses, shuttles, shared rides, etc.? The 2012 parking calculations were the most recent information on airport parking needs at the time of the Master Plan. It was not within the scope of this EA to update those numbers; however, it was confirmed that the assumptions made in the Master Plan were still valid, and therefore were used in this EA. Relative to your question on parking, the site plan covered in the EA plans for keeping the existing number of parking spaces due to lack of funding for a potential parking garage. The need for a general parking study for the entire valley has been identified due to broader parking needs, but it is assumed that due to limited parking, users will have to use other methods of transportation such as public transit, ride sharing, etc. The site plan includes a more intuitive, user friendly link to the RFTA station to streamline ease of use of the public transportation system. Final details relative to these elements will be included in the final design, which will include opportunities for public comment. Name not shown September 11, 2017 MOST IMPORTANT: When did citizens approve an enlargement to the airport? Can we bring torches to these meetings? This expansion is being crammed down the community's throat---just like all the new government buildings only the bureaucrats hungry for more power want in our little village. Geez. The Aspen Mayor and his Troika bypassed us citizens for the 47' foot City Hall with a 1500 sq. foot office with shower for the City Manager. When the newly hired airport director ---from .....get ready....LAX -----came into Rotary (typically a pro business group) to talk about the new plan in glowing (in his mind) and positive (in his mind) terms like "gargantuan" and "huge," I was told The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) was presented with the EA and all comments during fall 2017. The BOCC unanimously voted to submit the document to the FAA. This action requires approval of the BOCC but does not require a direct vote by the community. FAA will conduct its independent review and issue its decision. The design phase of the proposed project will incorporate further opportunities for public comment. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a 3 Submitted by Name not shown Date Received September 23, 2017 Comment Summary Response to shut up afterwards and not to mention it. HAHAHA Remember, commissioners ---you work for us voters. A majority of voters are against your plan. This bears repeating: " Enlarging the airport will fundamentally change our city; we are popular because of our small town charming character." manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability Some 50 years ago an article about the necessity of keeping our airport small appeared in the Aspen Times. Of course the financial interests ignored it as they will ignore it now. It is a shame that in a world gone bad with global warming and an ignorant upper class that we cannot find something better to do with this money. My absentee neighbors are all cutthroat CEOs with no morality. They want to come and go, if they do at all, in the largest possible contrivance. This would be a private jet with a wingspan that surpasses that of 15 tall men lying head to toe. Think of these men as dead and you will get a real picture of what global warming and unrestrained opulence brings. The purpose and need for this project is not related to general aviation aircraft operations at ASE. Instead, it relates to bringing the airfield up to FAA required safety standards to allow for future commercial service jet aircraft to continue to operate at ASE. Based on the Master Plan Update of 2013, the DIII standard was identified as the correct design group for ASE and therefore, ASE must meet those D-III standards. No significant impact has been identified from the projects relative to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions and therefore, no mitigation is required as part of the proposed projects. However, the Airport recognizes the importance of climate change and has been working with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen on the climate action planning to determine if there are ways to incorporate GHG minimization (such as preconditioned air, electric hook ups, sustainable terminal design) into the project or into other areas of the Airport. Peg O'Brien September 25, 2017 Please protect the air quality of the residential and recreational areas beneath the flight path. Data collection (on the mesa above the Woody Creek Post Office, on airport mesa above Jaffee Park, and others locales beneath the flight path - during on, off, and shoulder seasons), and analysis (perhaps involving a 3rd party environmental science group who would provide recommendations), followed by creation and strict enforcement of emissions regulations, may be appropriate. The Aspen-Valley-appropriate air quality regulations could then be used to guide decisions on types and numbers of planes allowed, which could inform the airport design. Thank you. Respectfully, Peg O'Brien WC Metro President No significant impact has been identified from the projects relative to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions relative to federal thresholds and therefore, no mitigation relative to this is required as part of the proposed projects. Because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley (with the exception of a limited curfew in place that is grandfathered in). However, the Airport recognizes the importance of climate change and has been working with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen on the climate action planning to determine if there are ways to incorporate GHG minimization (such as preconditioned air, electric hook ups, sustainable terminal design) into the project or into other areas of the Airport. Bert Myrin September 25, 2017 Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I support the current flight curfew going forward. I am concerned about the potential for larger commercial and The existing curfew at ASE is grandfathered in place and will remain in place in perpetuity, unless there is a change to the Pitkin County Code (Title 10). 4 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary private jets. I support “The Ridge” terminal area improvement because the exterior appearance is smaller in scale, with a low profile roof that hugs the landscape. Additionally, the open interior makes wayfinding intuitive and the enormous windows provide a sense of place that is unique to Aspen. If it were up to me (which it’s not), I’d support all improvements proposed except those necessary to accommodate larger jets. The projection of 74,190 additional annual visitors in 2033 with the runway project seems incompatible with maintaining the small-town character of Aspen. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. - Bert Myrin Response The addition of larger aircraft was modeled and found to have no significant impact on elements such as noise and air quality relative to federal thresholds. Because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley. The design concept for the terminal will be finalized during the design phase of the terminal, if the project moves forward, and will consider additional public input during that process on items like "fitting into the landscape", wayfinding, etc. The EA analyzed a terminal up to 140,000 square feet as a space reservation. The purpose and need to meet forecast commercial service fleet was identified in the Air Service Study, completed in 2014, which included coordination with air carriers. As part of the Air Service Study and subsequent 2015 ALP Update, the forecasts of aviation activity were updated to address the changing air carrier fleet. The Study confirmed that the aircraft currently serving ASE under the 95-foot wingspan restriction are being phased out of the commercial service fleet and being replaced by aircraft with larger wingspans and higher seat counts by 2028. Other than the CRJ-700 which is being phased out, no existing or future aircraft meet three important criteria: 1) the 95-foot wingspan, 2) the current weight limit and 3) can operate out of Aspen Airport with the current airfield configuration. As part of this EA, FAA forecasts for aviation activity, size of aircraft and frequency, along with local and regional land use plans were reviewed to ensure that the proposed projects meet FAA design standards for the aircraft fleet currently using, and forecasted to use, the Airport. The North 40 HOA and Board - Michael Wessler (President) - Amy Barrow September 25, 2017 The North 40 subdivision is hereby submitting their comments and requests for modification of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) and subsequent improvements to the airport. North 40 is a residential neighborhood comprised of approximately 70 deed restricted units in Pitkin County just outside the City of Aspen. Many of these units are occupied by families with children. All units are occupied year-round. Please see responses below: 5 Submitted by - Jeremy Barbin - Andrew Lodge - Jay Maytin - Jared Thompson - Pete Yang Date Received Comment Summary Response Our community also maintains a field and children’s park which is shared with the community at large. Our neighborhood is adjacent to Colorado Mountain College’s (CMC) Aspen campus. The Aspen/Pitkin County Airport’s GA apron, runway, and taxiway are directly across Hwy 82 from North 40. This is where most private jets park and all airplanes must travel past when taxiing, arriving, or departing. The planes are visible from the North 40 field, park, and some of the houses. The airplanes’ noise and exhaust fumes affect the field, park, and all units to varying degrees – see Figure 4.11-3 and 4.11-4. Section 2.2.4 of the Draft EA acknowledges the impacts the airport has on the surrounding area including North 40 and Aspen Airport Business Center (ABC). “The need to reduce apron noise on surrounding communities. Coordination with the public during the Master Plan Update identified noise from the GA apron as a substantial concern for the businesses and residences near the Airport Business Center. The GA apron can be very busy during peak times in the summer and the winter, with numerous business jets parked. Jets are generally parked with Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) running, facing Highway 82 and the Airport Business Center (ABC). These units are run prior to taking off, during maintenance, and sometimes for hours while waiting for clients. This creates noise in the surrounding community. While this project is not directly related to the needed terminal improvements, its need could be addressed at about the same time as the terminal improvements.” Before proceeding, I want to note that we did move here knowing and accepting that our proximity to the airport would have implications on our daily life. I would also like to add that the airport does a good job of complying with the flight curfew at night between 10 pm – 7 am. During hours of operation, the airport generally emits constant background noise with noticeably louder noise levels during takeoff and landing. This is to be expected. What was a surprise to us is the additional noise and exhaust fumes emitted while planes sit on the apron waiting to park, taxi, and / or take off. They generally run their Auxiliary Power Units (APU) during this time. This is exacerbated by the winds which sometimes blow east across the runway towards North 40. This leads to noise and exhaust fumes that are so bad that 6 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary we have had to leave the park and close the windows at our house. These symptoms happen with varying frequency throughout the year but worse case is multiple times a week during busy seasons. I understand that the Draft EA has deemed the additional noise and emissions of a redeveloped airport to be negligible and therefore are not requiring mitigating steps to address them as part of this environmental assessment. But it would be a missed opportunity to redevelop the airport and not address the issues of noise and air pollution, even at current levels. I request that you include the following additions to the Draft Environment Assessment to address these environmental effects at the North 40 and surrounding areas. Some of these suggestions would also reduce pollution in the greater Aspen/Pitkin County community. 1) Noise/Visual Buffer a. Figure 1-1 (and other similar Figures) depicts a Noise/Visual Buffer along the east side of the GA apron. Section 4.11.2.2 describes construction options of a wall and / or berm: “For the Terminal Alternatives, the location of the terminal and apron would change and there would be an addition of a noise wall/berm on the ramp between the aircraft parking area and the North 40 community.” Different heights are discussed. The addition of a noise/visual buffer is not a requirement of this document but instead is a suggested additional project. b. Strongly support the development of a Noise/Visual Buffer between the airport and North 40. c. Recommend the 14’ high option along the east (North 40) side of the GA apron. Construction consisting of a sound wall on the airport side and an earthen half-mound on the Hwy 82 / North 40 side. d. Additionally, suggest adding a 10’ high earthen berm north to the far end of the FBO and south to the far end of the parking lots. e. The materials used for the berm should come from the demolition of the old terminal and excavation for the new terminal and other improvements. This would greatly reduce the amount of fill being sent to the Pitkin County Landfill. This will also offset the cost of the berm. Response Regarding a noise/visual buffer and the construction of a noise wall/berm to decrease airport related impacts to North 40 community, your support of this feature and recommendations have been noted. Final material choice and height would be determined during the design phase. If constructed, the design phase of the proposed project will incorporate opportunities for public comment. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability. 7 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary f. Building a 14’ sound wall with earthen berm along the GA apron and 10’ earthen berm in front of the FBO and parking / terminal will help contain noise and pollution within the airport. g. This will benefit North 40, CMC, Firehouse, and ABC. Will also benefit the Pitkin County Landfill. 2) Change Direction of Parked Planes a. The Draft EA does not specify the direction planes should be parked on the apron. Currently airplanes are parked with their tails (and exhaust) facing North 40. b. Request that the orientation of parked airplanes on the apron be changed 180 degrees so that their noses are facing highway 82 / North 40. c. Changing the direction planes park on the apron will redirect the noise and exhaust of taxiing and APU’s away from North 40. d. This will benefit North 40, CMC, Firehouse, and ABC. 3) Limit APU Runtime a. The Draft EA does not include any reference to the benefit of limiting APU runtimes. b. Recommend implementing new policy that would limit APU runtime to 15 minutes and instigate penalties for overages. c. Extend an area to the far north (down valley) end of the airport where longer runtimes are allowed specifically for safety or maintenance. d. Rules will also need to be in place that would prevent pilots from running the airplane engines to provide the same services the APU normally does which would clearly circumvent any benefit of restricting APU runtime, possibly causing even more pollution. e. Implementing a maximum time limit on how long an APU can be run will reduce the amount of noise and air pollution emitted by airplanes on the apron. f. This will benefit North 40 and the environment in general. 4) APU Alternatives a. Section 4.1.4 of the Draft EA suggests exploring funding to provide alternatives to APU’s: “Pitkin County will explore obtaining FAA Voluntary Response Changing the direction of the parked aircraft or run time of the APU is generally dependent on apron space and is managed by the Fixed Base Operator and the pilots - it is under their discretion and can’t be regulatorily limited. Any changes to those procedures would need to be coordinated with the FBO and the pilots, and those changes would be voluntary. It is not included in the scope of this EA. In response to your comment regarding implementation of an APU restriction, please note that policy development is not included as part of this EA. However, this project would result in an average decrease in taxi distance of 193 feet, due to the terminal location shift to the south. Your support of adding conditioned air and power infrastructure for both commercial and private aircraft has been noted. As part of the Airport Master Plan, the communities’ concern over APU use was documented, and as part 8 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Airport Low Emission (VALE) funding for the installation of preconditioned air and ground power to enable airlines to reduce their use of APUs.” b. Strongly support adding conditioned air and power infrastructure for both commercial and private aircraft as an alternative to using APU’s – like electric car charging stations. c. Implementing electrical alternatives to APU’s will reduce the amount of noise and air pollution emitted by airplanes while parked on the apron. d. This will benefit North 40 and the environment in general. 5) Lead Emitting Fuels a. Section 4.1.1 states that 30,000 gallons of lead emitting fuel is used at ASE each year: Approximately 30,000 gallons of Avgas was consumed in 2015 in contrast to approximately 6 million gallons of JetA. Avgas emits lead, but was not evaluated because it is used in small quantities at ASE relative to JetA. b. Request the phasing out of Avgas which is described in the Draft EA as a lead emitting fuel. c. Eliminating lead emitting fuels will benefit North 40 and the environment in general. 6) Hwy 82 Access a. Figure 1-1 (and other similar Figures) suggests an additional intersection between Hwy 82 and airport parking: “Future intersection per CDOT access control plan”. b. Recommend limiting access between Hwy 82 and the airport to existing FBO and Baltic Ave intersections. Remove the existing third, southernmost intersection. And do not develop the “Future intersection per CDOT access control plan”. c. Currently drivers attempt to circumvent morning traffic by exiting Hwy 82 at the FBO or Baltic Avenue and re-entering Hwy 82 at the southernmost entrance. This causes additional congestion and associated emissions on Hwy 82. d. Limiting intersections between Hwy 82 and the airport frontage road to the FBO and Baltic Avenue will benefit Hwy 82 commuters and the environment by reducing morning traffic congestion and emissions. Response of the process, the proposed noise wall between the Airport and Highway 82 was included in the EA to help address community concerns. Because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley due to federal grant assurances (with the exception of the grandfathered curfew already in place). The FAA is working nationally to move toward eliminating lead based fuels. They are working with the aircraft and engine manufacturers, fuel producers, the EPA and industry associations to overcome technical and logistical challenges to developing and deploying a new, unleaded fuel. Regarding future intersection design, Highway 82 access and your concerns about traffic congestion have been noted. Highway 82 access is evaluated in this EA because it is included in the CDOT plan, however, the site plans for the redeveloped east side do not include the development of the additional 9 Submitted by Lee Mulcahy Date Received September 23, 2017 Comment Summary Response The following comments are meant to clarify existing information contained in the Draft EA. 1) Affected Environment a. Section 4.5.1 of the Draft EA states that the closest public park / playground to the airport is Harmony Park at Burlingame which is about ½ mile from the airport. b. North 40 owns and/ or operates three parks, the largest and most regularly used is a children’s park immediately adjacent to CMC. This park is about 650 feet from the airport. It is regularly used by children from both the North 40 subdivision and the community at large – CMC houses ballet, camps, etc. and participants and family members regularly use it. 2) Land Use a. Section 4.9.1.1 of the Draft EA identifies existing land use in the vicinity of ASE. Reference is made to the North 40 subdivision but it is not described in detail in this section. b. Request adding language to this section that clarifies that North 40 is a residential neighborhood with approximately 72 deed restricted year-round residences. c. Additionally, add a reference to North 40 on Figure 4.9-1 Sincerely, The North 40 HOA and Board - Michael Wessler (President) - Amy Barrow - Jeremy Barbin - Andrew Lodge - Jay Maytin - Jared Thompson - Pete Yang intersection, as it was determined to not be needed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Presently, there is no plan to remove the southernmost intersection. Subject: New airport expansion Comment: Why are we not allowed to vote on the airport expansion? It's just like the new City Hall that is larger than the Art Museum----the voters get no input on whether we want it or not. This giant expansion is not in line with the community's desire to maintain our rural and small town character. This action requires approval from the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) but does not require a direct vote by the community. The BOCC was presented with the EA and all comments during fall 2017 and unanimously voted to submit the document to the FAA. The FAA will now complete their review of the Final EA. The EA has been updated to reflect the location of the three parks that are owned and/or operated by North 40. Since the largest park, North 40 Park, is privately owned by the North 40 HOA, Section 4(f) does not apply. Section 4(f) only applies to publicly owned parks. The 4(f) section of the EA has been updated to include the two smaller parks (Children’s Memorial Park and Chuck Brandt Park) that are located on County-owned parcels but operated by the North 40 HOA. Section 4.9 (Compatible Land Use) of the EA has also been updated to include a discussion of the three parks in the North 40 development. The EA has also been updated to include the residential land use and deed restricted, year-round residences in the North 40 neighborhood. 10 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response Shame on you politicians! ResNancy Tate Hall Nancy MacKenzie August 25, 2017 October 3, 2017 Subject: Airport Expansion Concerns Comment: I realize that many people are all excited about recent projections of increased flights and larger aircraft in order to bring in all those tourist dollars. Does anyone ever bring up the fact that the airport happens to be surrounded by residential neighborhoods which are already negatively impacted by airport noise and pollution? Who wants to live near DIA? Do you hear from concerned homeowners? Aspen is considered to be a very environmentally conscious community which is "soooo" green and progressive--on top of the climate change issue, and recycling, composting, etc. What is this rumor about reversing the landing direction from up valley to down valley which requires flying over neighborhoods like Meadowood? I hear the 7 am flights every day since you moved the runway 1,000 feet closer to town and promised that "this was it". Plans for the new airport show the de-icing area moving closer up valley also which is extremely noisy. It is obvious that the airport needs to be spiffed up a bit, but it’s still pretty cool in its present state, and certainly convenient. I fear the "new and improved" airport has gotten out of hand and could be the nail in the coffin in terms of quality of life for people who actually live here. The airport issue has always been a hot one and will continue to be because it is basically in the wrong location! Therefore, whatever happens needs to be modest, efficient, and sensitive to its potentially disastrous environmental impact on nearby Roaring Fork Valley residents. I have attended several of the planning and feedback sessions. Seems only the positive remarks get posted and the others ignored. No significant impact has been identified from the projects relative to noise, air quality or greenhouse gas emissions relative to federal thresholds. Because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley (with the exception of a limited curfew in place that is grandfathered in). However, the Airport recognizes the importance of climate change and has been working with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen on the climate action planning to determine if there are ways to incorporate GHG minimization (such as preconditioned air, electric hook ups, sustainable terminal design) into the project or into other areas of the Airport. This EA does not include any changes to the flight procedures to approach over Aspen. Commercial service aircraft generally arrive from the north and depart to the north. The EA assumes no substantial changes to these approach and departures. The slight change in deicing area should not significantly change the noise. “The Woody Creek Caucus contact the airport officials and the county commissioners informing them that the current environmental assessment does not take into account the specific conditions of a high altitude narrow mountain valley and that we request an independent and unbiased study that includes; air quality, emergency response, and noise issues in accordance with our Master Plan.” Please see responses below: This EA finds that no significant impacts to any resource category are expected as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 11 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary We are contacting you now because at the May 27, 2017 monthly meeting of the Woody Creek Caucus the above motion concerning the current environmental assessment of the Pitkin County Airport was unanimously approved. As background information for you, Resolution No. PZ 2016-08 of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the 2016 Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan. We request that you become familiar with Chapter 2* which is specifically addresses our concerns with the Pitkin County Airport. The Woody Creek Caucus supports the existing curfew, safety restrictions on GA aircraft, current operating hours, and noise abatement restrictions. We also support variable takeoff headings so that no one neighborhood receives all the noise impacts. We support future elimination of Stage 2 aircraft and do not support expansion of facilities that would allow louder, larger, and heavier aircraft, to use the airport. We strongly support a cap of 125,000 pounds gross weight for aircraft using Sardy Field. We continue to support safe operation of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport and all efforts to minimize impacts on residents of Woody Creek and the surrounding area. Our airport should be sized to our small mountain community, in keeping with the rural character of the resort. The Caucus is concerned that, while the future air service planning study supports airport expansion, it fails to study alternatives that relate to the health, welfare, safety and capacity of our valley. Therefore, we recommend that the Environmental Assessment and any ultimate decision regarding airport improvements consider alternatives. Develop an alternative that limits the airport to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than a maximum 125,000 pounds. Because of our altitude and the nature of our topography, larger airplanes would create unacceptable burdens of noise and toxic pollutants for the many residents near the airport and for many miles down valley. In general, we believe that bringing more air traffic to Sardy Field is not in the best interest of the community. The valley is too confined. In addition, the airport is dangerously close to Aspen, the North Forty neighborhood, and large-scale events at Buttermilk. Emergency response in our narrow valley is a continued concern. Even now there is no way we could handle an emergency Response We appreciate your support of the existing curfew, safety restrictions, current operating hours and the existing noise abatement procedures, along with the elimination of Stage 2 aircraft. Please note, all Stage 2 aircraft are now banned from not only Aspen/Pitkin County Airport but all airports within the United States, with a few exceptions. The Airport has historically operated with a MOD, essentially a waiver, from the FAA due to the existing runway and taxiway separation distance being less than the national standard. In response to this MOD, the County has implemented an aircraft restriction that restricts aircraft with a wing span of 95 feet or greater from operating at the Airport. The MOD is only valid for five years and must be reviewed whenever there is an opportunity to meet standards, when situations change, or if a MOD is no longer required. The MOD is not intended to be a permanent solution. After the completion of the 2012 Airport Master Plan and the accompanying Airport Layout Plan, the FAA determined that the MOD at ASE may not be needed and requested ASE to complete a study to determine if it was feasible to meet standards. The Air Service Planning Study evaluated over 30 separate alternatives to achieve compliance with the design standards, with the final approved recommendation being to shift the runway to west 80 feet and to widen it to 100 feet. Again, this was done in response to the FAA requirements and was not initiated by the Airport or the County. The runway relocation will allow aircraft with wingspans up to but less than 118 feet, as opposed to the 95-foot limitation today. Many of the new generation aircraft of that size are quieter than the aircraft operating today. 12 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary such as happened March 29, 2001 when a chartered business jet crashed near Shale Bluffs and all three crew members and fifteen passengers on board perished. It has become increasingly evident that the restricted air space in the Aspen area creates a conflict between ever-increasing numbers of private aircraft and commercial service. Large numbers of private aircraft should not be allowed to crowd out commercial flights. This is one more example that one size does not fit all situations. The FAA should modify its regulations in the case of an airport with a single runway located in a confined, high altitude, narrow valley. 2* WOODY CREEK CAUCUS MASTER PLAN 2016 Pitkin County Airport Policy Statement: The Woody Creek Caucus supports the existing curfew, safety restrictions on GA aircraft, current operating hours, and noise abatement restrictions. We also support variable takeoff headings so that no one neighborhood receives all the noise impacts. We support future elimination of Stage 2 aircraft and do not support expansion of facilities that would allow louder, larger, and heavier aircraft, such as the 737, to use the airport. We strongly support a cap of 125,000 pounds gross weight for aircraft using Sardy Field. We continue to support safe operation of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport and all efforts to minimize impacts on residents of Woody Creek and the surrounding area. Our airport should be sized to our small mountain community, in keeping with the rural character of the resort. Current status: Sardy Field is a valuable asset of the people of Pitkin County. The airport is a vitally important facility for the economy of the area, for the way we function as a whole community, and as a major link in the transportation chain of the Roaring Fork Valley. Even so, in its growth and development over the past decades, the airport has become a source of controversy. In view of the fact that Woody Creek is one of the affected communities directly under the flight path, we have in the past been a voice in this controversy and are concerned with noise impacts, air pollution impacts, and safety considerations. Response The new runway is planned to accommodate aircraft with a weight of approximately 150,000 pounds. 13 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Current airport planning: Due to constant pressure from the business community and other special interest groups, there has been a prolonged effort to expand Sardy Field into a state-of-the-art, urban-style airport. The Caucus views the justification and predictions of future needs for this massive expansion with skepticism. Ultimately, it may not be in the best interests of the community at large, including Woody Creek. Beginning in 2010, a study was commissioned by the Pitkin County Commissioners and airport personnel on the adequacy of the airport terminal facilities for the future. Past studies have consistently overestimated the projected number of passengers using the airport. Although airport use remained relatively flat over the past fifteen years, according to airport records, the study predicted significant passenger increases in the next 20 years, and therefore a need for a new $80 to $100-million-dollar terminal. The Pitkin County commissioners have approved this new terminal with the adoption of the 2012 Airport Master Plan. The County intends to conduct a multi-phased design process for this facility, which is to include comprehensive public input prior to construction. Predictably, there is now a follow-up study, “The ASE Future Air Service Planning Study,” that recommends expanding and strengthening the airport runways and allows for a second FBO operation, so as to increase air service to the airport, especially GA. The technical phases 1 and 2 of the study to expand the airport to the west were made with no public input, and specifically, no contact with the Woody Creek Caucus. Phase 3 is now in progress, calling for an Environmental Analysis as well as public input. However, the choices for the expansion and operation of the airport, which will be presented to the public, are limited to the results of Technical Phases 1 and 2. The claim of the “ASE Future Air Service Planning Study” is that, without a $120 million to $130 million expansion of the runway to accept a new generation of airplanes, Aspen will not have a viable service after 2021. Concerns of the Community: Response The Airport Layout Plan was updated to reflect the Air Service Planning Study recommendation and approved by the FAA. This included an approval of the future forecasts of aviation activity. The FAA then awarded a grant to the County to prepare an FAA required Environmental Assessment pursuant to appropriate FAA Orders and guidance. The FAA requires a comprehensive evaluation of project impacts, including but not limited to: biological; historical and archeological; noise; air quality; wetlands; traffic and socioeconomic impacts. To accomplish this analysis, the County hired independent experts, procured through a process overseen by the FAA. These experts have conducted an independent analysis as required by the FAA Orders and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), based on an approved, reasonably foreseeable aviation activity and fleet mix based on the proposed project. The proposed reasonably foreseeable number of operations and fleet mix analyzed in the EA includes the addition of larger aircraft including the CS100 and the 737. The proposed actions are not 14 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary The Woody Creek Caucus is skeptical of the claim that there will not be a viable commercial service after 2021 without a huge expansion. Just in 2012, The Airport Master Plan stated that “no change will be made in the existing prohibitions on (1) aircraft with wingspans greater than 95 feet, and (2) aircraft weighing more than 100,000 pounds maximum gross landing weight.” However, it has recently been revealed that the FAA did not accept this portion of the Master Plan. We are opposed to a larger, urban-style airport close to the center of Aspen, with all of the negative impacts this could bring to Woody Creek and the community at large. The increased traffic of larger, heavier, more intrusive airplanes will dramatically increase the discomfort of the many residents around the airport and in the flight path. It would be yet another step in Aspen’s path toward commercialization and the loss of Aspen’s unique character. The airspace and mountainous surrounds of the narrow valley at the entrance to Aspen is a constant. A larger airport will certainly increase the pressure on this environment and on the people who live in the valley. There will be more noise, more air pollution, more safety concerns, and more competition in our limited airspace between commercial and GA aircraft. In an issue of Snow Magazine some years ago, an article by Andrew Nemethy describes a theory about the rise and decline of tourist towns, which even 25 years ago was being seen in resorts east and west. The resort starts as an attractive small town with amenities and natural environments that attract many to settle there. These places are often small, with low traffic, low taxes, and a strong sense of community, set in a lovely rural landscape. Growth moratoriums are gradually put in place, with the result of raising the cost of real estate. The cost and the cost of living also rise and become too high for many residents. They must now travel to shop for basic needs. Traffic jams and higher rents – residential and commercial -- drive out the locals. As improved infrastructure is deemed necessary for all the traffic, taxes rise. New schools, hotels, and hospitals are required to serve the upscale population. This is a common pattern of development in desirable resort areas, including the Roaring Fork Valley. We in Woody Creek would like to put on the brakes Response anticipated to have any significant impacts relative to noise or air quality. Based on existing statutes, grant assurances (contract requirements) and Federal preemption requirements, the Airport must remain open to all users at all times and cannot discriminate between users; i.e., commercial service and general aviation aircraft. The existing curfew and wingspan restriction would not be possible to implement today. The curfew is “grandfathered” since it has been in place prior to the statute addressing airport use restrictions was passed and cannot be amended or the existing curfew would be invalidated entirely. The Airport cannot dictate the type of aircraft an operator uses, the origin or destination of those aircraft and the times the aircraft fly, within our curfew limits, the weight of aircraft, nor the number of aircraft that operate at the Airport. 15 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response and preserve some of the character of old Aspen and the appeal of the ski resort lifestyle. The local economy has become less driven by tourism and local residents than by construction and development or redevelopment and luxury maintenance. Suddenly the community needs an excessive amount of architects, planners, lawyers, designers, contractors, and trades people. Our government continues to grow, and it demands more taxes and more bureaucracy to keep pace with the growth. None of the decisions that create growth are based on the character of the town we want. Rather, they are based on the need to keep people who have moved here for economic reasons employed. Government and the commercial infrastructure have to keep growing. The perceived need to keep the tourist base ever growing creates an onerous spiral in which quantity overwhelms quality. Prices on businesses and real estate keep rising. Homes just built are remodeled every several years. Chain stores replace small, locally owned shops. Prices go so high that locals don’t even bother to shop locally. Our town begins to look like a small version of Los Angeles, New York, or Dallas. Folks don’t mingle, and the sense of neighborliness has disappeared. The appeal and character are destroyed. People leave. Corporations arrive. Summary of the Airport Chapter: The Caucus is concerned that, while the future air service planning study supports airport expansion, it fails to study alternatives that relate to the health, welfare, safety and capacity of our valley. Therefore, we recommend that the EA and any ultimate decision regarding airport improvements include consideration of the following alternatives: A. Develop an alternative which assumes airplanes currently serving the Aspen market or their equivalent will continue to be available beyond 2021; And/or B. Develop an alternative that limits the airport to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than a maximum 125,000 pounds. 16 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Because of our altitude and the nature of our topography, larger airplanes would create unacceptable burdens of noise and toxic pollutants for the many residents near the airport and for many miles down valley. Large airplanes such as 737s would severely impact the livability of the upper Roaring Fork Valley forever. Furthermore, our Alternative B is critical because the Aspen community does not have a large enough emergency capability or the infrastructure to manage a mishap involving larger airplanes. 1. We are also concerned that runway expansion and strengthening to allow for larger regional commercial airplanes will open the airport to larger, heavier and louder aircraft, both commercial and private. The community has been promised for many years by various government boards that no 737type aircraft would be allowed to use the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. If this promise is not kept, the impacts of noise and air pollution, as well as growth generation, will be greatly increased. Larger aircraft such as the 737 require much larger and noisier engines. The Roaring Fork Valley would be changed forever if these heavy aircraft were allowed to operate here. If the airport must ultimately accept new regional jets, these should be limited to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than 125,000 pounds. The FAA should recognize that one size does not fit all. An airport at 8,000 feet in a narrow valley is in a very different environment than one on the plains at a lower altitude. Our valley has confined airspace, numerous homes around the airport and in the flight path, and decreased air circulation, resulting in more air pollution. The Aspen community should require flexibility in how the airport is operated, and not be forced to accept a standard that will damage the community and cause severe discomfort to its citizens. 2. Our list of concerns includes but is not limited to: • Noise abatement. "As with most rural resort environments with low ambient noise levels, any noise emissions, especially during the evening hours, are a serious local environmental concern. Woody Creek is no exception. In addition, Aspen may be unique as a result of the increased sound transmissions in a low-humidity, Response Following FAA Order 1050.1F guidance, impacts to local communities are generally analyzed based on the significance of noise impacts or required relocations that could fracture a community or otherwise disrupt the community physically or economically. Aircraft noise already exists from current operations, although no noise sensitive uses are located in significant aircraft noise exposed areas. The proposed actions are not expected to generate significant aircraft noise exposure. No homes, businesses or other community resources would need to be relocated. Additionally, no historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological sites are located within the project’s area of potential effect (APE). No significant health effects are anticipated. No significant impacts on children’s health of safety or schools are anticipated. Therefore, no significant impact on the local community or cultural values is expected as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Regarding light pollution, FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, states that there is no official significance threshold when analyzing impacts from light emissions. The metric for measuring impacts is generally a comparison between existing background lighting/visual impacts compared with the change proposed from the project. The Preferred Alternative includes only minor lighting improvements associated with the terminal improvements. Light emissions associated with the proposed terminal area improvements would be similar to those of the existing terminal. Additional lights from the terminal facility or parking areas would be shielded per the Design Guidelines to minimize impacts. Similarly, the 17 Submitted by John Edwards Date Received October 3, 2017 Comment Summary Response high-altitude, valley constricted environment." -Brad Christopher, former airport manager • Light pollution • Air pollution. Jet fuel, the most toxic of pollutants, is often strongly present in our valley. • Larger, heavier, louder aircraft • Flight hazards. This valley is a problematic location for increased air traffic • Encouragement of growth from overbuilding the airport Increases in airport traffic will require commensurate growth in accommodations and accompanying development. • Degradation of our community’s character 3. In general, we believe that bringing more air traffic to Sandy Field is not in the best interest of the community. The valley is too confined. In addition, the airport is dangerously close to Aspen, the North Forty neighborhood, and large-scale events at Buttermilk. 4. The new terminal is out of balance with the projected long-term population growth. A larger airport with more capacity will drive development. 5. Since the rationale for enlarging the airport is to enable it to accommodate the new generation of commercial regional jets, it should be possible for the commercial airlines to maintain their schedules. It has become increasingly evident that the restricted air space in the Aspen area creates a conflict between ever increasing numbers of private aircraft and commercial service. Large numbers of private aircraft should not be allowed to crowd out commercial flights. This is one more example that one size does not fit all situations. The FAA should modify its regulations in the case of an airport with a single runway located in a confined, high altitude, narrow valley. Thank you for your consideration of the concerns of Woody Creek. Woody Creek Caucus Nancy MacKenzie, Moderator relocation of runway and taxiway lighting for the airfield would not result in a drastic change from existing conditions. No additional runway lighting would be required but the runway lighting would be relocated 80 feet to the west. Therefore, lighting improvements associated with the terminal and runway projects are not expected to result in a significant impact. I am opposed to the airport improvements for the following environmental reason: The expansion will impact the sensitive area including but not limited No significant impact has been identified from the projects relative to noise, air quality or greenhouse gas emissions relative to federal thresholds. In terms of emergency preparedness and response, the Airport meets all Federal mandated staffing equipment and training requirements for any aircraft incidents, as outlined in the FAA AC 150/5210-22, Airport Certification Manual (ACM). For an event occurring in the community, response would be led by the Aspen Fire District and their emergency aid partners in Snowmass, Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. Since public funds were used at the Airport, they must meet all grant assurances including complying with FAA regulations. This includes not being able to restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley (with the exception of the grandfathered curfew already in place). The FAA will review the Final EA, expected impacts, and proposed mitigation. If the impacts exceed the significance thresholds for any affected resource, the FAA may then recommend the preparation of an EIS. Should the impacts not exceed the significance thresholds for any affected resources; the FAA will likely issue a decision. We appreciate your concerns about the quality of life in the Valley. The Environmental Assessment being prepared for the proposed improvements is consistent with all FAA regulations and Orders, and other applicable regulations. We also appreciate your comments about the FAA modifying its regulations for a single runway airport located in a confined, high altitude, narrow mountain valley, but it is not within the purview of the County to challenge the existing regulations. 18 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary to wildlife, sensitive zones: wetlands, water flow, noise, and pollution. In addition, there is missing information due to assumptions that have not been articulate. For example, there are no noise measurements taken in flight pattern 7 to 14 miles away. The residue or unburned jet fuel has not been measured in this zone, as the high elevation of the runway created engine inefficiency. I am opposed to the terminal expansion: The expansion will impact the sensitive area including but not limited to Wildlife, sensitive zones: wetlands, water flow, noise and pollution. The economic projections regarding this project in my opinion use old data from the 2013 economic impact study for Colorado airports (new data will be surveyed in 2018). And is not a representative sample due to the seasonal nature of the airport. Skier visits are also flat or only slightly increasing. Traffic may be impacted. In addition, weather (wind, temperature and visibility) and altitude and weight of aircraft will reduce safety concerns. In an event of a large/ full bigger plane crash, medical facilities would be strained and perhaps insufficient to handle an event that I pray will never happen, (see 2002 private jet crash that killed 18 people). Please refer to the 2012 Airport Master plan for addition concerns of those who live in this valley or visit Aspen (there was an environment assessment in that report). Finally, the public needs more time to comment on this E I hearing. The notification was fair at best. FYI October 3, 2017 is Tuesday not Monday as stated in the documentation. Please allow more time for others to comment or reconsider this project for all of the stated reasons. Sincerely John Edwards Response Impacts to water resources, wildlife, wetlands, traffic and other pollution, the EA analysis indicates that the primary impacts will be to Owl Creek, as a result of the piping. The piping of Owl Creek within the fence line is needed for safety reasons, as it is a wildlife hazard. This impact to Owl Creek will be mitigated as part of the project. While ultimate mitigation procedures require coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), potential mitigation efforts could include stream habitat restoration projects in the area that would, through a stream functional assessment process, serve to mitigate the loss of the less than ideal quality of Owl Creek that is within ASE property. The EA analysis indicated that there are no significant impacts to wildlife, and this was concurred by the agency with jurisdiction over these resources, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see Appendix 2 – USFWS Coordination). Additionally, no significant impacts were found relative to air quality, other water resources, traffic or noise. Data provided in the 2013 economic impact study for Colorado airports was used in this EA because at this time, it is the most recent and best available data that has been collected and analyzed to determine the economic impact of Colorado airports. The Airport fully meets all Federal mandated staffing equipment and training requirements for any aircraft incidents. For an event occurring in the community, response would be led by the Aspen Fire District and their emergency aid partners in Snowmass, Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The comment period for the Draft EA began 30 days prior to the public hearings and was advertised through newspaper advertisements, emails to stakeholder groups, and social media. Additional outreach occurred prior to the meetings including radio ads and additional newspapers ads, press releases and social media outreach. The comment period was extended after the public hearing to allow people the time to provide comments after 19 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response attending the hearing. The full comment period was 45 days, longer than the normal 30-day comment period for Draft EAs. Name Not Shown October 3, 2017 Aspen has said again and again in its community plans that it wants to be a tourism-driven and resort-based economy. Maintaining air service is critical to that. Anyone who advocates preventing the improvements to our runway and airport that will allow the next generation of aircraft does not have our community's true interests at heart. Yes, the next generation of aircraft will have wider wingspans. They will also be quieter and more fuel efficient. Aspen's original airport was a central piece to bringing Aspen out of the Quiet Years and establishing our resort economy. Truly, it helped make Aspen, Aspen. Please allow the airport to take the next necessary step in its evolution. This would mean a runway expansion that accommodates the next generation of the same types of aircraft we have now (which, again, will be slightly bigger and may carry nominally more passengers) and a design that presents a terminal to our guests that is safe and scaled appropriately to handle a busy winter day that may include a backlog of passengers due to cancelled flights. The current plan accomplishes both of these goals reasonably. Thank you for your comment. Your comment has been noted. Bill Tomcich October 3, 2017 As an individual who has closely monitored and has been involved with commercial air service into this valley since 1995, I have learned how important it is to plan for the future. While visitors and locals are currently enjoying the greatest variety of flight options, connections and competition this airport has ever seen, there is currently just one operator flying one aircraft type into the Aspen Airport for all three commercial airlines, and no new CRJ700’s have been manufactured or delivered since 2011. By the year 2031, those newest CRJ700’s will be twenty years old and nearing the end of their practical life span while the vast majority of CRJ700’s will already have been retired from commercial service. As identified in the EA, there are a variety of new generation regional and small narrow-body aircraft that will be able to operate at ASE, and some of them will be in service by next year. Some of these aircraft are larger than the current 70 passenger regional jets currently serving the market, while all of Thank you for your comment. Your comment has been noted. 20 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response these aircraft will be quieter and more efficient than any commercial aircraft that have served ASE in the past or present. However, because of the new efficiencies in modern wing design, none of these new aircraft that are expected to enter service over the next five years will have wingspans that are within ASE’s current 95’ wingspan restriction. Airport staff and the consultant team have put an extraordinary amount of work into planning for the future, and the plans for both runway improvements and a new terminal building will allow for the continuation of commercial air service as we now know it. The Aspen Airport is an economic lifeline for the business community of this resort based economy and is unquestionably one of the key competitive advantages of this resort destination, and there are many businesses who share my strong support of these essential proposed airport improvements. Steve Skadron October 3, 2017 Dear Mr. Kinney, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Airport's (ASE) September 2017 Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). Currently there is a 95-foot wingspan restriction at ASE. Regional aircraft with this wingspan are phasing out by 2025. If this restriction continues, airlines presently serving ASE would be unable to provide future air service at the same level. Since nearly 50% of the winter tourism relies on air service, this restriction would potential damage the economies of both Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The EA analyzed an expanded runway that would meet FAA regulations and a new, larger terminal. While there are assumptions that smaller regional aircraft will continue to serve ASE, the larger runway configuration could allow larger aircraft, such as 737s to serve ASE. The City has concerns about the potential impact of these larger planes. Overall, the City recognizes that an expanded and improved runway adds continued economic stability for the community, continues the commercial operations to better serve visitors and the community alike, and provide increased safety for passengers. The City supports the following improvements and other considerations in the EA: -The City supports the runway improvements as outlined in the EA Please see responses below: In response to your concern regarding larger aircraft, such as 737s, operating at ASE, this EA analyzed the potential introduction of the 737 and modeled a number of these operations based on a reasonably foreseeable forecast. No federal thresholds for noise or air quality were triggered under the proposed project. 21 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary -The City supports the terminal area improvements. The new terminal should remain humble, with minimal distance between the drop-off and check-in locations. The City supports that jet bridges were removed from the alternatives to preserve the passenger experience of deplaning to mountain views. -The EA states that the piping of Owl Creek is unavoidable to its proximity to the Runway Safety Area and the Object Free Area. The City encourages continued collaboration with Pitkin County Open Space and Trails to find a suitable mitigation site for these impacts. -The City supports current operating hours implemented by the curfew at ASE. -The City has concerns regarding later arrivals and flexibility to accommodate late arrivals, specifically with regards to passenger and personal safety, rather than diverting these planes to other airports in the region. The City encourages revisiting this curfew to see if exceptions can be made in certain instances. We value Pitkin County's significant investment in the airport and appreciate the public outreach effort made by the project team to ensure community involvement throughout the EA process. A successful project will allow for continued commercial airline service to the region while maintaining Aspen's small mountain town character. Please contact Hillary Seminick, City Planner, at 970.429.2741 with questions. We look forward to continuing the productive partnership with the Airport, the FAA the surrounding communities, and stakeholders as this project proceeds. Respectfully, Steve Skadron Response The final design of terminal improvements will be coordinated with public input with regard to elements such as the distance between check in and pick up. The piping of Owl Creek is needed to improve safety by removing a potential wildlife hazard. However, this project will require mitigation and if the project moves forward, a mitigation project (preferably local) will be identified. Coordination with Pitkin County Open Space will be part of helping identify potential local mitigation projects. The existing curfew will stay in place, with no changes from this project. However, as it exists now, there is some flexibility with respect to late landings relative to safety/weather. That will continue even if the projects are constructed. 22 Snowmass Public Hearing (9/26/2017) - Comments and Responses Date Received Comment Summary Tom Cuccio (Snowmass Village) September 26, 2017 For the future of Aspen Snowmass, I am in favor of the runway reconfiguration Thank you for your comment. Your comment has been noted. Steve Parmalee (Snowmass Village) September 26, 2017 Do parking now - cheaper than later. Approve of runway adjustments. Need more hangars, airplane storage. Approve of terminal proposal. The same number of parking spaces as exist now were included in the future site plan, with no potential expansion for parking as part of this project. When the Airport updated its ALP after the Air Service Study, the addition of a large-scale parking structure, which was the preferred alternative, became unfeasible financially for such a project to occur in conjunction with the runway reconfiguration. As the runway reconfiguration to retain commercial service was a higher need, the parking garage was dropped due to costs. Submitted by Response However, it is recognized that parking is a valley wide concern and additional studies separate from this EA will be needed to address parking issues in the future. This will likely be considered during the design phase of the terminal and site planning to account the potential for a future parking garage, so that, if it does become financially feasible at some point in the future, the terminal and site will be able to accommodate and fit efficiently with a future parking garage. A parking garage would need to undergo a separate NEPA documentation prior to construction. Jim Ward Aspen CO September 26, 2017 I moved there 1973, so I’ve experienced probably 40 years plus of dealing with the airport. I know that, you know, and I’m not really against the airport or all the development, but I have concerns. And one of the, you know one of the maybe to start with, and that is that putting this airport in this almost residential area where, you know, there’s a lot of people living very close to this airport and getting a lot of air from airplanes coming and going. Particularly, on the…end of the runway on the south end of the According to federal thresholds, this project would result in no significant impact relative to air quality or noise; therefore, no mitigation relative to these impact categories is required as part of the proposed projects. However, this project will reduce taxi distance by 193 feet, due to the terminal location shift to the south that will result in a minor decrease in emissions. 23 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary runway where they sit in idle, uh, until they can leave and when they do leave then they send a big blast and there’s…housing that’s just basically just across the road a few hundred feet, you know? And I think that’s, you know, one of the big concerns. Response Because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley (with the exception of a limited curfew in place that is grandfathered in). However, the Airport recognizes the importance of climate change and has been working with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen on the climate action planning to determine if there are ways to incorporate GHG minimization (such as preconditioned air, electric hook ups, sustainable terminal design) into the project or into other areas of the Airport. No residences or other noise sensitive uses are located within the 65 DNL (which is considered by the FAA to be noncompatible with that level of aircraft noise). As noted above, because the airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft operating at the airport (with the exception of a limited curfew in place that is grandfathered in). This project examined the potential addition of a noise wall to reduce engine noise from aircraft on the general aviation ramp. Jim Ward (Continued) I also think that, um, I also think that one of the things is that its…getting this airport bigger and bigger…is kind of “when do you stop?” It’s kind of like getting-trying to get 50 pounds of something inside of a 30-pound bag. You know? I mean it’s really, it’s getting kind of a maxed-out situation. The purpose and need for this project relates to bringing the airfield up to FAA required safety standards to allow for future commercial service aircraft to continue to operate at ASE. Based on the Master Plan Update of 2013, the D-III standard was identified as the correct design group for ASE and therefore, ASE must meet the D-III standards. The need for flying commercial service aircraft into ASE exists without the project, and the proposed project will not result in an operational increase. Because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley (with the exception of a limited curfew in place that is grandfathered in). 24 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response Jim Ward (Continued) I don’t know the Snowmass and the Woody Creek communities, but they’re the ones that are most, would be most, you know, concerned about what my main object is. And that is the lead-in lights. As they days get shorter and the nights get longer, and the lead-in lights when you come through the area - the lead-in lights are a huge hazard. Its…similar to…you are driving down a two-lane highway and some big pickup with four headlights has got ‘em all on high. It’s a hazard. You know? You can’t you can almost not see what, you know, if there was an animal or something on the road. It’s just a huge problem. And um I know that…I know that there’s not going to be any planes if they’re reacting to the PAPI lights and they’re all red the plane is going to have to be high enough so that he could still see the lights, the lead-in lights, without it blinding the people on the highway. Um, so if he’s coming in and he’s got two red lights and two white lights then he’s going to be way high enough, so that the lights don’t have to be shinning on the highway. And I think that that would help people agree to the expansion of the run…of the runway and the airport if they would solve, what I think, is a problem With regard to your comments about aircraft lights and airport related lighting, the relocation of runway and taxiway lighting will not result in a drastic change from existing conditions. However, the relocation of the runway lights 80 feet to the west could help the potential issue you note of lights blinding drivers on Highway 82. Jim Ward (Continued) Just the fact that, you know, I’m sure glad that they have you can’t fly in after 11 o clock, I believe it is, and you can’t fly before 7 because of its closeness to residential people. You know who are trying to sleep. You know? Regarding your comment about the curfew, the existing curfew will stay in place and will not change under the proposed airport improvement projects. However, as it exists now, there is some flexibility with respect to late landings relative to safety/weather. That will continue even if the projects are constructed. Jim Ward (Continued) So anyway, thank you very much for having this opportunity to hear what I have to say. Um, I think that living three miles off the end of the end of the runway I’ve been uh able to have an opinion. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Your comments have been noted. 25 Aspen Public Hearing (9/25/2017) - Comments and Responses Submitted by Date Received Cheryl DuBrule Aspen CO September 25, 2017 Comment Summary Do not allow planes to take off and land over Meadowood subdivision. Mitigate noise that travels from airport toward Meadowood subdivision. Mitigate toxic fuel smell that comes to Meadowood. Do not allow planes to fly toward Aspen to take off - this is not safe and the planes go over my house. I live hear year round for 33 years-this is my house where my family lives 24/7 365. 20,000 extra pounds for aircraft is not safe. This airport is for billionaires, not the community. I have to shut my windows from stink of fuel in Meadowood. Email: Airport Expansion Sept. 23, 2017 Sunday Sept. 18 low flying large jet took off easterly over Meadowood and Aspen. Thursday Sept. 22 11:30am jet took off easterly over Meadowood Aspen. Noise and safety concern. Called and reported and emailed at 11:46 spoke to Alan Mantle, Airport Operations. Was confirmed tower granted takeoff east. Over Aspen. I expressed concern of safety and nose. Mr. Mangle said the pilot has to request and tower grants but pilot has to sign a waiver to release the airport of any financial responsibility. So even if it is not safe, sign this, so airport is not financially responsible if you don't make the takeoff and kill people in the houses on the takeoff path? This is not safe and concerns me. That the airport abrogates responsibility for financial reasons to the pilot!!! Response This EA does not include any changes to the flight procedures to approach to and depart from ASE. Also, because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley due to federal grant assurances (with the exception of the grandfathered curfew already in place). In accepting federal funding, the County has agreed to comply with 39 specific grant assurances. These assurances require that the County, among other things, must “make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the Airport.” (Grant Assurance 22(a)). According to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes; in general, there are minimum standards for operations of fixed wing aircraft (excluding when necessary for takeoff/landing). Over congested areas, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet is required, except for under take-off and landing procedures. Complaints on low-flying aircraft may be filed with the FAA, Office of Flight Standards, which monitors aircraft operations. Once the facts have been recorded, an FAA aviation safety inspector attempts to identify the offending aircraft operator. For more information on low flying aircraft complaints, please visit the following website: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ In general, Aspen operates under what is called contra flow operations, where aircraft generally arrive and depart in the same direction (departing to the north and arriving from the north). This proposed project does not look at changing those patterns. The Airport has unique constraints surrounding the airspace and terrain; 26 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response however, Air Traffic Control’s primary directive is always safety. Air Traffic Control coordinates the movement of aircraft in the air and on the ground to ensure that safe distances are maintained between aircraft operating in the area. The Airport’s published approach and departure procedures require that pilots observe all airspeed limitations and ATC instructions when arriving at or departing from the Airport. Anonymous September 25, 2017 My only concern is that the terminal becomes more workable than it is now. My preference in design is "Pavilion", "Ridge" concept looks too fancy, too expensive, a waste of money, etc. Keep terminal as simple as possible with working toilets, enough carousels to handle 4-6 planes on ground at once; enough food and beverage outlets to keep passengers and employees happy, unlike now where only food available is inside TSA. Also, magazines and gift items need to be readily available, both for arriving and departing guests. You know what's wrong with the current terminal is that a harassed, hassled, frightened and tired incoming passenger has no access to a cocktail. This EA covers approximately 25% design for the terminal and the site plan; final design will be completed subsequent to the EA and will include opportunities for public comment. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability. Richard Heede Snowmass, CO September 25, 2017 10 years ago, when ASE lengthened the runway, we were told that improvements were required to meet FAA specifications - that that larger aircraft would not be used. Here we are and FAA requirements pushing us into capacity for 118' wingspan and 150,000 lb. landing weights! Capacities and FAA requirements are one thing. The community's right to object to the use of larger aircraft is another. Thanks, Rick. The Airport has historically operated with a Modification of Standards (MOD), essentially a waiver, from the FAA due to the existing runway and taxiway separation distance being less than the national standard. In response to this MOD the County has implemented an aircraft restriction that restricts aircraft with a wing span of 95 feet or greater from operating at the Airport. The MOD is only valid for five years and must be reviewed whenever there is an opportunity to meet standards, when situations change, or if a MOD is no longer required. The MOD is not intended to be a permanent solution. After the completion of the 2012 Airport Master Plan and the accompanying Airport Layout Plan, the FAA determined that the MOD at ASE may not be needed and requested ASE to complete a study to determine if it was feasible to meet standards. 27 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response In response to that decision, the Airport undertook an Air Service Planning Study to evaluate feasible alternatives to meet the national design standards to eliminate the MODs. The Study evaluated over 30 alternatives to achieve compliance with the design standards, with the final approved recommendation being to shift the runway to west 80 feet and to widen it to 100 feet. The purpose and need to accommodate larger aircraft was identified in the Air Service Study, completed in 2014, which included coordination with air carriers. As part of the Air Service Study and subsequent 2015 ALP Update, the forecasts of aviation activity were updated to address the changing air carrier fleet. The Study confirmed that the aircraft currently serving ASE under the 95-foot wingspan restriction are being phased out of the commercial service fleet and being replaced by aircraft with larger wingspans and higher seat counts by 2028. Other than the CRJ-700 which is being phased out, no existing or future aircraft meet three important criteria: 1) the 95-foot wingspan, 2) the current weight limit and 3) can operate out of Aspen Airport with the current airfield configuration. As part of this EA, FAA forecasts for aviation activity, size of aircraft and frequency, along with local and regional land use plans were reviewed to ensure that the proposed projects meet FAA design standards for the aircraft fleet currently using, and forecasted to use, the Airport. The runway relocation will allow aircraft with wingspans up to but less than 118 feet, as opposed to the 95-foot limitation today. Many of the new generation aircraft of that size are quieter than the aircraft operating today. The new runway is planned to accommodate the forecasted fleet of larger commercial service aircraft weighing of approximately 150,000 pounds. 28 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response It is not within the purview of the County to challenge the existing FAA standards. Also, because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley due to federal grant assurances (with the exception of the grandfathered curfew already in place). In accepting federal funding, the County has agreed to comply with 39 specific grant assurances. These assurances require that the County, among other things, must “make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the Airport.” (Grant Assurance 22(a)). Valerie Braun September 25, 2017 Where are the current noise monitoring stations that produced the "non noise sensitive" areas? Where are the current particulate and fuel "dump area" monitoring stations? There is incredible jet fuel odor at the airport business cluster and along the trail system during busy airport use times. I would LOVE to have both kinds of monitoring done on my property in Woody Creek. It is hard to believe you are getting 65 dec. readings and not higher with a number of aircraft in/out of this airport. Low flying helicopters have become another addition to the noise problems. I think the terminal designs are interesting but they look incredibly expensive - estimates? This project may drive me out of the valley. Currently, there are noise monitoring sites (RMS) located at six locations: North Woody Creek, Little Woody Creek, Woody Creek, W/J Ranch, and at the north and south ends of the Airport property. Only the Woody Creek RMS continuously measures aircraft noise levels throughout the year, while the other RMS installations measure noise only during peak winter and summer periods. These RMS locations are never used to produce noise contours, but rather to collect noise data for the Airport’s Fly Green/Fly Clean Program, which promotes a voluntary participatory approach in complying with noise abatement procedures and objectives by grading an operator’s performance and by making the scores available to the users of the Airport and the public via newsletters, publications, and public meetings. The analysis of aircraft noise exposure in this EA was prepared in compliance with FAA’s NEPA Orders. The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is the FAA approved software program used to model the noise exposure levels from aircraft operations and engine testing. These contours are presented using the 65 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contour metric where 65 DNL represents significant aircraft noise levels. 29 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response DNL metric measures the overall noise experienced during an entire (24-hour) day. DNL calculations account for the sound exposure level of aircraft, the number of aircraft operations and a penalty for nighttime operations. DNL provides a numerical description of the weighted 24-hour cumulative noise energy level using the A-weighted decibel scale, typically over a period of a year. Because DNL is a cumulative metric, while areas can receive single event noise levels above 65 dB, it is the average of these noise levels over the course of a year that provides for the 65 DNL contour. Although the FAA recognizes that noise occurs outside of these contours, the 65 DNL contour has been federally accepted at the level at which residential and other noise sensitive land uses are non-compatible with aircraft noise. Because the existing 65 DNL noise contour shown on Figure C6, page C.18 of the EA, does not encompass any noise sensitive land uses (homes, schools, churches, etc.), the existing land use in the vicinity of the Airport is considered compatible with aircraft operations and aircraft generated noise under the federal guidelines. Odors from aircraft typically have an oily smell. The pollutants that comprise this type of smell are accounted for in the air pollutant assessment presented in the EA for precursor pollutants. The air quality modeling within the EA covers many of the pollutants that relate either directly or indirectly to fuel “smells,” and covers all the pollutants regulated federally that relate to human health. Since the project does not trigger any federal thresholds of significance for air quality for these pollutants, there are no significant impacts relating to the air quality. 30 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response High level cost estimates of the terminal designs were included in the EA but are highly dependent on final designs and total size of the terminal. Gretchen Geary September 25, 2017 Hoping to bid fiber technology for the airport. Locally owned company. This EA covers approximately 25% design for the terminal and the site plan; final design, including communications at the Airport, will be completed subsequent to the EA. The Airport will issue an RFP for the terminal project that will be posted on the Pitkin County Bid Opportunities page. Lucas France September 25, 2017 Bigger better more more more. I don’t see any carbon offset. Aspen should take the lead and implement a "carbon sink to offset this development." To do anything less is short sighted. Thank you. Preparation of the Draft EA followed the policies, procedures, and guidelines as outlined by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations; and those in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. These orders outline FAA accepted methodologies, methods, models, techniques, and thresholds of significance for the impact assessment and preparation of EA documents. All environmental documents prepared under FAA oversight follow and adhere to these same Orders, setting national standards for the preparation of environmental documentation. Based on this evaluation, no significant impact has been identified from the project relative to air quality or greenhouse gas emissions that exceeds federal thresholds. The Airport recognizes the communities’ concerns about noise, air quality and climate change and has been working with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen on the climate action planning to determine if there are ways to incorporate GHG minimization (such as preconditioned air, electric hook ups, sustainable terminal design) into the project or into other areas of the Airport. These 31 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response elements will be examined further during the terminal design phase and will include additional public involvement. The question of the availability of carbon offsets is also being examined during the Climate Action Plan process. However, carbon offsets are not currently eligible for federal funding and all federal rules/standards will need to be adhered to if carbon offsets are pursued., Andrew Doremus September 25, 2017 1. Runway improvements first 2. Terminal - "Pavilion" style is great. Possible have the green roof sloped to give more open space inside like the "Ridge" 3. Have a restaurant ramp side - the middle of the terminal with a rooftop bar. This EA covers approximately 25% design for the terminal and the site plan; final design will be completed subsequent to the EA. All projects will be designed in accordance with Aspen/Pitkin County Design Guidelines which are intended to provide a mechanism to ensure that future development and redevelopment at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport is implemented in a manner consistent with community values which reflect high standards for architectural quality, environmental sensitivity, neighborhood compatibility, and sustainability. The design phase of the proposed project will incorporate opportunities for public comment. Liz Chapman Aspen, CO September 25, 2017 I prefer the Pavilion scenario. I would ask for a 14' sound wall. Final height and materials of the noise wall would be determined during the design phase. Jackie Francis September 25, 2017 Love the noise wall. Thanks! Thank you for your comment. Your comment has been noted. Cheryl DuBrule September 25, 2017 Cheryl DuBrule. And my concern, number one, is the jets, and especially if you allow larger jets, taking off toward the Meadowood subdivision where my house is. I’ve lived there for 35 years – 365 – 7 days a week. I mean and that’s my home with my family. Sunday September 18th, there was a low flying large jet. Took off, which I thought was easterly but I guess it’s not, but it was directly over my house and over Meadowood headed towards Aspen. Thursday September 22nd at 11:30 a.m. another jet took off in that same direction over Meadowood that– I have severe noise and safety concerns. I called and reported and email at 11:46. I spoke to Allen Mantle at airport operations. I asked what was the procedure. He said that that they -the tower granted and Because the Airport is a public use airport, it cannot restrict aircraft from flying into or out of the valley due to federal grant assurances (with the exception of the grandfathered curfew already in place). In accepting federal funding, the County has agreed to comply with 39 specific grant assurances. These assurances require that the County, among other things, must “make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the Airport.” (Grant Assurance 22(a)). 32 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary confirmed takeoff east-whatever direction is over Aspen. I expressed my concern of safety, noise, the smell of jet fuel and Mr. Mantle said the pilot has to request and the tower grants. All but all the pilot has to do is sign a waiver to release the airport of any financial responsibility well what about the safety of the residents that live there all the time? So, if it is not safe and you just aggregate your responsibility by having them sign of financially to the pilot I don’t know why ah ah ah where the responsibility lies. Um just with the pilot? And we don’t know if these pilots are experienced with taking off in this area. Um and also what would happen if someone hap- I mean a school is in the path, so I’m very concerned about this. And also, I have a question about all the extra pounds – 20,000 pounds with the terrain and the wind and altitude concerns me about these larger jets and it just seems to me not for our community but for larger private jets to be able to come in and out of here. I also am going to complain about all the planes that have been allowed to land in that opposite direction. Um flying over Meadowood over our homes. The noise, the low flying airplanes, the jet noise, the smell of the fuel, and um safety concerns, but especially the peace of our neighborhood. They need to find somewhere else to fly over other than this neighborhood. I’ve been there for a long time this neighborhood has been here for a long time. I’ve noticed an increase in this landing and now this week after we went to a meeting, John Kinney came to the meeting, he promised us no one would be taking off in the direction of Meadowood. Twice this week this has happened with a very large jet. I’m very concerned about this, so I want to mitigate the smell of the jet fuel which, for what reason I don’t know why whether its landing takeoff or whatever, comes over into our property can be mitigated with something. I’m sure you can come up with something like they do in Santa Barbra with trees or walls or something and the noise and the safety we don’t want them flying over our community over…our house. We’re very upset about this (inaudible). The citizens of Meadowood are very upset about this. And it would be near where the church is and Response With regard to low flying planes, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes; in general, there are minimum standards for operations of fixed wing aircraft (excluding when necessary for takeoff/landing). Over congested areas, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet is required, except for under take-off and landing procedures. Complaints on low-flying aircraft may be filed with the FAA, Office of Flight Standards, which monitors aircraft operations. Once the facts have been recorded, an FAA aviation safety inspector attempts to identify the offending aircraft operator. For more information on low flying aircraft complaints, please visit the following website: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/. With regard to your comments pertaining to safety concerns, the Airport has unique constraints surrounding the airspace and terrain; however, Air Traffic Control’s primary directive is always safety. Air Traffic Control coordinates the movement of aircraft in the air and on the ground to ensure that safe distances are maintained between aircraft operating in the area. Also, the Airport’s published approach and departure procedures require that pilots observe all airspeed limitations and ATC instructions when arriving at or departing from the Airport. This EA does not include any substantial changes to the flight procedures to approach over Aspen. Commercial service aircraft generally arrive from the north and depart to the north. The EA assumes no substantial changes to these approach and departures. Odors from aircraft typically have an oily smell. The pollutants that comprise this type of smell are accounted for in the air pollutant assessment presented in the EA for precursor pollutants. The air quality modeling within the EA covers many of the pollutants that relate either directly or indirectly to fuel “smells,” and covers all the 33 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary these little towards Aspen and I think it affects the entire community. Thank you (Later comments added) Cheryl DuBrule: I also have another comment that um: John Kinney came to the Meadowood homeowners meeting and the new larger jets are going to be over 20,000 pounds more than the jets that currently land. This is very concerning to me due to terrain and wind - altitude. If anyone has lived here for any amount of time, I have sat on that runway in Denver and Aspen where they’ve asked people to get voluntarily get off the plane because the plan is too heavy. They would as 2-300 hundred-pound women with their luggage to get off the plane. How are you going to add 10 tons more of weight and safely land takeoff in this community? The airport is so close to Aspen. I’m very concerned that the FAA has the same regulations that go for LAX as go for Aspen. That airport is so close to us that we-we’ll always meet the FAA criteria and that would be the argument to push this project through, which I don’t think is good for our community. I think it’s good for the billionaires who want to fly their jets in so they don’t have to go to Eagle -Vail, but this is really not supporting the community and I think there’s safety with the school nearby safety there-safety with the with buttermilk and *stutters* I just don’t understand how they can say well 20,000 extra pounds fits the FAA when anyone knows I’ve seen 300 pounds taken off of these small planes because we weren’t going to make it in and land because of all the terrain and altitude and wind and and um the temperature here. It’s – none of this seems to make any sense to me. We have a whole crew here (inaudible) all these people here I don’t even know how many are here…20 …25 are here for this project. None of these people live here. They’re not part of our community. They’ve all been brought in to push this project. I think the community needs to ask why and what’s best for Aspen. These planes are flying over our teeny little town. This is upsetting to me. And it just isn’t going to benefit anyone that lives here. It’s going to destroy our beautiful quiet town and it’s going to be too Response pollutants regulated federally that relate to human health. Since the project does not trigger any federal thresholds of significance for air quality for these pollutants, there are no significant impacts relating to the air quality. With regard to your comment about impacts to schools, the noise and land use impact analysis presented in the Draft EA were prepared in accordance with Federal guidelines and showed that while aircraft noise would change slightly with the proposed project (increasing the 65 DNL contour by approximately 7.6 acres in 2028 compared to existing 2015), there would continue to be no noise sensitive uses exposed to 65 Day-Night Noise Level (DNL) or greater noise levels. No schools would be exposed to 65 DNL or greater noise levels with or without the proposed actions. Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines indicate that schools are compatible with aircraft noise levels less than 65 DNL. In response to your comment about community impacts, following FAA Order 1050.1F guidance, impacts to local communities are generally analyzed based on the significance of noise impacts or required relocations that could fracture a community or otherwise disrupt the community physically or economically. Aircraft noise already exists from current operations, although no noise sensitive uses are located in significant aircraft noise exposed areas. The proposed actions are not expected to generate significant aircraft noise exposure. Further, no homes, businesses or other community resources would need to be relocated. Additionally, no historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological sites are located within the project’s area of potential effect (APE). No significant impacts to health, children’s health and safety, or schools are anticipated. Therefore, impacts to the local community or cultural values are not expected as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 34 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response late once this all gets pushed through and I think the community can stop this and there’s good reason to. The idea that in 2021 or later in another 10 years that these half of this fleet is going to be phased out that doesn’t mean they’re not going to make something new that can that that wingspan can fit here that can take the same number of commercial passengers. It just seems…unfair to do to our little community. That airport is close to Aspen. Nothing is going to fly in and out of here that the town will not hear and the residents. Thank you. Hawk Greenway September 25, 2017 Hawk Greenway: So. Uh, I’m Hawk Greenway. I’m the owner and operator of an airplane that is a, um, general aviation airplane small Cessna out at the…tied down of the north ramp. So, I’m a general aviation user and operator on the Aspen airport and I have been for 25 years. Um, so I’ve watched it grow and change and well – one of the things that concerns me is the, um, maximum capacity of both the aspen airspace and the…runway. Um this plan, while spending all of this, um, engineering and all of this time and all of this, um, attention, doesn’t address, um, the runway, um, crowding issue whatsoever. And the um, what strikes me as an operator of a small Cessna tail dragger is um how little of the runway that I actually need. And I’m um routinely off in 6-700 feet. Um so, when I’m cleared for takeoff I’ll use the um extended threshold um end of the runway and I kind of get a kick out of like getting off the ground before I actually reach the actual runway itself. Um, so when I when I look at trying to um mix the different um speeds and types of aircraft um to use the single runway here um it strikes me that its…sort of ridiculous and um that it’s possible to have different types of aircraft using similar airspace. This EA does not include an extension of the existing taxiway to serve as a runway for general aviation aircraft. At this time, the redevelopment of the existing taxiway or development of a secondary runway that could serve general aviation aircraft is not reasonably foreseeable due to the existing land envelope and FAA design standards, as well as funding constraints. Air traffic control deals with the issues relative to different size aircraft using the same facility/airspace. Um just come back from Alaska and Fairbanks International um Airport was a real eye opener to me where they have float plane lake, a um ski strip, they call it ski strip but it’s like a gravel runway, and then um the 2 main runways. One of which is used for the air traffic - um air carrier traffic. And you know and Alaska is a different case where they’ve got a hugely um uh vibrant aircraft community and you know they have a lot 35 Submitted by Date Received Comment Summary Response of elbow room and land there. But one of the things Aspen has is a group um of small aircraft owners and operators that are operating these incredibly short takeoffs or landing bush aircraft and um they’ve become - uh they kind of remind me of the um Harley Davidsons that um of the local Rolex rider group - you know they’re like collectors’ items. And um you know aircraft are 50 years old, but their performance is…its almost helicopter-like in comparison to the runway needs. So um, I’m putting in a request for a grass um dirt runway um that could help relieve some of that um activity, and I think um, or some of that pressure on the number of um operations allowed um on the runway. So, like an extension of the um alpha taxiway…to the north during all of this studies and ah works that could uh give you know 1000, 1500, 1200 feet you know there are um you know probably a dozen aircraft on ah based on the field that wouldn’t need the main runway and would use that. So um, otherwise … I like the plan and I really like the um uh lightness and airiness of the depicted um terminals. I think those are quite nice artistic renditions. 36 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM Pitkin County Connect is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Pitkin County Connect is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 65 Registered Statements: 12 All Statements: 13 Minutes of Public Comment: 39 This topic started on August 23, 2017, 1:39 PM. All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 2 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. John Edwards inside District 3 October 3, 2017, 5:36 PM Pitkin county connect Re: airport improvement Environmental assessment October 3, 2017 I am opposed to the airport improvements for the following environmental reason: The expansion will impact the sensitive area including but not limited to wildlife, sensitive zones: wetlands, water flow, noise, and pollution. In addition, there is missing information due to assumptions that have not been articulate. For example, there are no noise measurements taken in flight pattern 7 to 14 miles away. The residue or unburned jet fuel has not been measured in this zone, as the high elevation of the runway created engine inefficiency. I am opposed to the terminal expansion: The expansion will impact the sensitive area including but not limited to Wildlife, sensitive zones: wetlands, water flow, noise and pollution. The economic projections regarding this project in my opinion use old data from the 2013 economic impact study for Colorado airports (new data will be surveyed in 2018). And is not a representative sample due to the seasonal nature of the airport. Skier visits are also flat or only slightly increasing. Traffic may be impacted. In addition, weather (wind, temperature and visibility) and altitude and weight of aircraft will reduce safety concerns. In an event of a large/ full bigger plane crash, medical facilities would be strained and perhaps insufficient to handle an event that I pray will never happen, (see 2002 private jet crash that killed 18 people). Please refer to the 2012 Airport Master plan for addition concerns of those who live in this valley or visit Aspen (there was an environment assessment in that report). Finally, the public needs more time to comment on this E I hearing. The notification was fair at best. FYI October 3, 2017 is Tuesday not Monday as stated in the documentation. Please allow more time for others to comment or reconsider this project for all of the stated reasons. Sincerely John Edwards jedwards.bks@gmail.com Name not shown inside District 1 October 3, 2017, 5:14 PM Aspen has said again and again in its community plans that it wants to be a tourism-driven and resort-based economy. Maintaining air service is critical to that. Anyone who advocates preventing the improvements to our All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 3 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. runway and airport that will allow the next generation of aircraft does not have our community's true interests at heart. Yes, the next generation of aircraft will have wider wingspans. They will also be quieter and more fuel efficient. Aspen's original airport was a central piece to bringing Aspen out of the Quiet Years and establishing our resort economy. Truly, it helped make Aspen, Aspen. Please allow the airport to take the next necessary step in its evolution. This would mean a runway expansion that accommodates the next generation of the same types of aircraft we have now (which, again, will be slightly bigger and may carry nominally more passengers) and a design that presents a terminal to our guests that is safe and scaled appropriately to handle a busy winter day that may include a backlog of passengers due to cancelled flights. The current plan accomplishes both of these goals reasonably. Bill Tomcich outside County Districts October 3, 2017, 2:24 PM As an individual who has closely monitored and has been involved with commercial air service into this valley since 1995, I have learned how important it is to plan for the future. While visitors and locals are currently enjoying the greatest variety of flight options, connections and competition this airport has ever seen, there is currently just one operator flying one aircraft type into the Aspen Airport for all three commercial airlines, and no new CRJ700’s have been manufactured or delivered since 2011. By the year 2031, those newest CRJ700’s will be twenty years old and nearing the end of their practical life span while the vast majority of CRJ700’s will already have been retired from commercial service. As identified in the EA, there are a variety of new generation regional and small narrow-body aircraft that will be able to operate at ASE, and some of them will be in service by next year. Some of these aircraft are larger than the current 70 passenger regional jets currently serving the market, while all of these aircraft will be quieter and more efficient than any commercial aircraft that have served ASE in the past or present. However, because of the new efficiencies in modern wing design, none of these new aircraft that are expected to enter service over the next five years will have wingspans that are within ASE’s current 95’ wingspan restriction. Airport staff and the consultant team have put an extraordinary amount of work into planning for the future, and the plans for both runway improvements and a new terminal building will allow for the continuation of commercial air service as we now know it. The Aspen Airport is an economic lifeline for the business community of this resort based economy and is unquestionably one of the key competitive advantages of this resort destination, and there are many businesses who share my strong support of these essential proposed airport improvements. Nancy MacKenzie inside District 3 October 2, 2017, 10:48 PM “The Woody Creek Caucus contact the airport officials and the county commissioners informing them that the current environmental assessment does not take into account the specific conditions of a high altitude narrow mountain valley and that we request an independent and unbiased study that includes; air quality, emergency response, and noise issues in accordance with our Master Plan.” We are contacting you now because at the May 27, 2017 monthly meeting of the Woody Creek Caucus the above motion concerning the current environmental assessment of the Pitkin County Airport was unanimously All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 4 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. approved. As background information for you, Resolution No. PZ 2016-08 of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission adopted the 2016 Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan. We request that you become familiar with Chapter 2* which is specifically addresses our concerns with the Pitkin County Airport. The Woody Creek Caucus supports the existing curfew, safety restrictions on GA aircraft, current operating hours, and noise abatement restrictions. We also support variable takeoff headings so that no one neighborhood receives all the noise impacts. We support future elimination of Stage 2 aircraft and do not support expansion of facilities that would allow louder, larger, and heavier aircraft, to use the airport. We strongly support a cap of 125,000 pounds gross weight for aircraft using Sardy Field. We continue to support safe operation of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport and all efforts to minimize impacts on residents of Woody Creek and the surrounding area. Our airport should be sized to our small mountain community, in keeping with the rural character of the resort. The Caucus is concerned that, while the future air service planning study supports airport expansion, it fails to study alternatives that relate to the health, welfare, safety and capacity of our valley. Therefore, we recommend that the Environmental Assessment and any ultimate decision regarding airport improvements consider alternatives. Develop an alternative that limits the airport to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than a maximum 125,000 pounds. Because of our altitude and the nature of our topography, larger airplanes would create unacceptable burdens of noise and toxic pollutants for the many residents near the airport and for many miles down valley. In general, we believe that bringing more air traffic to Sardy Field is not in the best interest of the community. The valley is too confined. In addition, the airport is dangerously close to Aspen, the North Forty neighborhood, and large-scale events at Buttermilk. Emergency response in our narrow valley is a continued concern. Even now there is no way we could handle an emergency such as happened March 29, 2001 when a chartered business jet crashed near Shale Bluffs and all three crew members and fifteen passengers on board perished. It has become increasingly evident that the restricted air space in the Aspen area creates a conflict between ever-increasing numbers of private aircraft and commercial service. Large numbers of private aircraft should not be allowed to crowd out commercial flights. This is one more example that one size does not fit all situations. The FAA should modify its regulations in the case of an airport with a single runway located in a confined, high altitude, narrow valley. 2* WOODY CREEK CAUCUS MASTER PLAN 2016 Pitkin County Airport Policy Statement: The Woody Creek Caucus supports the existing curfew, safety restrictions on GA aircraft, current operating hours, and noise abatement restrictions. We also support variable takeoff headings so that no one neighborhood receives all the noise impacts. We support future elimination of Stage 2 aircraft and do not support expansion of facilities that would allow louder, larger, and heavier aircraft, such as the 737, to use the airport. We strongly support a cap of 125,000 pounds gross weight for aircraft using Sardy Field. We continue to support safe operation of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport and all efforts to minimize impacts on residents of Woody Creek and the surrounding area. Our airport should be sized to our small mountain community, in keeping with the rural character of the resort. All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 5 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. Current status: Sardy Field is a valuable asset of the people of Pitkin County. The airport is a vitally important facility for the economy of the area, for the way we function as a whole community, and as a major link in the transportation chain of the Roaring Fork Valley. Even so, in its growth and development over the past decades, the airport has become a source of controversy. In view of the fact that Woody Creek is one of the affected communities directly under the flight path, we have in the past been a voice in this controversy and are concerned with noise impacts, air pollution impacts, and safety considerations. Current airport planning: Due to constant pressure from the business community and other special interest groups, there has been a prolonged effort to expand Sardy Field into a state-of-the-art, urban-style airport. The Caucus views the justification and predictions of future needs for this massive expansion with skepticism. Ultimately, it may not be in the best interests of the community at large, including Woody Creek. Beginning in 2010, a study was commissioned by the Pitkin County Commissioners and airport personnel on the adequacy of the airport terminal facilities for the future. Past studies have consistently overestimated the projected number of passengers using the airport. Although airport use remained relatively flat over the past fifteen years, according to airport records, the study predicted significant passenger increases in the next 20 years, and therefore a need for a new $80 to $100-million-dollar terminal. The Pitkin County commissioners have approved this new terminal with the adoption of the 2012 Airport Master Plan. The County intends to conduct a multi-phased design process for this facility, which is to include comprehensive public input prior to construction. Predictably, there is now a follow-up study, “The ASE Future Air Service Planning Study,” that recommends expanding and strengthening the airport runways and allows for a second FBO operation, so as to increase air service to the airport, especially GA. The technical phases 1 and 2 of the study to expand the airport to the west were made with no public input, and specifically, no contact with the Woody Creek Caucus. Phase 3 is now in progress, calling for an Environmental Analysis as well as public input. However, the choices for the expansion and operation of the airport, which will be presented to the public, are limited to the results of Technical Phases 1 and 2. The claim of the “ASE Future Air Service Planning Study” is that, without a $120 million to $130 million expansion of the runway to accept a new generation of airplanes, Aspen will not have a viable service after 2021. Concerns of the Community: The Woody Creek Caucus is skeptical of the claim that there will not be a viable commercial service after 2021 without a huge expansion. Just in 2012, The Airport Master Plan stated that “no change will be made in the existing prohibitions on (1) aircraft with wingspans greater than 95 feet, and (2) aircraft weighing more than 100,000 pounds maximum gross landing weight.” However, it has recently been revealed that the FAA did not accept this portion of the Master Plan. All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 6 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. We are opposed to a larger, urban-style airport close to the center of Aspen, with all of the negative impacts this could bring to Woody Creek and the community at large. The increased traffic of larger, heavier, more intrusive airplanes will dramatically increase the discomfort of the many residents around the airport and in the flight path. It would be yet another step in Aspen’s path toward commercialization and the loss of Aspen’s unique character. The airspace and mountainous surrounds of the narrow valley at the entrance to Aspen is a constant. A larger airport will certainly increase the pressure on this environment and on the people who live in the valley. There will be more noise, more air pollution, more safety concerns, and more competition in our limited airspace between commercial and GA aircraft. In an issue of Snow Magazine some years ago, an article by Andrew Nemethy describes a theory about the rise and decline of tourist towns, which even 25 years ago was being seen in resorts east and west. The resort starts as an attractive small town with amenities and natural environments that attract many to settle there. These places are often small, with low traffic, low taxes, and a strong sense of community, set in a lovely rural landscape. Growth moratoriums are gradually put in place, with the result of raising the cost of real estate. The cost and the cost of living also rise and become too high for many residents. They must now travel to shop for basic needs. Traffic jams and higher rents – residential and commercial -- drive out the locals. As improved infrastructure is deemed necessary for all the traffic, taxes rise. New schools, hotels, and hospitals are required to serve the upscale population. This is a common pattern of development in desirable resort areas, including the Roaring Fork Valley. We in Woody Creek would like to put on the brakes and preserve some of the character of old Aspen and the appeal of the ski resort lifestyle. The local economy has become less driven by tourism and local residents than by construction and development or redevelopment and luxury maintenance. Suddenly the community needs an excessive amount of architects, planners, lawyers, designers, contractors, and trades people. Our government continues to grow, and it demands more taxes and more bureaucracy to keep pace with the growth. None of the decisions that create growth are based on the character of the town we want. Rather, they are based on the need to keep people who have moved here for economic reasons employed. Government and the commercial infrastructure have to keep growing. The perceived need to keep the tourist base ever growing creates an onerous spiral in which quantity overwhelms quality. Prices on businesses and real estate keep rising. Homes just built are remodeled every several years. Chain stores replace small, locally owned shops. Prices go so high that locals don’t even bother to shop locally. Our town begins to look like a small version of Los Angeles, New York, or Dallas. Folks don’t mingle, and the sense of neighborliness has disappeared. The appeal and character are destroyed. People leave. Corporations arrive. Summary of the Airport Chapter: The Caucus is concerned that, while the future air service planning study supports airport expansion, it fails to All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 7 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. study alternatives that relate to the health, welfare, safety and capacity of our valley. Therefore, we recommend that the EA and any ultimate decision regarding airport improvements include consideration of the following alternatives: A. Develop an alternative which assumes airplanes currently serving the Aspen market or their equivalent will continue to be available beyond 2021; And/or B. Develop an alternative that limits the airport to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than a maximum 125,000 pounds. Because of our altitude and the nature of our topography, larger airplanes would create unacceptable burdens of noise and toxic pollutants for the many residents near the airport and for many miles down valley. Large airplanes such as 737s would severely impact the livability of the upper Roaring Fork Valley forever. Furthermore, our Alternative B is critical because the Aspen community does not have a large enough emergency capability or the infrastructure to manage a mishap involving larger airplanes. 1. We are also concerned that runway expansion and strengthening to allow for larger regional commercial airplanes will open the airport to larger, heavier and louder aircraft, both commercial and private. The community has been promised for many years by various government boards that no 737-type aircraft would be allowed to use the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. If this promise is not kept, the impacts of noise and air pollution, as well as growth generation, will be greatly increased. Larger aircraft such as the 737 require much larger and noisier engines. The Roaring Fork Valley would be changed forever if these heavy aircraft were allowed to operate here. If the airport must ultimately accept new regional jets, these should be limited to commercial regional jets and private aircraft with a gross landing weight of no more than 125,000 pounds. The FAA should recognize that one size does not fit all. An airport at 8,000 feet in a narrow valley is in a very different environment than one on the plains at a lower altitude. Our valley has confined airspace, numerous homes around the airport and in the flight path, and decreased air circulation, resulting in more air pollution. The Aspen community should require flexibility in how the airport is operated, and not be forced to accept a standard that will damage the community and cause severe discomfort to its citizens. 2. Our list of concerns includes but is not limited to: • Noise abatement. "As with most rural resort environments with low ambient noise levels, any noise emissions, especially during the evening hours, are a serious local environmental concern. Woody Creek is no exception. In addition, Aspen may be unique as a result of the increased sound transmissions in a low-humidity, high-altitude, valleyconstricted environment." -Brad Christopher, former airport manager • • • • • Light pollution Air pollution. Jet fuel, the most toxic of pollutants, is often strongly present in our valley. Larger, heavier, louder aircraft Flight hazards. This valley is a problematic location for increased air traffic Encouragement of growth from overbuilding the airport Increases in airport traffic will require All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 8 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. commensurate growth in accommodations and accompanying development. • Degradation of our community’s character 3. In general, we believe that bringing more air traffic to Sardy Field is not in the best interest of the community. The valley is too confined. In addition, the airport is dangerously close to Aspen, the North Forty neighborhood, and large-scale events at Buttermilk. 4. The new terminal is out of balance with the projected long-term population growth. A larger airport with more capacity will drive development. 5. Since the rationale for enlarging the airport is to enable it to accommodate the new generation of commercial regional jets, it should be possible for the commercial airlines to maintain their schedules. It has become increasingly evident that the restricted air space in the Aspen area creates a conflict between everincreasing numbers of private aircraft and commercial service. Large numbers of private aircraft should not be allowed to crowd out commercial flights. This is one more example that one size does not fit all situations. The FAA should modify its regulations in the case of an airport with a single runway located in a confined, high altitude, narrow valley. Thank you for your consideration of the concerns of Woody Creek. Woody Creek Caucus Nancy MacKenzie, Moderator nancy_bill_mackenzie@yahoo.com Bert Myrin inside District 2 September 27, 2017, 9:52 AM Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I support the current flight curfew going forward. I am concerned about the potential for larger commercial and private jets. I support “The Ridge” terminal area improvement because the exterior appearance is smaller in scale, with a low profile roof that hugs the landscape. Additionally the open interior makes wayfinding intuitive and the enormous windows provide a sense of place that is unique to Aspen. If it were up to me (which it’s not), I’d support all improvements proposed except those necessary to accommodate larger jets. The projection of 74,190 additional annual visitors in 2033 with the runway project seems incompatible with maintaining the small town character of Aspen. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. - Bert Myrin 1 Supporter Peg O'Brien inside District 3 September 25, 2017, 10:29 PM Please protect the air quality of the residential and recreational areas beneath the flight path. Data collection (on the mesa above the Woody Creek Post Office, on airport mesa above Jaffee Park, and others locales beneath the flight path - during on, off, and shoulder seasons), and analysis (perhaps involving a 3rd party environmental science group who would provide recommendations), followed by creation and strict All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 9 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. enforcement of emissions regulations, may be appropriate. The Aspen-Valley-appropriate air quality regulations could then be used to guide decisions on types and numbers of planes allowed, which could inform the airport design. Thank you. Respectfully, Peg O'Brien WC Metro President Name not shown inside District 1 September 23, 2017, 7:32 AM Some 50 years ago an article about the necessity of keeping our airport small appeared in the Aspen Times. Of course the financial interests ignored it as they will ignore it now. It is a shame that in a world gone bad with global warming and an ignorant upper class that we cannot find something better to do with this money. My absentee neighbors are all cutthroat CEOs with no morality. They want to come and go, if they do at all, in the largest possible contrivance. This would be a private jet with a wingspan that surpasses that of 15 tall men lying head to toe. Think of these men as dead and you will get a real picture of what global warming and unrestrained opulence brings. Name not shown inside District 2 September 11, 2017, 12:59 PM MOST IMPORTANT: When did citizens approve an enlargement to the airport? Can we bring torches to these meetings? This expansion is being crammed down the community's throat---just like all the new government buildings only the bureaucrats hungry for more power want in our little village. Geez. The Aspen Mayor and his Troika bypassed us citizens for the 47' foot City Hall with a 1500 sq. foot office with shower for the City Manager. When the newly hired airport director ---from .....get ready....LAX -----came into Rotary (typically a pro business group) to talk about the new plan in glowing (in his mind) and positive (in his mind) terms like "gargantuan" and "huge," I was told to shut up afterwards and not to mention it. HAHAHA Remember, commissioners ---you work for us voters. A majority of voters are against your plan. This bears repeating: " Enlarging the airport will fundamentally change our city; we are popular because of our small town charming character. " Peter Grenney inside District 1 August 30, 2017, 3:22 PM Section - 2.2.2 Terminal Circulation Road Requirements and Parking Needs - seems outdated based on 2012 parking calculations. How is the parking management plan accounting for car-share, ride-share, autonomous vehicles, and e-bikes? Is there any opportunity to make the terminal a shared hub for other regional transportation services (i.e. Union Station) whether it's for buses, shuttles, shared rides, etc? Supporting Media (video): https://vimeo.com/235917768 Ron Thompson inside District 2 August 30, 2017, 2:02 PM All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 10 of 11 Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements Now Available Please give us your comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Airport Improvements. Your comments will be considered by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners when they consider and vote on the EA at their regular meeting on November 1, 2017. I fail to remember the voters approving an enlargement to the airport and you work for the voters. This voter is against your plan. Enlarging the airport will fundamentally change our city, we are popular because of our small town charming character. Our commisioners and the city council disrespect the federal government's immigration laws, therefore if you go ahead with this costly plan you should have a strategy for how to fund it without federal funds. 1 Supporter Howard Vagneur inside District 3 August 28, 2017, 11:23 AM Hi, I've reviewed all of your plans, drafts, etc. and it appears to me that you only address areas at the airport. An Extended current EA is needed for areas outside the airport envelope. I have been impacted by low flying, loud and off course aircraft over my property in Woody Creek for many years impacting my property and lowering the property value. Past advisement to airport authorities have fallen on deaf ears. HV 1 Supporter paul mcdonough outside County Districts August 27, 2017, 2:42 PM Wonderful news! We are looking forward to finally getting a state of the art terminal and runway! Our family has enjoyed our 2nd home and the area for decades, however the getting to and fro has always been the worst part! We would love to the improved efficiencies and amenities of a new terminal! Also, a longer runway would allow more direct flights, leading to more skiers & customers to our businesses! 1 Supporter All Registered Statements sorted chronologically As of October 4, 2017, 9:56 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/5328 Page 11 of 11 Kate Andrus From: Sent: To: Subject: Sandra Story Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:54 AM Kate Andrus Fwd: Form submission from: Give Us Your Comments Hi Kate, John would like you to include this in the EA - See message below ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Date: Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:31 PM Subject: Form submission from: Give Us Your Comments To: pat.bingham@pitkincounty.com Cc: ashley.wiles@aspenairport.com, sandra.story@aspenairport.com Submitted on Saturday, September 23, 2017 - 13:31 Submitted by anonymous user: 73.203.8.100 Submitted values are: Name: Lee Mulcahy Email: leemulcahyphd@gmail.com Subject: New airport expansion Comment: Why are we not allowed to vote on the airport expansion? It's just like the new City Hall that is larger than the Art Museum----the voters get no input on whether we want it or not. This giant expansion is not in line with the community's desire to maintain our rural and small town character. Shame on you politicians! The results of this submission may be viewed at: http://aspenairport.com/node/464/submission/296 -Sandra Story Executive Assistant/Office Manager Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, Aspen, CO www.aspenairport.com C 970 319 3498 1 Kate Andrus From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Pat Bingham Friday, August 25, 2017 1:34 PM Kate Andrus John Kinney Fwd: Form submission from: Give Us Your Comments Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Flag for follow up Flagged Sent from my iPhone Hi Kate Please include this comment in you EA collection. Pat Begin forwarded message: From: "Aspen/Pitkin County Airport" Date: August 25, 2017 at 5:48:20 PM MDT To: pat.bingham@pitkincounty.com Cc: ashley.wiles@aspenairport.com,sandra.story@aspenairport.com Subject: Form submission from: Give Us Your Comments Submitted on Friday, August 25, 2017 - 16:48 Submitted by anonymous user: 70.57.12.246 Submitted values are: Name: Nancy Tate Hall Email: nthall23@msn.com Subject: Airport Expansion Concerns Comment: I realize that many people are all excited about recent projections of increased flights and larger aircraft in order to bring in all those tourist dollars. Does anyone ever bring up the fact that the airport happens to be surrounded by residential neighborhoods which are already negatively impacted by airport noise and pollution? Who wants to live near DIA? Do you hear from concerned homeowners? Aspen is considered to be a very environmentally conscious community which is "soooo" green and progressive--on top of the climate change issue, and recycling, composting, etc. What is this rumor about reversing the landing direction from up valley to down valley which requires flying over neighborhoods like Meadowood? I hear the 7 am flights everyday since you moved the runway 1,000 feet closer to town and promised that "this was it". Plans for the new airport show the de-icing area moving closer up valley also which is extremely noisy. It is obvious that the airport needs to be spiffed up a bit, but its still pretty cool in its present state, and certainly convenient. I fear the "new and improved" 1 airport has gotten out of hand and could be the nail in the coffin in terms of quality of life for people who actually live here. The airport issue has always been a hot one and will continue to be because it is basically in the wrong location! Therefore, whatever happens needs to be modest, efficient, and sensitive to its potentially disastrous environmental impact on nearby Roaring Fork Valley residents. I have attended several of the planning and feedback sessions. Seems only the positive remarks get posted and the others ignored. (925-7679) The results of this submission may be viewed at: http://aspenairport.com/node/464/submission/277 2 Michael​ ​Wessler​ ​(President​ ​North​ ​40​ ​HOA) 34​ ​Tumbledown​ ​Lane Aspen,​ ​CO​ ​81611 Kate​ ​Andrus 1743​ ​Wazee​ ​Street Suite​ ​400 Denver,​ ​CO​ ​80202 Re:​ ​Aspen/Pitkin​ ​County​ ​Airport​ ​Draft​ ​Environmental​ ​Analysis​ ​Comments The​ ​North​ ​40​ ​subdivision​ ​is​ ​hereby​ ​submitting​ ​their​ ​comments​ ​and​ ​requests​ ​for​ ​modification​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Aspen/Pitkin​ ​County Airport​ ​(ASE)​ ​Draft​ ​Environmental​ ​Assessment​ ​(Draft​ ​EA)​ ​and​ ​subsequent​ ​improvements​ ​to​ ​the​ ​airport. North​ ​40​ ​is​ ​a​ ​residential​ ​neighborhood​ ​comprised​ ​of​ ​approximately​ ​70​ ​deed​ ​restricted​ ​units​ ​in​ ​Pitkin​ ​County​ ​just​ ​outside the​ ​City​ ​of​ ​Aspen.​ ​Many​ ​of​ ​these​ ​units​ ​are​ ​occupied​ ​by​ ​families​ ​with​ ​children.​ ​All​ ​units​ ​are​ ​occupied​ ​year-round.​ ​Our community​ ​also​ ​maintains​ ​a​ ​field​ ​and​ ​children’s​ ​park​ ​which​ ​is​ ​shared​ ​with​ ​the​ ​community​ ​at​ ​large.​ ​Our​ ​neighborhood​ ​is adjacent​ ​to​ ​Colorado​ ​Mountain​ ​College’s​ ​(CMC)​ ​Aspen​ ​campus. The​ ​Aspen/Pitkin​ ​County​ ​Airport’s​ ​GA​ ​apron,​ ​runway,​ ​and​ ​taxiway​ ​are​ ​directly​ ​across​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​from​ ​North​ ​40.​ ​This​ ​is where​ ​most​ ​private​ ​jets​ ​park​ ​and​ ​all​ ​airplanes​ ​must​ ​travel​ ​past​ ​when​ ​taxiing,​ ​arriving,​ ​or​ ​departing.​ ​The​ ​planes​ ​are​ ​visible from​ ​the​ ​North​ ​40​ ​field,​ ​park,​ ​and​ ​some​ ​of​ ​the​ ​houses.​ ​The​ ​airplanes’​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​exhaust​ ​fumes​ ​affect​ ​the​ ​field,​ ​park,​ ​and all​ ​units​ ​to​ ​varying​ ​degrees​ ​–​ ​see​ ​Figure​ ​4.11-3​ ​and​ ​4.11-4. Section​ ​2.2.4​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​acknowledges​ ​the​ ​impacts​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​has​ ​on​ ​the​ ​surrounding​ ​area​ ​including​ ​North​ ​40​ ​and Aspen​ ​Airport​ ​Business​ ​Center​ ​(ABC). “The​ ​need​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​apron​ ​noise​ ​on​ ​surrounding​ ​communities.​ ​Coordination​ ​with​ ​the​ ​public​ ​during​ ​the​ ​Master​ ​Plan Update​ ​identified​ ​noise​ ​from​ ​the​ ​GA​ ​apron​ ​as​ ​a​ ​substantial​ ​concern​ ​for​ ​the​ ​businesses​ ​and​ ​residences​ ​near​ ​the​ ​Airport Business​ ​Center.​ ​The​ ​GA​ ​apron​ ​can​ ​be​ ​very​ ​busy​ ​during​ ​peak​ ​times​ ​in​ ​the​ ​summer​ ​and​ ​the​ ​winter,​ ​with​ ​numerous business​ ​jets​ ​parked.​ ​Jets​ ​are​ ​generally​ ​parked​ ​with​ ​Auxiliary​ ​Power​ ​Units​ ​(APUs)​ ​running,​ ​facing​ ​Highway​ ​82​ ​and​ ​the Airport​ ​Business​ ​Center​ ​(ABC).​ ​These​ ​units​ ​are​ ​run​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​taking​ ​off,​ ​during​ ​maintenance,​ ​and​ ​sometimes​ ​for​ ​hours​ ​while waiting​ ​for​ ​clients.​ ​This​ ​creates​ ​noise​ ​in​ ​the​ ​surrounding​ ​community.​ ​While​ ​this​ ​project​ ​is​ ​not​ ​directly​ ​related​ ​to​ ​the needed​ ​terminal​ ​improvements,​ ​its​ ​need​ ​could​ ​be​ ​addressed​ ​at​ ​about​ ​the​ ​same​ ​time​ ​as​ ​the​ ​terminal​ ​improvements.” Before​ ​proceeding,​ ​I​ ​want​ ​to​ ​note​ ​that​ ​we​ ​did​ ​move​ ​here​ ​knowing​ ​and​ ​accepting​ ​that​ ​our​ ​proximity​ ​to​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​would have​ ​implications​ ​on​ ​our​ ​daily​ ​life.​ ​I​ ​would​ ​also​ ​like​ ​to​ ​add​ ​that​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​does​ ​a​ ​good​ ​job​ ​of​ ​complying​ ​with​ ​the​ ​flight curfew​ ​at​ ​night​ ​between​ ​10​ ​pm​ ​–​ ​7​ ​am.​ ​During​ ​hours​ ​of​ ​operation,​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​generally​ ​emits​ ​constant​ ​background noise​ ​with​ ​noticeably​ ​louder​ ​noise​ ​levels​ ​during​ ​takeoff​ ​and​ ​landing.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be​ ​expected.​ ​What​ ​was​ ​a​ ​surprise​ ​to​ ​us​ ​is the​ ​additional​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​exhaust​ ​fumes​ ​emitted​ ​while​ ​planes​ ​sit​ ​on​ ​the​ ​apron​ ​waiting​ ​to​ ​park,​ ​taxi,​ ​and​ ​/​ ​or​ ​take​ ​off. They​ ​generally​ ​run​ ​their​ ​Auxiliary​ ​Power​ ​Units​ ​(APU)​ ​during​ ​this​ ​time.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​exacerbated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​winds​ ​which​ ​sometimes blow​ ​east​ ​across​ ​the​ ​runway​ ​towards​ ​North​ ​40.​ ​This​ ​leads​ ​to​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​exhaust​ ​fumes​ ​that​ ​are​ ​so​ ​bad​ ​that​ ​we​ ​have​ ​had to​ ​leave​ ​the​ ​park​ ​and​ ​close​ ​the​ ​windows​ ​at​ ​our​ ​house.​ ​These​ ​symptoms​ ​happen​ ​with​ ​varying​ ​frequency​ ​throughout​ ​the year​ ​but​ ​worse​ ​case​ ​is​ ​multiple​ ​times​ ​a​ ​week​ ​during​ ​busy​ ​seasons. I​ ​understand​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​has​ ​deemed​ ​the​ ​additional​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​emissions​ ​of​ ​a​ ​redeveloped​ ​airport​ ​to​ ​be​ ​negligible and​ ​therefore​ ​are​ ​not​ ​requiring​ ​mitigating​ ​steps​ ​to​ ​address​ ​them​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​this​ ​environmental​ ​assessment.​ ​But​ ​it​ ​would be​ ​a​ ​missed​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​redevelop​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​and​ ​not​ ​address​ ​the​ ​issues​ ​of​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​air​ ​pollution,​ ​even​ ​at​ ​current levels.​ ​I​ ​request​ ​that​ ​you​ ​include​ ​the​ ​following​ ​additions​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​Environment​ ​Assessment​ ​to​ ​address​ ​these environmental​ ​effects​ ​at​ ​the​ ​North​ ​40​ ​and​ ​surrounding​ ​areas.​ ​Some​ ​of​ ​these​ ​suggestions​ ​would​ ​also​ ​reduce​ ​pollution​ ​in the​ ​greater​ ​Aspen/Pitkin​ ​County​ ​community. 1) Noise/Visual​ ​Buffer a. Figure​ ​1-1​ ​(and​ ​other​ ​similar​ ​Figures)​ ​depicts​ ​a​ ​Noise/Visual​ ​Buffer​ ​along​ ​the​ ​east​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​GA​ ​apron. Section​ ​4.11.2.2​ ​describes​ ​construction​ ​options​ ​of​ ​a​ ​wall​ ​and​ ​/​ ​or​ ​berm:​ ​“For​ ​the​ ​Terminal​ ​Alternatives, the​ ​location​ ​of​ ​the​ ​terminal​ ​and​ ​apron​ ​would​ ​change​ ​and​ ​there​ ​would​ ​be​ ​an​ ​addition​ ​of​ ​a​ ​noise wall/berm​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ramp​ ​between​ ​the​ ​aircraft​ ​parking​ ​area​ ​and​ ​the​ ​North​ ​40​ ​community.”​ ​Different heights​ ​are​ ​discussed.​ ​The​ ​addition​ ​of​ ​a​ ​noise/visual​ ​buffer​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​requirement​ ​of​ ​this​ ​document​ ​but instead​ ​is​ ​a​ ​suggested​ ​additional​ ​project. b. Strongly​ ​support​ ​the​ ​development​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Noise/Visual​ ​Buffer​ ​between​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​and​ ​North​ ​40. c. Recommend​ ​the​ ​14’​ ​high​ ​option​ ​along​ ​the​ ​east​ ​(North​ ​40)​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​GA​ ​apron.​ ​Construction​ ​consisting of​ ​a​ ​sound​ ​wall​ ​on​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​side​ ​and​ ​an​ ​earthen​ ​half-mound​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​/​ ​North​ ​40​ ​side. d. Additionally,​ ​suggest​ ​adding​ ​a​ ​10’​ ​high​ ​earthen​ ​berm​ ​north​ ​to​ ​the​ ​far​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FBO​ ​and​ ​south​ ​to​ ​the​ ​far end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​parking​ ​lots. e. The​ ​materials​ ​used​ ​for​ ​the​ ​berm​ ​should​ ​come​ ​from​ ​the​ ​demolition​ ​of​ ​the​ ​old​ ​terminal​ ​and​ ​excavation​ ​for the​ ​new​ ​terminal​ ​and​ ​other​ ​improvements.​ ​This​ ​would​ ​greatly​ ​reduce​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​fill​ ​being​ ​sent​ ​to the​ ​Pitkin​ ​County​ ​Landfill.​ ​This​ ​will​ ​also​ ​offset​ ​the​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​the​ ​berm. f. Building​ ​a​ ​14’​ ​sound​ ​wall​ ​with​ ​earthen​ ​berm​ ​along​ ​the​ ​GA​ ​apron​ ​and​ ​10’​ ​earthen​ ​berm​ ​in​ ​front​ ​of​ ​the FBO​ ​and​ ​parking​ ​/​ ​terminal​ ​will​ ​help​ ​contain​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​pollution​ ​within​ ​the​ ​airport. g. This​ ​will​ ​benefit​ ​North​ ​40,​ ​CMC,​ ​Firehouse,​ ​and​ ​ABC.​ ​Will​ ​also​ ​benefit​ ​the​ ​Pitkin​ ​County​ ​Landfill. 2) Change​ ​Direction​ ​of​ ​Parked​ ​Planes a. The​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​does​ ​not​ ​specify​ ​the​ ​direction​ ​planes​ ​should​ ​be​ ​parked​ ​on​ ​the​ ​apron.​ ​Currently​ ​airplanes are​ ​parked​ ​with​ ​their​ ​tails​ ​(and​ ​exhaust)​ ​facing​ ​North​ ​40. b. Request​ ​that​ ​the​ ​orientation​ ​of​ ​parked​ ​airplanes​ ​on​ ​the​ ​apron​ ​be​ ​changed​ ​180​ ​degrees​ ​so​ ​that​ ​their noses​ ​are​ ​facing​ ​highway​ ​82​ ​/​ ​North​ ​40. c. Changing​ ​the​ ​direction​ ​planes​ ​park​ ​on​ ​the​ ​apron​ ​will​ ​redirect​ ​the​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​exhaust​ ​of​ ​taxiing​ ​and​ ​APU’s away​ ​from​ ​North​ ​40. d. This​ ​will​ ​benefit​ ​North​ ​40,​ ​CMC,​ ​Firehouse,​ ​and​ ​ABC. 3) Limit​ ​APU​ ​Runtime a. The​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​does​ ​not​ ​include​ ​any​ ​reference​ ​to​ ​the​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​limiting​ ​APU​ ​runtimes. b. Recommend​ ​implementing​ ​new​ ​policy​ ​that​ ​would​ ​limit​ ​APU​ ​runtime​ ​to​ ​15​ ​minutes​ ​and​ ​instigate penalties​ ​for​ ​overages. c. Extend​ ​an​ ​area​ ​to​ ​the​ ​far​ ​north​ ​(down​ ​valley)​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​where​ ​longer​ ​runtimes​ ​are​ ​allowed specifically​ ​for​ ​safety​ ​or​ ​maintenance. d. Rules​ ​will​ ​also​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​in​ ​place​ ​that​ ​would​ ​prevent​ ​pilots​ ​from​ ​running​ ​the​ ​airplane​ ​engines​ ​to provide​ ​the​ ​same​ ​services​ ​the​ ​APU​ ​normally​ ​does​ ​which​ ​would​ ​clearly​ ​circumvent​ ​any​ ​benefit​ ​of restricting​ ​APU​ ​runtime,​ ​possibly​ ​causing​ ​even​ ​more​ ​pollution. e. Implementing​ ​a​ ​maximum​ ​time​ ​limit​ ​on​ ​how​ ​long​ ​an​ ​APU​ ​can​ ​be​ ​run​ ​will​ ​reduce​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​noise and​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​emitted​ ​by​ ​airplanes​ ​on​ ​the​ ​apron. f. This​ ​will​ ​benefit​ ​North​ ​40​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​in​ ​general. 4) APU​ ​Alternatives a. Section​ ​4.1.4​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​suggests​ ​exploring​ ​funding​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​alternatives​ ​to​ ​APU’s:​ ​“Pitkin​ ​County will​ ​explore​ ​obtaining​ ​FAA​ ​Voluntary​ ​Airport​ ​Low​ ​Emission​ ​(VALE)​ ​funding​ ​for​ ​the​ ​installation​ ​of preconditioned​ ​air​ ​and​ ​ground​ ​power​ ​to​ ​enable​ ​airlines​ ​to​ ​reduce​ ​their​ ​use​ ​of​ ​APUs.” b. Strongly​ ​support​ ​adding​ ​conditioned​ ​air​ ​and​ ​power​ ​infrastructure​ ​for​ ​both​ ​commercial​ ​and​ ​private aircraft​ ​as​ ​an​ ​alternative​ ​to​ ​using​ ​APU’s​ ​–​ ​like​ ​electric​ ​car​ ​charging​ ​stations. c. Implementing​ ​electrical​ ​alternatives​ ​to​ ​APU’s​ ​will​ ​reduce​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​noise​ ​and​ ​air​ ​pollution​ ​emitted by​ ​airplanes​ ​while​ ​parked​ ​on​ ​the​ ​apron. d. This​ ​will​ ​benefit​ ​North​ ​40​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​in​ ​general. 5) Lead​ ​Emitting​ ​Fuels a. Section​ ​4.1.1​ ​states​ ​that​ ​30,000​ ​gallons​ ​of​ ​lead​ ​emitting​ ​fuel​ ​is​ ​used​ ​at​ ​ASE​ ​each​ ​year:​ ​Approximately 30,000​ ​gallons​ ​of​ ​Avgas​ ​was​ ​consumed​ ​in​ ​2015​ ​in​ ​contrast​ ​to​ ​approximately​ ​6​ ​million​ ​gallons​ ​of​ ​JetA. Avgas​ ​emits​ ​lead,​ ​but​ ​was​ ​not​ ​evaluated​ ​because​ ​it​ ​is​ ​used​ ​in​ ​small​ ​quantities​ ​at​ ​ASE​ ​relative​ ​to​ ​JetA. b. Request​ ​the​ ​phasing​ ​out​ ​of​ ​Avgas​ ​which​ ​is​ ​described​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​as​ ​a​ ​lead​ ​emitting​ ​fuel. c. Eliminating​ ​lead​ ​emitting​ ​fuels​ ​will​ ​benefit​ ​North​ ​40​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​in​ ​general. 6) Hwy​ ​82​ ​Access a. Figure​ ​1-1​ ​(and​ ​other​ ​similar​ ​Figures)​ ​suggests​ ​an​ ​additional​ ​intersection​ ​between​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​and​ ​airport parking:​ ​“Future​ ​intersection​ ​per​ ​CDOT​ ​access​ ​control​ ​plan”​. b. Recommend​ ​limiting​ ​access​ ​between​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​and​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​to​ ​existing​ ​FBO​ ​and​ ​Baltic​ ​Ave intersections.​ ​Remove​ ​the​ ​existing​ ​third,​ ​southernmost​ ​intersection.​ ​And​ ​do​ ​not​ ​develop​ ​the​ ​“​Future intersection​ ​per​ ​CDOT​ ​access​ ​control​ ​plan”. c. Currently​ ​drivers​ ​attempt​ ​to​ ​circumvent​ ​morning​ ​traffic​ ​by​ ​exiting​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​at​ ​the​ ​FBO​ ​or​ ​Baltic​ ​Avenue and​ ​re-entering​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​at​ ​the​ ​southernmost​ ​entrance.​ ​This​ ​causes​ ​additional​ ​congestion​ ​and​ ​associated emissions​ ​on​ ​Hwy​ ​82. d. Limiting​ ​intersections​ ​between​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​and​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​frontage​ ​road​ ​to​ ​the​ ​FBO​ ​and​ ​Baltic​ ​Avenue​ ​will benefit​ ​Hwy​ ​82​ ​commuters​ ​and​ ​the​ ​environment​ ​by​ ​reducing​ ​morning​ ​traffic​ ​congestion​ ​and​ ​emissions. The​ ​following​ ​comments​ ​are​ ​meant​ ​to​ ​clarify​ ​existing​ ​information​ ​contained​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​EA. 1) Affected​ ​Environment a. Section​ ​4.5.1​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​states​ ​that​ ​the​ ​closest​ ​public​ ​park​ ​/​ ​playground​ ​to​ ​the​ ​airport​ ​is​ ​Harmony Park​ ​at​ ​Burlingame​ ​which​ ​is​ ​about​ ​½​ ​mile​ ​from​ ​the​ ​airport. b. North​ ​40​ ​owns​ ​and/​ ​or​ ​operates​ ​three​ ​parks,​ ​the​ ​largest​ ​and​ ​most​ ​regularly​ ​used​ ​is​ ​a​ ​children’s​ ​park immediately​ ​adjacent​ ​to​ ​CMC.​ ​This​ ​park​ ​is​ ​about​ ​650​ ​feet​ ​from​ ​the​ ​airport.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​regularly​ ​used​ ​by children​ ​from​ ​both​ ​the​ ​North​ ​40​ ​subdivision​ ​and​ ​the​ ​community​ ​at​ ​large​ ​–​ ​CMC​ ​houses​ ​ballet,​ ​camps, etc.​ ​and​ ​participants​ ​and​ ​family​ ​members​ ​regularly​ ​use​ ​it. 2) Land​ ​Use a. Section​ ​4.9.1.1​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Draft​ ​EA​ ​identifies​ ​existing​ ​land​ ​use​ ​in​ ​the​ ​vicinity​ ​of​ ​ASE.​ ​Reference​ ​is​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the North​ ​40​ ​subdivision​ ​but​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​described​ ​in​ ​detail​ ​in​ ​this​ ​section. b. Request​ ​adding​ ​language​ ​to​ ​this​ ​section​ ​that​ ​clarifies​ ​that​ ​North​ ​40​ ​is​ ​a​ ​residential​ ​neighborhood​ ​with approximately​ ​72​ ​deed​ ​restricted​ ​year-round​ ​residences. c. Additionally,​ ​add​ ​a​ ​reference​ ​to​ ​North​ ​40​ ​on​ ​Figure​ ​4.9-1 Sincerely, The​ ​North​ ​40​ ​HOA​ ​and​ ​Board - Michael​ ​Wessler​ ​(President) Amy​ ​Barrow Jeremy​ ​Barbin Andrew​ ​Lodge Jay​ ​Maytin Jared​ ​Thompson Pete​ ​Yang pafa?w Wayne?c.2413 ?u mac/9241601049525? Wwywi BDIJHTY MRPORT IM PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS COMMENTS: mm 8913': WE 24904915!" Wat. WNW mfl?pu MW mam-Jule mmwaee, 50 ?fl/c: rs Mugamma W- I Lt?ui ?aw/5. {74-433 hat/066011.14 "saliva?Cg. avg, 527/7 569? ago/wager?. MM is zoor [7Kate Andrus Before inciua?ing your address, phone number, e-rnaii address. or other persona! 1 743 Wazee Street identi?ring information in your comment. be advised that your entire comment . Suite 400 - including your persona.l identifying information may be made pubiiciy ovaiiabie at It co ?ts to Denver, CO 80202 any time. Whiteyou can ask us in your comment to withhold from pubiic review your online at persona:l identiijting infonnation, we cannot guarantee that we be abie to do so. verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing IWQQW WC) WJW 373m? 3% THANKJ i ASPEHIPITKIH BIJIJHTY AIRPORT IM PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS m, mama/M m0. M0124 "m .40 (@41qu jmdq/ 77292; Web/4 W12 5 Kate Andrus Before including your address, phone number, e-mall address. or otherpersoaal 1743 Wazee Street identifying information to your comment, be advised that your entire comment Suite 400 -including your personal rdentibring information may be made publicly available at It CO to Denver, CO 80202 any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your online at personal identifying inlonnatr'on, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. .- verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing . M4 .42: 44.4 Wig/?ax W1C) mwmwa @Mgz' 4% 4 Mam . i ASPEHIPITKIH BUUNTY AIRPIJRT IM PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS (a Stag-?1 ?rearms-0101 garage two/n 1010.50?! Kate Andrus Before inciuding your address, phone numbei; e-maii address. orotherpersonoi ?l 743 Wazee Street identifying information in your comment. be advised that your entire comment Suite 400 -inciuding your personai identifying information may be made pubiiciy avaiiabie at it CO t5 to Denver. CO 80202 any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your onli he at persona! identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be abie to do so. Verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing THANK 5% i BUUHTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAILADDRESS Mal/?Helm 3% 47a 2 . COMMENTS: MM ?1061/11" 7. imam cell/w was - 65/" W/b Al Before including your address, phone number, e?moil address, or other personal 1 743 Wazee Street identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment . Suite 400 ?including yourpenonal identifying information may be made publicly available at It 0 to Denver, CO 80202 any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from pubiic review your online at personal identi?ring information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. - verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing .3 @597 Dig/4g ?ag 23 (3 i fiw $323 EEK. ?35 i?Public Hearing September 25,. 2017 i ASPEHIPITKIH BUUHTY AIRPURT IM PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDRESS 939%? Pm) TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS Q1 0513? ?g 9A {bow?$3 Jm latex ?aw lawman)? 13w ?Wu; awporjc. Liam/Q9165 Owned wmpm? Before including your address, phone number; e-mail address, or other personal identi?rr'ng information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment -including your personal identibring information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can aslr us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identibring inlannarion, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Submit Comments to Kate Andrus 1 743 Wazee Street Suite 400 Denver. CO 80202 onllne at verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing i BBUHTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS F'nb?w 57? 5% AM c770 6/3/7695 Win? .C?ch-?I 897M 8e1?lu~ More, Mart? vab. I dow/ ?my ar?wx 0.90qu 544mg ?nal I ?/einernf a "Car?ok JEIRA ?to onjuL Jedo?pememlu. To Jo any 74:5; 14.255 [5 534291. Kate Andrus Before inciuding your address, phone number, e-maii address, or otherpersonai 1 743 Wazee Street identi?ring inionnation in your comment. be advised that your entire comment . Suite 400 -inciuding your personal identifying information may be made pubiiciy ovaiiabie at It CO to Denver. CO 80202 any time. Whiie you can ask us in your comment to withhold from pubiic review your online at ncountyconnect.com personai identiiying information, we cannot guarantee that we be obie to do so. verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing THANK i CUUHTY AIRPORT IM PROVEM ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS 45?; 974 4mm). 00mm 6mm Q. (0L9 47,, parrot/x17 (r 07.. ?Ermamic ?aw {/rom 539/5 ahead- Farsi/s}, he?: 0/49 {/Pem 20% 945' 0 rt- 77% 3M9 Wat's: :67 ?ve mdoa/e 7?afm (fare?k 3 wizjk A ref/F46 Kate Andrus Before including your address, phone number, e-maii address, or other personoi 'l 743 Wazee Street identifying information in your comment. be advised that your entire comment Suite 400 -inciading yourpersonoi identifying information may be made pubiiciy availabie at It CO to Denver. CO 80202 any time. Whiie you can ask us in your comment to withhoid from pubiic review your "1 onllne at personai identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we be abie to do so. - verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing THAN BOUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS Lia a. can? 301 NW. an. Ship-05 COMMENTS: 3 pie, Mr. 'r nx 60mm. iwouid @le er l?f? Swami/um Kate Andrus Before including your address, phone number, e-maii address, or other personai 1 743 Wazee Street identi?ring information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment . Suite 400 -inciuding your nersona.l identi?ring information may be made pubiiciy avaiiabie at It co t5 to Denver, CO 80202 any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from pabiic review your onli m2 at personai identifm'ng information, we cannot guarantee that we be abie to do so. verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing THANK BOUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS :7 eta/14% ?ch3+t me COMMENTS: ?as; and. MRS, Kate Andrus Before including your address. phone number. e-mail address, or otherpersonal 1 743 Wazee Street identifying information in your comment. be advised that your entire comment Suite 400 -including your personal identi?ring information may be made publicly available or it co t5 to Denver. CO 80202 any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your online at personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing THAN WW- chie?y Airport expansion sept 23 2017 Sunday sept 18 low ?ying large jet took off easterly over meadowood and aSpen. Thursday sept 22 11:30 am jet took off easterly . over meadowood aspen. Noise and safety concern. Called and reported and emailed at 11:46 spoke to alan mantle airport operations Was con?rmed tower granted take off east. Over aspen. 1 expressed concern of safety and noise. Mr mantle said the pilot has to request and tower grants but pilot has to sign a waiver to release the airport of any ?nancial responsibility. So even if it is not safe sign this ,so airport is not ?nancially responsible if you don't make the takeoff and kill people in the houses on the take off path? This is not safe and concerns me. That the airport abrogates responsibility for ?nancial reasons to the John Kinney: So, my name is John Kinney, airport director, and uh this is the uh kick off for the first uh public hearing for the environmental assessment process. As you’re probably aware, there’s two components to that. There’s uh clearing of a uh terminal building footprint for a new terminal and there’s also the clearing for the relocation of the existing runway 8 feet over to the west uh to meet those FAA designed standards for the full group 3 design. So, there’s a variety of people inside the room tonight. If I can just have a show of hands of FAA – star of the show. As well as the consulting team that we have on here. So as you look around, and they keep holding their hands up,…um if you have specific questions about the process and what’s on these boards please hit those folks up. And there are some people I’ve noticed that…this is definitely their first meeting so don’t hesitate to uh uh just ask for square one comments. There’s three ways in which you can comment. There’s the center section here uh that’s the written comments that you can put in the um the box. There’s also a recording opportunity over here for you so if you just want to talk and say what your issues are uh you can do that as well. Or third, …is that you can do it online and that’s uh (he states the website up to “county”) – Kate Andrus: -connect.com John Kinney: Connect.com Kate Andrus: -and it’s on the comment form as well so you can take that and provide comments later. The close of the comments (what?) John Kinney: So, any one of those works. Um so, anyway if you want to (what?) the consultants, or the FAA, or myself we’ll be here for the whole period of time and uh thank you for coming out and appreciate your input. Cheryl DuBrule: Cheryl DuBrule. And my concern, number one, is the jets, and especially if you allow larger jets, taking off toward the Meadowood subdivision where my house is. I’ve lived there for 35 years – 365 – 7 days a week. I mean and that’s my home with my family. Sunday September 18th, there was a low flying large jet. Took off, which I thought was easterly but I guess it’s not, but it was directly over my house and over Meadowood headed towards Aspen. Thursday September 22nd at 11:30 a.m. another jet took off in that same direction over Meadowood that– I have severe noise and safety concerns. I called and reported and email at 11:46. I spoke to Allen Mantle at airport operations. I asked what was the procedure. He said that that they -the tower granted and confirmed takeoff east-whatever direction is over Aspen. I expressed my concern of safety, noise, the smell of jet fuel and Mr. Mantle said the pilot has to request and the tower grants. All but all the pilot has to do is sign a waiver to release the airport of any financial responsibility well what about the safety of the residents that live there all the time? So, if it is not safe and you just aggregate your responsibility by having them sign of financially to the pilot I don’t know why ah ah ah where the responsibility lies. Um just with the pilot? And we don’t know if these pilots are experienced with taking off in this area. Um and also what would happen if someone hap- I mean a a school is in the path, so I’m very concerned about this. And also I have a question about all the extra pounds – 20,000 pounds with the terrain and the wind and altitude concerns me about these larger jets and it just seems to me not for our community but for larger private jets to be able to come in and out of here. I also am going to complain about all the planes that have been allowed to land in that opposite direction. Um flying over Meadowood over our homes. The noise, the low flying airplanes, the jet noise, the smell of the fuel, and um safety concerns, but es-especially the peace of our neighborhood. They need to find somewhere else to fly over other than this neighborhood. I’ve been there for a long time this neighborhood has been here for a long time. I’ve noticed an increase in this landing and now this week after we went to a meeting, John Kinney came to the meeting, he promised us no one would be taking off in the direction of Meadowood. Twice this week this has happened with a very large jet. I’m very concerned about this, so I want to mitigate the smell of the jet fuel which, for what reason I don’t know why whether its landing takeoff or whatever, comes over into our property can be mitigated with something. I’m sure you can come up with something like they do in Santa Barbra with trees or walls or something and the noise and the safety we don’t want them flying over our community over…our house. We’re very upset about this (inaudible). The citizens of Meadowood are very upset about this. And it would be near where the church is and these little towards Aspen and I think it affects the entire community. Thank you (Later comments added) Cheryl DuBrule: I also have another comment that um: John Kinney came to the Meadowood homeowners meeting and the new larger jets are going to be over 20,000 pounds more than the jets that currently land. This is very concerning to me due to terrain and wind - altitude. If anyone has lived here for any amount of time, I have sat on that runway in Denver and Aspen where they’ve asked people to get voluntarily get off the plane because the plan is too heavy. They would as 2-300 hundredpound women with their luggage to get off the plane. How are you going to add 10 tons more of weight and safely land takeoff in this community? The airport is so close to Aspen. I’m very concerned that the FAA has the same regulations that go for LAX as go for Aspen. That airport is so close to us that we-we’ll always meet the FAA criteria and that would be the argument to push this project through, which I don’t think is good for our community. I think it’s good for the billionaires who want to fly their jets in so they don’t have to go to Eagle -Vail, but this is really not supporting the community and I think there’s safety with the school nearby safety there-safety with the with buttermilk and *stutters* I just don’t understand how they can say well 20,000 extra pounds fits the FAA when anyone knows I’ve seen 300 pounds taken off of these small planes because we weren’t going to make it in and land because of all the terrain and altitude and wind and and um the temperature here. It’s – none of this seems to make any sense to me. We have a whole crew here (inaudible) all these people here I don’t even know how many are here…20 …25 are here for this project. None of these people live here. They’re not part of our community. They’ve all been brought in to push this project. I think the community needs to ask why and what’s best for Aspen. These planes are flying over our teeny little town. This is upsetting to me. And it just isn’t going to benefit anyone that lives here. It’s going to destroy our beautiful quiet town and it’s going to be too late once this all gets pushed through and I think the community can stop this and there’s good reason to. The idea that in 2021 or later in another 10 years that these half of this fleet is going to be phased out that doesn’t mean they’re not going to make something new that can that that wingspan can fit here that can take the same number of commercial passengers. It just seems…unfair to do to our little community. That airport is close to Aspen. Nothing is going to fly in and out of here that the town will not hear and the residents. Thank you. Hawk Greenway: So. Uh, I’m Hawk Greenway. I’m the owner and operator of an airplane that is a, um, general aviation airplane small Cessna out at the…tied down of the north ramp. So, I’m a general aviation user and operator on the Aspen airport and I have been for 25 years. Um, so I’ve watched it grow and change and well – one of the things that concerns me is the, um, maximum capacity of both the aspen airspace and the…runway. Um this plan, while spending all of this, um, engineering and all of this time and all of this, um, attention, doesn’t address, um, the runway, um, crowding issue whatsoever. And the um, what strikes me as an operator of a small Cessna tail dragger is um how little of the runway that I actually need. And I’m um routinely off in 6-700 feet. Um so, when I’m cleared for takeoff I’ll use the um extended threshold um end of the runway and I kind of get a kick out of like getting off the ground before I actually reach the actual runway itself. Um, so when I when I look at trying to um mix the different um speeds and types of aircraft um to use the single runway here um it strikes me that its…sort of ridiculous and um that it’s possible to have different types of aircraft using similar airspace. Um just come back from Alaska and Fairbanks International um Airport was a real eye opener to me where they have float plane lake, a um ski strip, they call it ski strip but it’s like a gravel runway, and then um the 2 main runways. One of which is used for the air traffic - um air carrier traffic. And you know and Alaska is a different case where they’ve got a hugely um uh vibrant aircraft community and you know they have a lot of elbow room and land there. But one of the things Aspen has is a group um of small aircraft owners and operators that are operating these incredibly short takeoff or landing bush aircraft and um they’ve become - uh they kind of remind me of the um Harley Davidsons that um of the local rolex rider group - you know they’re like collectors’ items. And um you know aircraft are 50 years old, but their performance is…its almost helicopter-like in comparison to the runway needs. So um, I’m putting in a request for a grass um dirt runway um that could help relieve some of that um activity, and I think um, or some of that pressure on the number of um operations allowed um on the runway. So, like an extension of the um alpha taxiway…to the north during all of this studies and ah works that could uh give you know 1000, 1500, 1200 feet you know there are um you know probably a dozen aircraft on ah based on the field that wouldn’t need the main runway and would use that. So um, otherwise … I like the plan and I really like the um uh lightness and airiness of the depicted um terminals. I think those are quite nice artistic renditions. i CUUHTY IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing - September 26, 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS 73,,1 1m. 5 .U 14:53 9% VJ 6? 970'3?9?5790 Mm'oQJo?Jw??b?m Ema/M55 42?: 1-11 07; it: zed/?1237 feeding-1m?: Kate Andrus Before including your address, phone number, e-maii address, or other personai 1 743 Wazee Street identifying information in your comment. be advised that your entire comment . Suite 400 -inciuding your personai identi?ying information may be made pubiiciy available at It C0 to Denver, CO 80202 any time. White you can ask us in your comment to withhold from pubiic review your online at personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we be able to do so. trafbally to the court reporter at the public hearing i ASPEHIPITKIH BUUHTY AIRPURT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 26,. 2017 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL ADDRESS we MW 1 COMMENTS: Kate Andrus Before including your address, phone number, e-maii address. or other personai ?l 743 Wazee Street identi?ring information in your comment. be advised that your entire comment Suite 400 -inciuding yourpersonai identifying information may be made pubiiciy avaiiabie at It co t5 to Denver. CO 80202 any time. Whiie you can ask us in your comment to withhold from pubiic review your '1 onli no at persona! identi?ring information, we cannot guarantee that we be abie to do so. verbally to the court reporter at the public hearing THANK John Kinney: Hi, John Kinney, Airport Director. Today is Tuesday, September 26. It’s 4:30 in the afternoon. We’re opening the public comment process or the environmental assessment here at Aspen Airport. Jim Ward: Hi there, my name is Jim Ward. I live at 564 Twinning Flats Road, Aspen, Colorado, which is directly across the river from the Woody Creek Tavern. Uh, I moved there 1973, so I’ve experienced probably 40 years plus of dealing with the airport. I know that, you know, and I’m not really against the airport or all the development, but I have concerns. And one of the, you know one of the maybe to start with, and that is that putting this airport in this almost residential area where, you know, there’s a lot of people living very close to this airport and getting a lot of air from airplanes coming and going. Particularly, on the…end of the runway on the south end of the runway where they sit in idle, uh, until they can leave and when they do leave then they send a big blast and theres…housing that’s just basically just across the road a few hundred feet, you know? And I think that’s, you know, one of the big concerns. I also think that, um, I also think that one of the things is that its…getting this airport bigger and bigger…is kind of “when do you stop?” It’s kind of like getting-trying to get 50 pounds of something inside of a 30 pound bag. You know? I mean its really, its getting kind of a maxed-out situation. Um, I think…I just lost that thought. You know, at this age, I, you know… Let me address this other issue while I’m talking. And that is that I’ve talked to John a few times. And that is that I think – I don’t know the Snowmass and the Woody Creek communities, but they’re the ones that are most, would be most, you know, concerned about what my main object is. And that is the lead in lights. As they days get shorter and the nights get longer, and the lead in lights when you come through the (what?) area - the lead in lights are a huge hazard. Its…similar to…you are driving down a two-lane highway and some big pickup with four headlights has got ‘em all on high. It’s a hazard. You know? You can’t - you can almost not see what, you know, if there was an animal or something on the road. It’s just a huge problem. And um I know that…I know that there’s not going to be any planes if they’re reacting to the Papi lights and they’re all red the plane is going to have to be high enough so that he could still see the lights, the lead in lights, without it blinding the people on the highway. Um, so if he’s coming in and he’s got two red lights and two white lights then he’s going to be way high enough, so that the lights don’t have to be shinning on the highway. And I think that that would help people agree to the expansion of the run…of the runway and the airport if they would solve, what I think, is a problem. Um… Jen Wolchansky: We can take a break, if you want, and do the next one. Let’s do that. Jim Ward: Ok. Yea…yea. Lets. Yea. (Later comment added) Jim Ward: And I don’t know if you, uh, if you like this comment or not, but it might ah…I remember at a big meeting, you know, I don’t know if it was about the airport or some other expansion, but when…at what point do you say, “The end is full?” At what point do you stop expanding and expanding and expanding this airport? And the end is full. And you have to find the manger some place. Ha. Ha. Ha. You know? But uh I guess I pretty much know the environment…the air. Just the fact that, you know, I’m sure glad that they have you can’t fly in after 11 o clock, I believe it is, and you can’t fly before 7 because of its closeness to residential people. You know who are trying to sleep. You know? So anyway, thank you very much for having this opportunity to hear what I have to say. Um, I think that living three miles off the end of the end of the runway I’ve been uh able to have an opinion. Thank you. Bye. John Kinney: Hi John Kinney, Airport Director, Aspen Pitkin County Airport. September 26th, 6:30, we’re bringing the environmental assessment public process meeting number two to a close. i ASPEHIPITKIN CUUHTY AIRPORT PROVE ENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Public Hearing September 2017 EMAIL ADDRESS Zp?nMY-cm may) COW ?lm-2411;: hw'u?? EH94 W: Tm 4mm zZm/r/A aaeema WM mamuN} WLOM {#73 of.? 74yf45?4d0??; (Into-q. ?ed/76.776 baa/name? Jane/7&0 Cam ?it/l0 KMUwa/lj fen/i . waded. bAbu'uLc 6? amnrb?v?? 5'4er CK: THANK i BUUHTY AIRPIJRT IM PROVEM ENTS I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS L?ldborn @8 ma:l- Ca?) 2? aunt.) POCkcj-?dd Sig/7% S'?72'6t 60". 6 f??nas'e 60/. cam-? (9 GUI Leelaxmi-w .Lo ,1 ?iimi :5 See/fa. WM ?mums H0 .cpwt ?ns 226/, Wa C?lm?s - Pad. 76:. @Q??vI?/?rfon? ma- \0 Met/Q1, Fi/ :I?I/Ixmae, cums/1.0 "x .731?, F24 Md; ?76247. Hume's 2 :53 q-maigxmm 0/ {alkauAE?y Heap! MN CoA?Twhl .5911 ?9 Mil/110K Gtzi? 3395c,? New) BWWCOWH (EEJW THANK i ASPEHIPITKIN BBIIHTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS :Ic-u 2 mg\; Se??r?i??m egmemrpormm :55 cot/1 5?0 knew mm) 54\5r?r7. Murom/ Qam? an mm Wm ?mm. 9% ?Mw Lm? MM. CIA-4. Gu? lab-LJS' ?Hg 04-6:th put-7 I cap; THANK i BIJIJHTY AIRPURT IM PROVEM ENTS I I I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Hearing September 25, 2017 NAME EMAIL ADDRESS 012:4.) Aaaemct? ?uorew. damusy?mm com gpoSTEu-jjen/M 6'th $355531 4a 0mm um 16b Negai? I Max-x Ca?? g?T/Dp?m 86% wiw??e'ama 97 ?-eu'm ?Amer; @Ia {?lm #000 Grown-Cows Man- aceslvxoq ?l?aJ Julio WFONIQYSM beam a Mew Mew am name mm. ?avucMVH? v1: Enca- ?9 Wigqu ?#12053? car?J (?saw We?swmzan :3 WW5 rpo? cm 3 (Dd-j cf-abpen cam \19 LUCAS Fran-LR. 1 \fd?'rl 56914445 cam 55 bout/5 agmy .poctcs rm 6/1 C34 Lian. (an. THANK Publication Date: 09/25/2017 The E-Sheet(R) is provided as conclusive evidence that the ad appeared in the Colorado Mountain News Media on the date and page indicated.You may not create derivative works, or in any way exploit or repurpose any content. 4 x 10.5 B&W Client Name: Advertiser: MEAD & HUNT - 6198056 Section/Page/Zone: World & Nation/A020/ Description: Monday ad 118396-01 Ad Number: Insertion Number: Size: Color Type: A20 Monday, September 25, 2017 The Aspen Times MODEL YEAR CLOSE-OUT SALE 2017 SILVERADO LT CREWCAB $46,905 MSRP* - $9,000 REBATES & DISCOUNTS $37,905 SUMMER CLEARANCE PRICE …..OR 0% FOR 72 MONTHS* *OFFER EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 30TH.  STOCK # 7103.  WITH APPROVED CREDIT.  PLUS TAXES AND FEES. ountain WORLD & NATION EPA mum about toxic waste from Superfund sites Michael Biesecker OH NO! They got a BARN CAT! I’m leavin’ town! The Associated Press FREE barn cats available for adoption Please remember we offer spay/neuter financial assistance. Now is the time to get your pet spayed or neutered. Check out our other animals online at www.coloradoanimalrescue.org Colorado Animal Rescue • 947-9173 2801 County Road 114 •Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Public Comment Period A Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for proposed improvements for the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport has been prepared and is now available for public review and comment until October 3, 2017. This project includes a new terminal and runway relocation 80 feet to the west, along with associated projects. Please Join Us for the Public Information Meetings and Public Hearings: September 25, 2017 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm Pitkin County Library - William R. Dunaway Community Meeting Room 120 North Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 September 26, 2017 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm Snowmass Town Hall 130 Kearns Rd, Snowmass Village, CO 81615 The format will be open house and a public hearing officer will be available to receive verbal comments on the EA. Copies of the Draft EA may be viewed during regular business hours at the following locations: • On the website at: aspenairportplanning.com - click on Airport Improvements EA tab • Aspen Airport Administration 0233 E. Airport Rd, Suite A, Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Library 120 N Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Temporary Pitkin County Administration 123 Emma Road, Suite 106 Basalt, CO 81621 Comments on the Draft EA are encouraged and may be presented during the comment period through Monday, October 3, 2017: • Verbally or written at the public hearings • On the website: www.pitkincountyconnect.com • Written to: Kate Andrus,1743 Wazee Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80202 Representatives of the consultant team will be available at the public hearings to provide information, answer questions, and receive comments on the Draft EA. WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency says it has recovered 517 containers of “unidentified, potentially hazardous material” from highly contaminated toxic waste sites in Texas that flooded last month during Hurricane Harvey. The agency has not provided details about which Superfund sites the material came from, why the contaminants at issue have not been identified and whether there’s a threat to human health. The one-sentence disclosure about the 517 containers was made Friday night deep within a media release from the Federal Emergency Management Agency summarizing the government’s response to the devastating storm. At least a dozen Superfund sites in and around Houston were flooded in the days after Harvey’s record-shattering rains stopped. Associated Press journalists surveyed seven of the flooded sites by boat, vehicle and on foot. The EPA said at the time that its personnel had been unable to reach the sites, though they surveyed the locations using aerial photos. The Associated Press reported Monday that a government hotline also received calls about three spills at the U.S. Oil Recovery Superfund site, a former petroleum waste processing plant outside Houston contaminated with a dangerous brew of cancer-causing chemicals. Records obtained by the AP showed workers at the site reported spills of unknown materials in unknown amounts. Local pollution control officials photographed three large tanks used to store potentially hazardous waste completely underwater Aug. 29. The EPA later said there was no evidence that nearby Vince Bayou had been impacted. PRP Group, the company formed to clean up the U.S. Oil Recovery site, said it does not know how much material leaked from the tanks, soaking into the soil or flowing into the bayou. As part of the post-storm cleanup, workers have vacuumed up 63 truckloads of potentially contaminated storm water, totaling about 315,000 gallons. It was not immediately clear whether those truckloads accounted for any of the 517 containers cited in the FEMA statement Friday. The EPA has not responded to questions from AP about activities at U.S. Oil Recovery for more than a week. About a dozen miles east, the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund site is on and around a low-lying island that was the site of a paper mill in the 1960s, leaving behind dangerous levels of dioxins and other long-lasting toxins linked to birth defects and cancer. The site was completely covered with floodwaters when the AP surveyed it Sept. 1. To prevent contaminated soil and sediments from being washed down river, about 16 acres of the site was covered in 2011 with an “armored cap” of fabric and rock. The cap was reportedly designed to last for as long as 100 years, but it has required extensive repairs on at least six occasions in recent years, with large sections becoming displaced or having been washed away. The EPA has not responded to repeated inquiries over the past two weeks about whether its assessment has determined whether the cap was similarly damaged during Harvey. The companies responsible for cleaning up the site, Waste Management Inc. and International Paper, have said there were “a small number of areas where the current layer of armored cap is thinner than required.” “There was no evidence of a release from any of these areas,” the companies said, adding that sediments there were sampled last week. The EPA has not yet released those test results to the public. What’s hot? aspentimes.com/realestate Publication Date: 09/26/2017 The E-Sheet(R) is provided as conclusive evidence that the ad appeared in the Colorado Mountain News Media on the date and page indicated.You may not create derivative works, or in any way exploit or repurpose any content. 4 x 10.5 B&W Client Name: Advertiser: MEAD & HUNT - 6198056 Section/Page/Zone: World & Nation/A018/ Description: Tuesday ad 118401-01 Ad Number: Insertion Number: Size: Color Type: A18 Tuesday, September 26, 2017 The Aspen Times WORLD & NATION AP North Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho speaks outside the U.N. Plaza Hotel in New York on Monday. U.S. says it is not pushing for regime change in N Korea Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Public Comment Period A Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for proposed improvements for the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport has been prepared and is now available for public review and comment until October 3, 2017. This project includes a new terminal and runway relocation 80 feet to the west, along with associated projects. Please Join Us for the Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing: September 26, 2017 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm Snowmass Town Hall 130 Kearns Rd, Snowmass Village, CO 81615 The format will be open house and a public hearing officer will be available to receive verbal comments on the EA. Copies of the Draft EA may be viewed during regular business hours at the following locations: • On the website at: aspenairportplanning.com - click on Airport Improvements EA tab • Aspen Airport Administration 0233 E. Airport Rd, Suite A, Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Library 120 N Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Temporary Pitkin County Administration 123 Emma Road, Suite 106 Basalt, CO 81621 Comments on the Draft EA are encouraged and may be presented during the comment period through Monday, October 3, 2017: • Verbally or written at the public hearings • On the website: www.pitkincountyconnect.com • Written to: Kate Andrus,1743 Wazee Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80202 Representatives of the consultant team will be available at the public hearings to provide information, answer questions, and receive comments on the Draft EA. Matthew Pennington The Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Monday it’s not seeking to overthrow North Korea’s government after the president tweeted that Kim Jong Un “won’t be around much longer” and called Pyongyang’s assertion absurd that Donald Trump’s comment amounted to a declaration of war. Still, the fiery rhetoric carrying over from a week of threatening exchanges at the U.N. General Assembly only further fueled fears the adversaries might stumble back into open military conflict. The Korean War ended seven decades ago without a formal peace treaty and tensions related to the North’s nuclear advances have escalated for months. At the U.N. on Monday, the North’s top diplomat, Ri Yong Ho, argued that Trump’s Twitter blast gives it the right to shoot down U.S. warplanes, like the strategic bombers Washington flew close to the border between the two Koreas over the weekend. Trump’s Saturday tweet said: “Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at U.N. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won’t be around much longer!” Trump also used “rocket man” for Kim in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last week. While the comments may be read as an implicit threat to eliminate Kim, administration officials said Washington hadn’t changed its policy and the U.S. isn’t seeking regime change in Pyongyang. “We have not declared war on North Korea. Frankly the suggestion of that is absurd,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters. “It’s never appropriate for a country to shoot down another country’s aircraft when it’s over international waters.” “Our goal is still the same. We continue to seek the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” she said. Cabinet officials, particularly Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have insisted the U.S.-led campaign diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea is focused on eliminating the pariah state’s nuclear weapons program, not its totalitarian government. But the more Trump muddies the picture, the tougher it may become to maintain cooperation with China and Russia, which seek a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis and not a new U.S. ally suddenly popping up on their borders. It also risks snuffing out hopes of persuading Kim’s government to enter a negotiation when its survival isn’t assured. Military maneuvers are adding to tensions along the two Koreas’ heavily militarized border. In a show of might to North Korea, U.S. bombers and fighter escorts flew Saturday to the farthest point north of the border between North and South Korea by any such American aircraft this century. Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Rob Manning said Monday the operation was conducted in international airspace and legally permissible. The U.S. has a “deep arsenal of military options to provide the president so that he can then decide how he wants to deal with North Korea,” he said. Publication Date: 09/27/2017 The E-Sheet(R) is provided as conclusive evidence that the ad appeared in the Colorado Mountain News Media on the date and page indicated.You may not create derivative works, or in any way exploit or repurpose any content. 4 x 10.5 B&W Client Name: Advertiser: MEAD & HUNT - 6198056 Section/Page/Zone: Local/A007/ Description: Snowmass Sun ad 118402-01 Ad Number: Insertion Number: Size: Color Type: Snowmass Sun SURVEY From page 1 at 54 percent and 48 percent. Upon reviewing the first draft of the proposed survey at a council meeting June 19 and once more briefly at a July 3 meeting, the town accepted responses from July 7 to Aug. 6. Altogether, 891 individuals completed the survey, which is the fewest number of respondents yet. The 2015 and 2013 community surveys garnered 1,098 and 979 responses, respectively. The ETC Institute projected at least 600 responses were necessary in order to produce a “statistically significant and valid” report, according to Elliot. Of the total 2017 survey respondents, about half are full-time Snowmass Village residents. Snowmass promoted the survey — which inquired about issues from satisfaction with town services and quality of life to workforce housing and composting — through its social media, email newsletter and local advertisements. In an effort to capture communal trends and growth, Elliot said about 85 percent of the questions are the same as in past surveys. While crafting the survey this summer, the elected officials agreed that questions related to the town’s workforce housing — a top council goal for 2017 — should also take priority in the Construction & Paving LLC BEFORE AFTER WE KNOW CURB APPEAL community survey. An open-ended survey question soliciting respondents’ general thoughts toward housing received mixed reviews, from one comment that read “Housing is way too difficult to come by and far too expensive for everyday workers” to another that ranked the town’s workforce housing department as “5 stars.” “The level of service and detail they provide exceeds anything I’d expect in ‘affordable housing,’” the respondent wrote. “They indeed go the extra mile.” While the housing feedback varied, “build more” was one constant. Snowmass town staff is expected to next discuss upcoming Wednesday, September 27, 2017 7 workforce housing projects at a Town Council work session Oct. 9. The town of Snowmass will review the survey results in detail with each department starting in November and into December, Elliot said Sept. 26. To view the 2017 community survey results in full, visit www.tosv.com/survey. TOWN SEEKING FEEDBACK FOR BASE VILLAGE BUILDING 6 In other Snowmass Town Council news, the elected officials are soliciting ideas from the public as to what it would like to see occupy the community-use designated Building 6 of the Base Village development. At the most recent Town Council meeting Sept. 18, the council directed staff to issue a public request for letters of interest after the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies earlier this month declined to partner with the town to curate a discovery and climate center inside the space. While the discovery concept is not off the table, the council also is open to other ideas from the community. The deadline to submit letters of interest to the town of Snowmass Village involving Building 6 is Oct. 31. For more information on Building 6 and letter submissions, visit tosv.com/Index.aspx?NID=463. Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Public Comment Period A Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for proposed improvements for the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport has been prepared and is now available for public review and comment until October 3, 2017. This project includes a new terminal and runway relocation 80 feet to the west, along with associated projects. Please Join Us for the Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing: FOUR GENERATIONS IN THE ROARING FORK VALLEY FREE ESTIMATES PAVING • SEAL COATING •CRACK FILLING CONTACTBenShuster:970-230-0661&Kelly Lyon:970-618-7290 September 26, 2017 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm Snowmass Town Hall 130 Kearns Rd, Snowmass Village, CO 81615 The format will be open house and a public hearing officer will be available to receive verbal comments on the EA. Copies of the Draft EA may be viewed during regular business hours at the following locations: • On the website at: aspenairportplanning.com - click on Airport Improvements EA tab • Aspen Airport Administration 0233 E. Airport Rd, Suite A, Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Library 120 N Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Temporary Pitkin County Administration 123 Emma Road, Suite 106 Basalt, CO 81621 Comments on the Draft EA are encouraged and may be presented during the comment period through Monday, October 3, 2017: • Verbally or written at the public hearings • On the website: www.pitkincountyconnect.com • Written to: Kate Andrus,1743 Wazee Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80202 Representatives of the consultant team will be available at the public hearings to provide information, answer questions, and receive comments on the Draft EA. ASPEN DAILY NEWS, Monday, September 25, 2017, Page 15 NATIONAL California lawmakers look to free older and younger inmates By Don Thompson Associated Press SACRAMENTO, Calif. — To ease overcrowding in state prisons, California lawmakers want to release more of the state's older prisoners and more of the inmates who were young when they committed their crimes. The two bills sent to Gov. Jerry Brown in the waning days of the legislative session are the latest attempt to keep the prison population below the cap set by federal judges, with the goal of eventually ending federal oversight. One requires parole of¿cials to consider whether "age, time served and diminished physical condition" reduced the risk for future violence by older inmates. And the other mandates of¿cials consider whether young people fully understood their actions and if their lack of maturity allowed for a greater chance of rehabilitation. The measures follow voter-approved early-release efforts in recent years that have reduced penalties for drug and property crimes and, most recently, allowed more sentencing credits that can lead to earlier releases for inmates who complete rehabilitation programs. Law enforcement agencies and victims' organizations say the efforts put hardened criminals on the streets and create safety issues for communities. They point to rising crime rates following the earlier initiatives as evidence that once out from behind bars many convicts return to their criminal ways. "At some point you have to ask, when it is it going to stop?" said California District Attorneys Association legislative director Sean Hoffman. Supporters of the measures emphasize they do not guarantee parole for anyone and say it makes sense to target the young and old as lawmakers try to unwind decades of get-tough policies that led to unprecedented prison crowding. Many older inmates have health issues that make them extremely costly to house. "There's no point of incarcerating someone who's at the point of death," said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego. Weber's bill would write into law a 2014 federal court order that requires California to consider releasing inmates age 60 or older who have served at least 25 years. Death row and other no-parole inmates were excluded by the judges, and her bill further excludes cop killers and third-strike career criminals. Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, mocked the bill when it was debated in the Senate. "Why not Charles Manson? For heaven's sake, he's done a lot of time, he's really suffered. Poor guy," Nielsen said. The 82-year-old Manson, leader of the murderous Manson "family," is among more than 200 octogenarian prisoners. He's not up for parole until 2027 and should he make to then it's extremely unlikely his age will prompt of¿cials to free him. California has six inmates are 90 or older and the oldest of all is 101-year-old child molester Joseph Mannina, serving a life sentence with the chance of parole. At the other end of the age spectrum, lawmakers approved a bill expanding the state's youthful parole program. State law already requires that inmates who were under 23 when they committed their crimes be considered for parole after serving at least 15 years. AB1308 raises the age to 25. The age for such consideration was 18 when lawmakers passed the ¿rst youth offender parole law in 2012. "That gap in the middle is shrinking, it seems, every year," Hoffman said. Paroling younger inmates is more concerning to law enforcement than freeing older criminals, he said, because they are more likely to be healthy enough to commit new crimes. Statistics show less than one-third of California inmates paroled when they were 60 or older were back behind bars within three years compared to more than 50 percent of those 18-24. There are about 131,500 inmates in the California prison system, nearly 11 percent of whom are 18-24 and 7 percent are 60 and up. In the last three years about 2,000 inmates over 60 and 900 under 23 when they committed their crimes have been recommended for release, or about one-quarter of all those considered. Legislative analysts say extending the age to 25 would mean about another 170 parole hearings each year. There would likely be a slight decrease in the roughly 160 elderly inmates granted parole each year because of the narrower eligibility in Weber's bill compared to the federal court order. Her of¿ce projects that about 2,300 older inmates would qualify for consideration. NO BARS, NO SPRINGS, NO SAGGING. You’ll want to show all your friends. HURRY IN SALE ENDS The Comfort Sleeper® TODAY! by American Leather · COT TO KING SIZE • · NEW CRYPTON® PROTECTED FABRICS •• ••• •••• ROARING FORK FURNITURE WWW.ROARINGFORKFURNITURE.COM 2424 S. Glen Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO • (970) 945-8321 • Mon-Sat 10a-6p Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Environmental Assessment Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Public Comment Period A Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for proposed improvements for the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport has been prepared and is now available for public review and comment until October 3, 2017. This project includes a new terminal and runway relocation 80 feet to the west, along with associated projects. Please Join Us for the Public Information Meetings and Public Hearings: September 25, 2017 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm Pitkin County Library - William R. Dunaway Community Meeting Room 120 North Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611 September 26, 2017 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm Snowmass Town Hall 130 Kearns Rd, Snowmass Village, CO 81615 The format will be open house and a public hearing officer will be available to receive verbal comments on the EA. Copies of the Draft EA may be viewed during regular business hours at the following locations: • On the website at: aspenairportplanning.com - click on Airport Improvements EA tab • Aspen Airport Administration 0233 E. Airport Rd, Suite A, Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Library 120 N Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 • Temporary Pitkin County Administration 123 Emma Road, Suite 106 Basalt, CO 81621 Comments on the Draft EA are encouraged and may be presented during the comment period through Monday, October 3, 2017: • Verbally or written at the public hearings • On the website: www.pitkincountyconnect.com • Written to: Kate Andrus,1743 Wazee Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80202 Representatives of the consultant team will be available at the public hearings to provide information, answer questions, and receive comments on the Draft EA. Appendix 12 Army Corps of Engineers Letter 1 COUNTY AIRPORT KMPROVEMENTS Page intentionally left blank 1 COUNTY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 March 28, 2018 Regulatory Division (SPK-2016-00581) Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager Federal Aviation Administration Denver Airports District Office 26805 E 68th Ave, Ste 224 Denver, CO 80249 Dear Mr. Bauer: We are responding to your request for comments on the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Improvements project. The Aspen-Pitkin County Airport (Airport), in configuration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), is proposing to reconfigure Runway 15/33 and improve the terminal building. The project site is located at the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, Latitude 39.222531°, Longitude -106.868782°, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, marshes, wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. This proposed project involves the reconfiguration and realignment of Runway 15/33. Improvements include shifting the runway 80 feet to the west and widening the runway from 100 to 150 feet. To accomplish this work, piping of approximately 1,670 feet of Owl Creek through the airport property is proposed. The project purpose as stated in the draft Environmental Assessment is to enable Aspen-Pitkin County Airport to accommodate the anticipated future aircraft and bring the airfield into compliance with the FAA airfield design criteria, allowing for safe separation of aircraft movement on the airfield. Our office preliminarily concurs with this project purpose statement. If changes to the Purpose and Need occur that are expected to influence the project purpose and screening process, then FAA and the Corps should review changes to determine if concurrence should be revisited. The range of alternatives considered for the runway configuration project includes 18 different alternatives. This includes both on-site and off-site alternatives. This office concurs the draft EA has considered a reasonable range of alternatives. Several -2alternatives were generally eliminated because they did not meet the project purpose or eliminated for cost/practicability. Additional specific information should be provided as to why these alternatives were eliminated. This additional information will further inform whether the Corps can preliminarily concur that the preferred alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). As stated in the draft EA, the Corps’ final determination that the preferred alternative is the LEDPA would occur through issuance of the section 404 permit. Every effort should be made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. Please refer to identification number SPK-2016-00581 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please me at our Grand Junction Regulatory Office, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, by email at Matthew.R.Montgomery@usace.army.mil, or telephone at (970) 243-1199 X 1017. For more information regarding our program, please visit our website at www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx. Sincerely, Matthew Montgomery Senior Project Manager, CO West Section Regulatory Division cc: Ms. Kandice Krull, Federal Aviation Administration