Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Park Board of Adjustment 2026-04-07 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT – TOWN OF ESTES PARK 170 MacGregor Avenue – Town Hall Board Room Estes Park, CO 80517 Tuesday, April 7, 2026 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s YouTube channel and recorded and posted to YouTube and www.estes.org/videos within 48 hours. AGENDA INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Board of Adjustment Minutes dated March 3, 2026 ELECTION OF OFFICERS PUBLIC COMMENT: Items not on the agenda (please state your name and address). ACTION ITEMS: continued from March 3 1. Wetlands Setback Variance Request 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd Planner Hornbeck To allow activity within the required 50-foot wetland setback REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Upcoming meeting items ADJOURN The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. March 16, 2026 1 2 draf t Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 3, 2026 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. The meeting was held in the Town of Estes Park on March 3, 2026. Board: Chair Jeff Moreau, Colin Godsey, Steven Neilson Attending: Chair Moreau, Vice Chair Godsey, Member Neilson, Director Steve Careccia, Planner II Kara Washam, Senior Planner Paul Hornbeck, Town Board Liaison Bill Brown, Recording Secretary Karin Swanlund Absent: none Chair Moreau called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. There were approximately 25 people in attendance. INTRODUCTIONS: New Board Member Steven Neilson was introduced. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Godsey/Neilson) to approve the agenda. The motion passed 3-0. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Godsey) to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 2-0 with Neilson abstaining. PUBLIC COMMENT: none ACTION ITEMS: 1.Wetlands Setback 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd Senior Planner Hornbeck Planner Hornbeck reviewed the staff report. The applicant has submitted a subdivision application that depicts approximately 100 dwelling units and associated road and infrastructure improvements. Roads and associated earthwork and grading are proposed to occur within the 50-foot wetland setback required by Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) Section 7.6.E. The EPDC goes on to describe activities prohibited within the 50-foot setback in Section 7.6.F.1: Prohibited Activities. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be expressly allowed in this Section or Code. No disturbance is proposed within any wetland; however, the applicant requests a variance to EPDC Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities that would disturb areas within wetland buffer/setback areas as indicated in the table and map in the staff report, plus a 10% margin of error to allow for field changes during construction or other unforeseen circumstances. Factoring in the 10% margin, the variances would allow disturbances with the following setbacks from wetlands: 8.7 feet in area B, 15.6 feet in area C, 25.8 feet in area H, and 22.5 feet in area I. Staff recommended that the BOA approve the variance requests subject to the following condition of approval: 1.Best management practices outlined in the application materials shall be adhered to prior to, during, and after construction. draf t Board of Adjustment, March 3, 2026 – Page 2 DISCUSSION: The applicants reviewed the project. Those speaking included Scott Moulton, Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Executive Director; Peter Levine, Director of Real Estate, Housing Authority; Rob Goss, Project Civil Engineer; and Ronnie Pelusio, Project Land Planner and Architect. The EPHA, in conjunction with the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park, is seeking a variance from wetland setback requirements to develop affordable and attainable housing options. The development aims to create "missing middle housing" with smaller building footprints. They presented additional information on the project, including property characteristics, the rationale for the requested variance, site layout, development plans, and justification for the request based on property constraints. Federal and state definitions of wetlands were explained. The project's design was directly impacted by the wetland delineation, with development planned around these areas, especially in the eastern part of the property. Minimizing the footprint and wetland disturbance is the goal. The proposal involves using an existing roadway, expanding its width, and formalizing it with a hard surface. There will be some grade changes due to the widening, but the impact will be limited. Board members asked clarifying questions regarding property dimensions, setbacks, impacts to neighboring properties, and compliance with development code requirements. The Board asked whether a wildlife study had been conducted. Pete Levine stated that wildlife studies were done and did not find endangered or critical species that would prevent development. Questions were raised about runoff potentially entering Fall River, with the applicant stating that water-quality control ponds would be used to treat the runoff before release. PUBLIC COMMENT: Those speaking against the proposal included: Karen Cherman, 1597 Fish Hatchery Hal Henderson, 2770 Ypsilon Circle Terry Rizzuto, 1523 Fish Hatchery Kristine Poppitz, 650 Devon Dr Sandy Cherman, 1597 Fish Hatchery (who read the letter from Cynthia Baltimore) Mary Banken, 1523 Fish Hatchery Concerns included significant safety concerns about evacuation routes, especially given potential floods and fires; the "one way in and one way out, one-way-out" layout; lighting; wildlife; river pollution; and the daycare center. In response, the applicant clarified that emergency services had updated "polygons" for evacuation decisions, allowing for tiered, earlier evacuations to avoid bottlenecks. The project intends to honor both the adopted map and the current, unadopted FEMA data, including both the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. A resident questioned whether the variance request was a workaround to avoid rezoning under Ordinance 11-25, which might require signatures from two-thirds of the neighboring properties. The applicant stated they withdrew a previous rezoning application to simplify the process, not to avoid anything. Eric Blackhurst, EPHA Chair, stated he approves of the plan and thanked the Board for their consideration. The Board questioned why full reports on wildlife and environmental impact studies were not provided, noting that only summaries or letters from consultants were in the packet and, thus, deemed the information insufficient to make an informed decision. draf t Board of Adjustment, March 3, 2026 – Page 3 It was moved and seconded (Moreau/Godsey) to continue the variance request until wildlife and wetland studies are provided in their entirety. The motion passed 3-0. The Chair noted that, regardless of the variance, the town intends to build something on the site, suggesting that the current proposal is likely more "aesthetically pleasing" than a larger project built without a variance. 2.Setback Variance 448 Chiquita Lane Planner II Washam Planner Washam reviewed the staff report. The Applicants request approval of a variance to reduce the side setback along the north property line to seventeen feet (17'). The E-1 (Estate) zoning district, under §4.3.C.4. (Table 4-2) of the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) requires twenty-five feet (25') setbacks for the front, rear, and side property lines. The Applicants request a variance to construct a 14'x40' detached garage with access in line with the existing driveway. Staff recommended approval of the proposed variance described in the staff report, with the side setback consistent with the Site Plan. DISCUSSION Lonnie Shelton and Andy Shafer, of Van Horn Engineering, explained that they began the process in June/July of the current year and attempted to communicate with neighbors to gain their support for the variance. Despite offering a site plan and a written agreement, the neighbors introduced additional conditions deemed unrealistic, prompting the owners to request the variance. Alternate locations and positions were discussed, but nothing better than what is being proposed would work. The turning template would be undeniably tight due to the easement. The lot is nonconforming for zoning purposes, and if it were properly zoned, the setback would be 25’, and the variance wouldn't be necessary. PUBLIC COMMENT: Blake and Susan Robertson, 471 MacGregor Ave,expressed opposition to the variance, noting that the process has been lengthy.Mr. Robertson explained that the proposed development would bring the building closer to their property, impacting views and potentially interfering with their ability to manage their land. He also stated that the applicant's request does not meet the criteria of "undue hardship," suggesting that they have other options for building without encroaching on the setback. He argues that the hardship is self-created.Mrs. Robetrson also mentioned the visual impact on the neighbors. Questions regarding the easement were answered by planner Washam, who stated that the town's stance is that the access easement is a civil matter between property owners and not one in which the town has a legal interest. It was moved and seconded (Godsey/Neilson) to approve the side setback variance to 17 feet along the north property line. The motion passed 3-0. With no further business, Chair Moreau adjourned the meeting at 11:51 a.m. Jeff Moreau, Chair Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary 6 Memo To: Chair Jeff Moreau & Board of Adjustment Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Department: Community Development Date: April 7, 2026 Subject: Variance Request to Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 Regarding Activities within Wetland Setbacks at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road (Continued from March 3, 2026) At the March 3, 2026 meeting, the Board of Adjustment (BOA) considered a variance request regarding activities within wetland setbacks at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road, the staff memo for which is enclosed (Attachment 1). The BOA continued the item to the next scheduled meeting (April 7, 2026) with a request that wildlife and wetland studies be provided for review. The applicant provided those studies, which were first shared with the BOA in a Supplemental Memo dated March 16, 2026, along with other information as enclosed. Attachments: 1. March 3, 2026 Staff Memo 2. Town of Estes Park Application 3. NPS Application 4. Statement of Intent (includes cover letter, standards for review analysis, and wetlands analysis) 5. Site Plan 6. Wetland Determination Letter 7. NPS Letter 7 2 8. CPW Letter 9. Wildlife Report & Conservation Plan 10. Class III Archeological, architectural, and cultural resource survey 11. Phase I Environmental Report 12. Wildfire Mitigation Report 13. Link to Fire Evacuation Meeting Video Recording 14. Public Comments 8 Memo To: Chair Jeff Moreau & Board of Adjustment Through: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner Department: Community Development Date: March 3, 2026 Subject: Variance Request to Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 Regarding Activities within Wetland Setbacks at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Objective: Hold a public hearing to consider a variance request from the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) related to development at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. Present Situation: The subject properties are owned by the Town of Estes Park and the National Park Service (NPS), and the Estes Park Housing Authority (Applicant) is seeking to develop workforce housing on the northern portion of the site. The entire property is approximately 75 acres aces in size and is bisected by Fall River and Fish Hatchery Road. The scope of the Housing Authority development is limited to an approximately 25-acre site north of Fall River, which can be considered the development parcel. The property was previously used as a fish hatchery from 1907 to 1983. Many of the current wetlands on the site appear to have been created as a result of the ponds and related infrastructure created by development of the fish hatchery. The NPS owns a strip of land through the site, which was dedicated in the early 1900s to provide access to Rocky Mountain National Park. 9 2 Vicinity Map Zoning Map 10 3 Zoning and Land Use Summary Table Subject Site North Unincorporated Larimer County RMNP Visitor Center/ Open Land South Single Family/ RMNP East Single Family West RMNP Proposal: The applicant has submitted a subdivision application which depicts approximately 100 dwelling units and associated road and infrastructure improvements. Roads and associated earthwork and grading are proposed with to occur within the 50-foot wetland setback required by EPDC Section 7.6.E. The Development Code goes on to describe activities prohibited within the 50-foot setback in Section 7.6.F.1: Prohibited Activities. No person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, drain, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation, within stream or river corridors, wetlands and their associated buffer/setback areas, except as may be expressly allowed in this Section or Code. No disturbance is proposed within any wetland; however, the applicant requests a variance to EPDC Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities that would disturb areas within wetland buffer/setback areas as indicated in the table and map below, plus a 10% margin of error to allow for field changes during construction or other unforeseen circumstances. Factoring in the 10% margin, the variances would allow disturbance with the following setbacks from wetlands: 8.7-feet in area B, 15.6-feet in area C, 25.8- feet in area H, and 22.5-feet in area I. 11 4 In accordance with EPDC Section 3.6.C., applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria listed below, which are followed by staff findings: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. Practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Numerous factors, including the historic use of the property, steep topography, prevalence of wetlands, and bifurcated ownership create special 12 5 circumstances and conditions unique to this property. Subdivision and variance application materials indicate the site’s historic use as a fish hatchery included 20 or more ponds and that some, but not all of these ponds were remediated after the fish hatchery ceased operations. Areas that were not remediated remain on site and are now deemed wetlands. EPDC defines wetlands as “an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” The variance request for areas B and C is driven by the special circumstance of NPS ownership of a parcel of land running through the site. The 60-foot-wide strip of land was dedicated to the NPS in the early 1900s for access to the park. This strip of land is in generally the same location as the unimproved dirt road south of Fish Hatchery Road and north of the river. The NPS no longer has a need for the parcel given the access provided by Fall River Road (US 34); however, the parcel bifurcates the property and removes a significant portion of usable land as it cannot be built upon or easily transferred to the Town. Application materials indicate a transfer of the land from the federal government to the Town of Estes Park was considered; however, that would require an Act of Congress that would be costly and take many years. However, the NPS is agreeable to allowing Fish Hatchery Road to be realigned to run within the strip of land, therefore allowing the existing Fish Hatchery Road right-of-way to be utilized for the proposed development. Constructing a new paved road in place of the existing dirt road in this location will necessitate a wider footprint and therefore encroachments into the 50-foot wetland setback. The variance request for areas H and I is largely necessary in order to construct a road to access the eastern portion of the site. This approximately two-acre portion of the site makes up approximately 20% of the developable land on the development parcel, meaning areas outside of steep slopes, wetland setbacks, etc. This portion of the site would be inaccessible and therefore unusable without either a variance or extensive cut and fill grading on otherwise undisturbed steep slopes to allow access. 13 6 The requested variances will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of wetland protection standards in the Development Code. A letter from the applicant’s wetland consultant (Attachment 3) describes the best management practices that the project commits to follow, and states that with these measures implemented, the wetlands will not be harmed. Separate from these variance requests, the applicant is seeking staff-level approval of minor modifications for other locations on the site to allow activities that encroach 5-feet or less into the required 50-foot setback. The Development Code permits staff to approve minor modifications up to a 10% deviation from development standards. The minor modifications are subject to the same review criteria as these variance requests and will be evaluated by staff in the near future. In determining "practical difficulty," the Board of Adjustment (BOA) shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; Staff Finding: While there can be beneficial use of the property without the variances, certain portions of the site are largely unusable without the variances. b. Whether the variance is substantial; Staff Finding: The variances are not substantial as the majority of the 50-foot wetland setbacks on the site are not encroached upon. c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; Staff Finding: The essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered with the variances and adjoining properties will not suffer a substantial determent. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer. 14 7 Staff Finding: The variances will not adversely affect the delivery of public services. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; Staff Finding: The Town appears to have assumed ownership of the property prior to adoption of the subject requirements. f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Staff Finding: There is no viable alternative to accessing the eastern portion of the site or utilizing the NPS strip of land without the variances. 2. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Staff Finding: The circumstances are not common. 3. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 4. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Staff Finding: The design represents the least deviation in order provide access to the eastern portion of the site and utilize the NPS strip of land. 5. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zoning district containing the property for which the variance is sought. 15 8 Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Staff Finding: Staff recommends a condition of approval that the best management practices outlined in the application materials be adhered to. Advantages: The requested variances meet the standards for review outlined above. Disadvantages: Activities within the wetland setbacks may increase the chance of encroachment into and/or negative impacts to the wetlands themselves. The best management practices outlined in the application materials can mitigate this risk. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the BOA approve the variance requests subject to the following condition of approval: 1. Best management practices outlined in the application materials shall be adhered to prior to, during, and after construction. Level of Public Interest: As of this writing, two public comments have been received and are included in Attachment 5. Public notice of the application occurred in accordance with EPDC noticing requirements: ● Written notice mailed to adjacent property owners on January 16, 2026. ● Legal notice published in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette on January 16, 2026. ● Signs posted on property by applicant. Sample Motion: I move to approve the variances in accordance with the condition of approval and findings outlined in the staff report. I move to deny the variances with the following findings [state reasons/findings]. 16 9 Attachments: 1. Town of Este Park Application 2. NPS Application 3. Statement of Intent 4. Site Plan 5. Public Comments 17 Revised 2024-03-11 ks Pre-App Development Plan Special Review Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat Project Description Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres Proposed Land Use Town Well None Town Well None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None EPSD UTSD Septic Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No Existing Gas Service Other None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Yes No Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Attachments No Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes Site staking must be completed as required/requested by the Planner. Complete? Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Project Address Parcel ID # General Information Boundary Line Adjustment ROW or Easement Vacation Street Name Change Time Rezoning Petition Annexation Request Extension Other: Please specify Project Name Condominium Map Preliminary Map Final Map Supplemental Map Variance Request (Board of Adjustment) ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION Type of Application Submittal Date: Site Information Application fee Statement of intent 1 copy (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" copy of plat or plan Xcel Primary Contact Information Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721  Fax: (970) 586-0249  www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Town of Estes Park  P.O. Box 1200  170 MacGregor Avenue  Estes Park, CO 80517 Digital Copies of plats/plans in PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX Sign Purchase ($10) Fish Hatchery Develop Attainable Workforce Housing 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd, Estes Park CO 80517 N 1/2 SW 1/4 16-5-73; EP, EX RD AS PER 839-575; LESS 87000339, 89003857, 91004492, 92080005, 94099702, 96086646 3516000938 75 acres 22 acres Town owned land utilized for housing town employees Attainable workforce housing RM & A-1 RM & A-1 Peter Levine PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 08517 12/26/2025 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sign.com Document ID:d9e57a9cd5 - Page 1/318 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Email Applicant Record Owner(s) Signatures: MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION (not required for Board of Adjustment) Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Record Owner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 970-577-3707 970-557-3707 Estes Park Housing Authority PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 9708930107 9708930107 plevine@estes.org Marcin Civil Engineering 213 Tabor st, Buena Vista CO 81211 970 485 3970 rob@marcinengineering.com Town of Estes Park Estes Park Housing Authority 1/15/26 Sign.com Document ID:d9e57a9cd5 - Page 2/3 01/16/2026 19 Revised 2024-03-11 ks ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION http://www.estes.org/DevCode Record Owner Applicant Signatures: I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten business days prior to the public hearing. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Record Owner Applicant I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Names: In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: For Board of Adjustment applications: failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D) Town of Estes Park Estes Park Housing Authority 1/15/2026 Sign.com Document ID:d9e57a9cd5 - Page 3/3 01/16/2026 20 Revised 2024-03-11 ks Pre-App Development Plan Special Review Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat Project Description Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres Proposed Land Use Town Well None Town Well None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None EPSD UTSD Septic Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No Existing Gas Service Other None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Yes No Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Attachments No Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes Site staking must be completed as required/requested by the Planner. Complete? Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Project Address Parcel ID # General Information Boundary Line Adjustment ROW or Easement Vacation Street Name Change Time Rezoning Petition Annexation Request Extension Other: Please specify Project Name Condominium Map Preliminary Map Final Map Supplemental Map Variance Request (Board of Adjustment) ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION Type of Application Submittal Date: Site Information Application fee Statement of intent 1 copy (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" copy of plat or plan Xcel Primary Contact Information Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721  Fax: (970) 586-0249  www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Town of Estes Park  P.O. Box 1200  170 MacGregor Avenue  Estes Park, CO 80517 Digital Copies of plats/plans in PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX Sign Purchase ($10) 21 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Email Applicant Record Owner(s) Signatures: MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION (not required for Board of Adjustment) Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Record Owner 22 Revised 2024-03-11 ks ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION http://www.estes.org/DevCode Record Owner Applicant Signatures: I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten business days prior to the public hearing. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Record Owner Applicant I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Names: In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: For Board of Adjustment applications: failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D) 23 Variance Cover Letter This variance request is for an encroachment into the 50’ wetland setback in 2 key areas. The request is not a request that will allow building or disturbance of the wetlands themselves. Due to the potential of a small margin of error due to slight field changes during construction, small survey error, etc, that results in greater encroachment than currently shown, we are requesting that the variance request be approved with a margin of adjustment of up to 10%. The formal request is for a variance to the Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities described herein within wetland setbacks per the table below, subject to a 10% margin of error: To determine if the proposed setback encroachment will or will not impact the wetlands themselves, we had a 3rd party Wetland Specialist review the plans. Their conclusion is as follows: “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized. The development team is committed to implementing and following the BMP recommendations outlined in this report. There are 2 documents that the project’s 3rd party Wetland Specialist has produced for this variance hearing. The first document is a single page document that is labeled “Wetland Variance Assessment for the 1754 Fish Hatchery Development Project in Larimer County in Estes Park Colorado.” This letter specifically focuses on the 2 areas that the development is requesting for a variance to the wetland setback 1. Area located in the National Park 60’ wide strip of land to be used for a public road 2. Access to the homes planned on the eastern side of the site 24 The 2nd document is labeled “Variance Letter for the Development project at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park in Larimer County Colorado.” This 5 page report takes a wholistic look at all encroachments within the 50’ wetland setback. Due to the environmental nature of this request, this report was generated at the request of Town Staff in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the developments impact on the wetlands themselves. As noted above, the conclusion of the report states that the wetlands will not be implemented, as long as the best management practices are followed. The development team is committed to implementing and following the BMP recommendations outlined in this report. The variance request put forth to the Board of Adjustments are the items that eclipse the 25% threshold (<37.5’ away from wetlands). Road Construction Area I & H are due to the access for the homes on the eastern portion of the property Area B is due to the 60’ wide piece of land owned by the NPS Earth Work/Grading Area B & C are due to the 60’ wide piece of land owned by the NPS Area H & I are due to the access for the homes on the eastern portion of the property Restoration Located within areas H & I. There is currently an asphalt parking lot in this location. The development plan is to remove the asphalt to make it a permeable surface Less than 37.5’ but not for variance review Area G – A single family house & driveway currently sits within the 50’ wetland setback. The plan is to keep this building as a leasing center for the apartments. Therefore, the development does not currently have plans for further development than what exists in that area as it is. If that should change, the development will need to go through a separate variance request: Area G – Structure construction: This house currently exists on site Area G – Grading: There are no plans for further grading in this area Area G – Road Construction: There are no plans for further road construction in this area. 25 Multi-Use Trail Construction – Recreation trails are an allowable use within the 50’ wetland setback The Fish Hatchery Development Team 26 Date: 12/11/25 Project: Fish Hatchery Workforce Development Parcel #: 3516000938 Request: Variance to wetland setback Document: Applicability with Variance Standards for Review C. Standards for Review. All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth below: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Both Areas This parcel has a long and unique history that goes back to the early 1900s. It has seen numerous uses and ownership control & rights ranging from F.O Stanley, to the Public Service Company of Colorado, a long-term land lease to the Department of Game and Fish, and now the Town of Estes Park. Historical uses of the site starting in the early 1900’s included a Fish Hatchery accompanied by lodging for the workers as well as Fish Hatchery related recreation options for the public & visitors. In the 1970s The State of Colorado was planning to wind down the Fish Hatchery operations as it had become an undersized fish hatchery compared to others in the state operating at the time. The Lawn Lake Flood in 1982 unfortunately expedited this closure as it created significant damage that the state deemed too costly to repair. Remediation of the site took place in the following years which included filling in the vast majority of fish hatchery ponds on the site. However, a few ponds, or depressions where former ponds stood remain and these areas are deemed wetlands due to the vegetation & soil type that exists, suggesting that water lies just below the surface. Due to the historic use of the site, the property faces unique conditions due to fish hatchery ponds that were not filled as part of the prior remediation & cleanup process on the site. These ponds and the associated setbacks have become the cornerstone of the design & layout of the site, and we have kept a 50’ buffer as best as we possibly can. There are 2 areas on the site where this has proven to be very difficult. Area H & I On the east side of the site, we have 15 units, roughly 14% of our total units, that are accessed via a road that runs along an existing berm between a former fish hatchery pond & the outflow back to the river. The entire site has approx 9 acres of developable land. This is land that is not on steep slopes, outside of wetlands and the associated 50’ setback, outside of the historic district, and outside of the NPS 60’ strip of land. The land to the left is 1.9 acres of the 9 acres of developable land. This request would allow 27 us to utilize roughly 21% of the developable land on site. Outside of the aftermath of heavy rain or snowfall, neither of these areas had notable standing water on any of our site visits. This berm is currently used for vehicular access to this portion of the site as tire tracks are present. This is the only route to access the east portion of the site that does not involve building a road on a steep slope to the north. The design team initially looked to minimize the impact in this setback by proposing a one lane bridge that would maintain a similar dimension to the existing berm. However, that idea was rejected by Public Works as they expressed emergency evacuation concerns and recommended a 2 lane road. Staff recommendations have been incorporated into the site plan presented today and the designed street section in this area is kept to a minimum width to limit any encroachment in setbacks while meeting life safety and access requirements. The Fire Department has also shown support for this approach. For the reasons noted above, there are special circumstances that exist on this site that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. Practical difficulty will result from strict compliance with this Code's standards as access to ~14% of the designed units become inaccessible. A letter from our wetland consultant describes the best practices that the project commits to follow, and states that with these measures implemented, the wetlands will not be harmed. Therefore, the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards of this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Area B & C As part of the long history of the site, there was a component that was lost to history for roughly 50 years until it was rediscovered as part of the Town of Este Park’s redevelopment of this site. In the early 1900s, F.O Stanley owned the entirety of the parcel, and he donated a 60’ strip of land that crosses the site to the National Park for access to the park. Title, supplemented by a historical review of the site from a 3rd 28 party firm, indicates that this access was originally granted in 1909 and further formalized in 1924. This creates a unique aspect of this site with the Federal Gov’t owning land that runs across the site. This Federal Gov’t ownership runs across the Fish Hatchery Road bridge and is in roughly the same location as the unimproved dirt road south of Fish Hatchery Road and north of the river. Having a federally owned piece of land that bifurcates the property is a special circumstance and a unique condition. Multiple conversations with the NPS as well as members of the Town Manager's office and Town Attorney were facilitated to determine the best route forward. While one option was to have the federal government transfer the land to the Town of Estes Park, that would have required an Act of Congress that would be costly and take many years. It was mutually determined that the best path forward to allow workforce development of this site, is to realign Fish Hatchery Road along the National Park strip of land. The variance requests in area D & E are due to the location of the National Park owned land. To realign this section of the road, a variance that allows construction on the NPS strip of land, which requires some road construction & grading within the setback is required. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance Areas H & I: 14% of the total project units will not be accessible. The project currently has modest density at 5.5 units / acre, significantly short of the maximum 16 units per acre that is allowed by the code. Significant infrastructure investment including road realignment, offsite intersection improvement, and a water pressure system that will push $1M, dropping the unit count below 100 will create significant difficulty in following through on the desire of the Town of Estes Park to develop this land for workforce housing. This road will provide emergency access for existing residents to the east of the property, improving the network of evacuation routes during extreme circumstances. Areas B & C: There cannot be beneficial use of the property anywhere on or south of the Federally owned parcel of land. This strip of land was intended for vehicular access and the realignment of Fish Hatchery to this area conforms with the intent and the current unimproved use. Limiting the construction of workforce housing outside of this area will push the development further towards the steep slopes on the north and limit the overall developable area to accomplish the Town of Estes Parks goals of Workforce Housing on this site. b. Whether the variance is substantial 29 Areas H & I: No, the variance is not substantial and is for access purposes to the east side of the site. In no instance does the proposal touch or impact the wetlands themselves Areas B & C: No, the variance is not substantial and will be largely replacing an existing dirt road. In no instance does the proposal touch or impact the wetlands themselves c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance Areas H & I: The buildings planned on the eastern portion of the site match and complement the existing single-family homes to the east in scale and character. This portion of the site has the lowest density with a gentle density increase toward the center of the site. Rental units are 4-unit buildings at the center of the site, and for sale buildings are a mix of single family, duplex, triplexes, fourplexes, and 1 five plex. This gradation of density and building types addresses existing conditions while achieving the communities’ housing needs. Areas B & C: No, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered nor whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. This request is on the southwestern portion of the property. The Town of Estes Park owns the land to the south, and the National Park owns the land to the west. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer Areas H & I: It will not. Meetings were held with both sewer and water who support this proposal. A manhole and sewer line currently exist in this part of the site, and new water utilities will run under the proposed road. Areas B & C: It will not. Meetings were held with both sewer and water who support this proposal. Utilities will be placed under the newly constructed road. Permitting for the utilities on this piece of land does fall under a unique process that is run through the Federal Gov’t. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and Both: EPHA cannot speak to what the Town of Estes Park knew when they purchased this property. 30 f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Areas H & I: No, there is no other feasible way to access this portion of the site without a variance. Areas B & C: No, there is no other feasible alternative to utilize this federally owned strip of land. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Both: As outlined in the history of the site and use as a Fish Hatchery, this is an extremely unique parcel of land within the Estes Valley. A formulation of regulation for these specific requests can be managed at localized areas. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Both: Understood. This variance does not request a reduction in the size of lots, nor allowing lots beyond the number otherwise permitted in the total subdivision. The total lots permitted are approximately 320 (16 units x 20 acres), and we are only pursuing ~111 5. No variance shall be granted increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the number otherwise permitted. (Ord. 17-24, §1(Exh. A)) Both: Understood. This project does not plan to have any accommodations associated with it, and the variance will not allow the number of accommodations units to be increased. 6. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Both: Understood. Please see the table below that shows the changes that the design team made between our first submission and current submission. You can see that structures were completely removed from the setbacks, as well as limiting the number of road and hard surface areas. Additionally, grading disturbance has been pushed back further. This was accomplished with a focus along the north side 31 of Fall River, consolidating lots & turning some single-family detached homes into duplexes, and strategic placement of boulder walls. Through the help & guidance of Town Staff, particularly community development and public works, significant reductions in this variance request have been made and the project development team are confident that this proposal represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Both: Understood. This variance request is not asking for a use that is not permitted or a use that is expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of the Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. 8. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Both: Understood 32 33 34 35 36 37 Fish Hatchery Road is realigned to fit within the National Park Service strip of land that runs across the site. The road and existing multi-use path glance the northern edge of wetland setbacks in this area. All improvements proposed for this project all outside of existing wetlands. Minor changes to topography that allow for the regrading of the multi-use path and the realignment of the Fish Hatchery Road occur near the existing bridge. An existing structure and the paved area in front of it are proposed to remain in place with some improvements. These existing amenities fall within the wetlands setbacks. B C HVARIANCE - WETLANDS SETBACK FISH H A T C H E R Y R D CLEA R W A T E R D R HEAD G A T E D R BRO O D H O U S E D R FALL RIVE R R D Modifications at locations B, C, H, and I reflect setback deviation requests that are due to road alignment needs related to National Park owned land, and fire access requirements among existing improved vehicular access distances vary and are provided in the chart below. Improvements to the grading and pavement that service existing structures surrounding the two north- most wetlands fall within the setbacks. Modifications in this area include the removal of pavement, capping an existing manhole and restoration. LEGEND: WETLAND SETBACK EXHIBIT Wetland Area 37.5’ Setback 45’ Setback 50’ Setback DISTANCE TO WETLAND B C H I Road 39.0’32.2’ 27.2’ Multi-Use Trail 14.5’ 18.8’ Earth Work 9.7’ 17.3’ 28.7’ 25.0’ Tree Lawn 25.0’ Restoration 13.0’ Existing Slope 5% 45% 25% 40% Proposed Slope 6% 50% 10% 33% * With the exception of the existing structures, all other structures are hypothetical and illustrative of one potential development scenario. Actual building locations to be determined at site plan submission. Setback concepts depicted are intended to be illustrative, but ultimate building location shall comply with this chart’s maximum distance to wetlands. The proposed road narrows and utilizes the existing unimproved crossing between wetlands. Existing infrastructure conveys water beneath the road at this section. The proposed improvements allow for emergency service access. I 38 Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> hearing regarding 170 macgregor ave 1 message Richard Lillie <richard.lillie@janusintl.com>Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:56 PM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> I would like to know why we have designated this parcel of land…within 300 yards of the RMNP entrance…..it’s a major travel route for elk and mule deer….prime real estate that is going to be developed for workforce housing???? It’s going to be the “presentation” the “view” of everyone sitting in line to get into the park…I don’t understand…of all the available land and this is what we chose? RICHARD LILLIE Vice President of National Accounts "Tell Us How We're Doing" _____________________________ 135 Janus International Blvd. | Temple, GA 30179 C: 404-427-7025 JanusIntl.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any action in reliance on the information contained in this e-mail is prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments immediately. 39 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Rod Morten rodneymorten@gmail.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. I am not an expert in wetland variance but my understanding is that a hardship must be created in order to get a wetlands variance. What is the Epha definition of hardship here? With that, it is my understanding that the applicant knew that wetlands existed on the property before they adopted a development plan, thus it seems that their actions now are creating the hardship. Is this not a self imposed hardship? Also, have there been any studies done reflecting any potential harm to the wetlands as a result of the approval of this variance? Such as increased flooding potential, water quality degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat. Have all the necessary permits been obtained-State, Federal, etc? FF2/20/2026 40 To the members of the Board of Adjustment I am writing as a concerned community member living along Fish Hatchery Road to formally express my opposition to the requested variance regarding the wetland setback areas for the Fish Hatchery Development. Having lived in this area for years, I have personally observed that the specific land currently under consideration for this variance serves as a critical habitat and nursery for local wildlife: •Elk Nursery: From late May through June, female elk utilize the south-side setback areas as a protected nursery for their young calves. I have frequently observed these females communal-parenting and protecting their young in this specific corridor. •Moose Foraging: During the same months, moose frequent this area to forage. Since the 2020 Troublesome Fire, these moose have become a consistent presence here, utilizing the wetlands in a manner nearly identical to the Endovalley area of RMNP. •Seasonal Refuge: After the females and calves depart in early July, male elk use this area as a cool resting spot to escape rising summer temperatures before moving to higher elevations. This ecosystem is one of the last remaining rich wildlife corridors within town limits. Once this delicate balance is destroyed by encroaching development, it cannot be replaced. I respectfully request that the Board deny the variance and instead require Estes Park Housing Authority to present alternative plans. Specifically, I ask that the following be evaluated: 1. Moving the proposed development further north to preserve the southern setbacks. 2. Downsizing the project to fit within the existing legal boundaries without requiring a variance. 3.A formal cost-analysis of these alternatives versus the ecological "cost" of losing this vital corridor. The long-term value of this wildlife area to the Estes Park community far outweighs the short- term convenience of this variance. Thank you for your time and for considering the protection of this unique ecosystem. Sincerely, Marty Miranda 2742 Ypsilon Court Estes Park, CO 80517 916-662-4798 2/24/2641 Revised 2024-03-11 ks Pre-App Development Plan Special Review Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat Project Description Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres Proposed Land Use Town Well None Town Well None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None EPSD UTSD Septic Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No Existing Gas Service Other None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Yes No Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Attachments No Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes Site staking must be completed as required/requested by the Planner. Complete? Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Project Address Parcel ID # General Information Boundary Line Adjustment ROW or Easement Vacation Street Name Change Time Rezoning Petition Annexation Request Extension Other: Please specify Project Name Condominium Map Preliminary Map Final Map Supplemental Map Variance Request (Board of Adjustment) ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION Type of Application Submittal Date: Site Information Application fee Statement of intent 1 copy (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" copy of plat or plan Xcel Primary Contact Information Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721  Fax: (970) 586-0249  www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Town of Estes Park  P.O. Box 1200  170 MacGregor Avenue  Estes Park, CO 80517 Digital Copies of plats/plans in PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX Sign Purchase ($10) Fish Hatchery Develop Attainable Workforce Housing 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd, Estes Park CO 80517 N 1/2 SW 1/4 16-5-73; EP, EX RD AS PER 839-575; LESS 87000339, 89003857, 91004492, 92080005, 94099702, 96086646 3516000938 75 acres 22 acres Town owned land utilized for housing town employees Attainable workforce housing RM & A-1 RM & A-1 Peter Levine PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 08517 12/26/2025 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Sign.com Document ID:d9e57a9cd5 - Page 1/342 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Email Applicant Record Owner(s) Signatures: MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION (not required for Board of Adjustment) Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Record Owner Town of Estes Park PO Box 1200 970-577-3707 970-557-3707 Estes Park Housing Authority PO Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 9708930107 9708930107 plevine@estes.org Marcin Civil Engineering 213 Tabor st, Buena Vista CO 81211 970 485 3970 rob@marcinengineering.com Town of Estes Park Estes Park Housing Authority 1/15/26 Sign.com Document ID:d9e57a9cd5 - Page 2/3 01/16/2026 43 Revised 2024-03-11 ks ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION http://www.estes.org/DevCode Record Owner Applicant Signatures: I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten business days prior to the public hearing. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Record Owner Applicant I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Names: In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: For Board of Adjustment applications: failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D) Town of Estes Park Estes Park Housing Authority 1/15/2026 Sign.com Document ID:d9e57a9cd5 - Page 3/3 01/16/2026 44 Revised 2024-03-11 ks Pre-App Development Plan Special Review Preliminary Subdivision Plat Final Subdivision Plat Minor Subdivision Plat Amended Plat Project Description Lot Size Area of Disturbance in Acres Proposed Land Use Town Well None Town Well None Existing Sanitary Sewer Service EPSD UTSD Septic None EPSD UTSD Septic Is a sewer lift station required?Yes No Existing Gas Service Other None Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Yes No Name of Primary Contact Person Complete Mailing Address Primary Contact Person is Owner Applicant Consultant/Engineer Attachments No Site Access (if not on public street) Are there wetlands on the site? Yes Site staking must be completed as required/requested by the Planner. Complete? Please review the Estes Park Development Code Appendix B for additional submittal requirements, which may include ISO calculations, drainage report, traffic impact analysis, geologic hazard mitigation report, wildfire hazard mitigation report, wetlands report, and/or other additional information. Project Address Parcel ID # General Information Boundary Line Adjustment ROW or Easement Vacation Street Name Change Time Rezoning Petition Annexation Request Extension Other: Please specify Project Name Condominium Map Preliminary Map Final Map Supplemental Map Variance Request (Board of Adjustment) ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION Type of Application Submittal Date: Site Information Application fee Statement of intent 1 copy (folded) of plat or plan 11" X 17" copy of plat or plan Xcel Primary Contact Information Community Development Department Phone: (970) 577-3721  Fax: (970) 586-0249  www.estes.org/CommunityDevelopment Town of Estes Park  P.O. Box 1200  170 MacGregor Avenue  Estes Park, CO 80517 Digital Copies of plats/plans in PDF format emailed to planning@estes.org PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE BOX Sign Purchase ($10) 45 Revised 2020.04.23 ks Consultant/Engineer PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date Email Applicant Record Owner(s) Signatures: MINERAL RIGHT CERTIFICATION (not required for Board of Adjustment) Article 65.5 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires applicants for Development Plans, Special Reviews, Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats, Minor Subdivision Plats if creating a new lot, and Preliminary and Final Condominium Maps to provide notice of the application and initial public hearing to all mineral estate owners where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. This notice must be given 30 days prior to the first hearing on an application for development and meet the statutory requirements. I hereby certify that the provisions of Section 24-65.5-103 CRS have been met. Names: APPLICATION FEES For development within the Estes Park Town limits See the fee schedule included in your application packet or view the fee schedule online at www.estes.org/planningforms All requests for refunds must be made in writing. All fees are due at the time of submittal. Record Owner 46 Revised 2024-03-11 ks ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► PLEASE PRINT: PLEASE PRINT: Date Date APPLICANT CERTIFICATION http://www.estes.org/DevCode Record Owner Applicant Signatures: I understand that acceptance of this application by the Town of Estes Park for filing and receipt of the application fee by the Town does not necessarily mean that the application is complete under the applicable requirements of the EPDC. I understand that I am required to obtain a "Development Proposal" sign from the Community Development Department and that this sign must be posted on my property where it is clearly visible from the road, no later than ten business days prior to the public hearing. I understand that a resubmittal fee will be charged if my application is incomplete. The Community Development Department will notify the applicant in writing of the date on which the application is determined to be complete. I grant permission for Town of Estes Park Employees/Planning Commissioners/Board of Adjustment members, with proper identification, access to my property during the review of this application. I understand that full fees will be charged for the resubmittal of an application that has become null and void Record Owner Applicant I hereby certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Names: In submitting the application materials and signing this application agreement, I acknowledge and agree that the application is subject to the applicable processing and public hearing requirements set forth in the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC). I acknowledge that I have obtained or have access to the EPDC, and that, prior to filing this application, I have had the opportunity to consult the relevant provisions governing the processing of and decision on the application. The Estes Park Development Code is available online at: For Board of Adjustment applications: failure of an applicant to apply for a building permit and commence construction or action with regard to the variance approval within one (1) year of receiving approval may automatically render the decision of the BOA null and void. (EPDC Section 3.6.D) 47 Variance Cover Letter This variance request is for an encroachment into the 50’ wetland setback in 2 key areas. The request is not a request that will allow building or disturbance of the wetlands themselves. Due to the potential of a small margin of error due to slight field changes during construction, small survey error, etc, that results in greater encroachment than currently shown, we are requesting that the variance request be approved with a margin of adjustment of up to 10%. The formal request is for a variance to the Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities described herein within wetland setbacks per the table below, subject to a 10% margin of error: To determine if the proposed setback encroachment will or will not impact the wetlands themselves, we had a 3rd party Wetland Specialist review the plans. Their conclusion is as follows: “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized. The development team is committed to implementing and following the BMP recommendations outlined in this report. There are 2 documents that the project’s 3rd party Wetland Specialist has produced for this variance hearing. The first document is a single page document that is labeled “Wetland Variance Assessment for the 1754 Fish Hatchery Development Project in Larimer County in Estes Park Colorado.” This letter specifically focuses on the 2 areas that the development is requesting for a variance to the wetland setback 1. Area located in the National Park 60’ wide strip of land to be used for a public road 2. Access to the homes planned on the eastern side of the site 48 The 2nd document is labeled “Variance Letter for the Development project at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park in Larimer County Colorado.” This 5 page report takes a wholistic look at all encroachments within the 50’ wetland setback. Due to the environmental nature of this request, this report was generated at the request of Town Staff in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the developments impact on the wetlands themselves. As noted above, the conclusion of the report states that the wetlands will not be implemented, as long as the best management practices are followed. The development team is committed to implementing and following the BMP recommendations outlined in this report. The variance request put forth to the Board of Adjustments are the items that eclipse the 25% threshold (<37.5’ away from wetlands). Road Construction Area I & H are due to the access for the homes on the eastern portion of the property Area B is due to the 60’ wide piece of land owned by the NPS Earth Work/Grading Area B & C are due to the 60’ wide piece of land owned by the NPS Area H & I are due to the access for the homes on the eastern portion of the property Restoration Located within areas H & I. There is currently an asphalt parking lot in this location. The development plan is to remove the asphalt to make it a permeable surface Less than 37.5’ but not for variance review Area G – A single family house & driveway currently sits within the 50’ wetland setback. The plan is to keep this building as a leasing center for the apartments. Therefore, the development does not currently have plans for further development than what exists in that area as it is. If that should change, the development will need to go through a separate variance request: Area G – Structure construction: This house currently exists on site Area G – Grading: There are no plans for further grading in this area Area G – Road Construction: There are no plans for further road construction in this area. 49 Multi-Use Trail Construction – Recreation trails are an allowable use within the 50’ wetland setback The Fish Hatchery Development Team 50 Date: 12/11/25 Project: Fish Hatchery Workforce Development Parcel #: 3516000938 Request: Variance to wetland setback Document: Applicability with Variance Standards for Review C. Standards for Review. All applications for variances shall demonstrate compliance with the standards and criteria set forth below: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist (e.g., exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of the property) that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated and practical difficulty may result from strict compliance with this Code's standards, provided that the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards, this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Both Areas This parcel has a long and unique history that goes back to the early 1900s. It has seen numerous uses and ownership control & rights ranging from F.O Stanley, to the Public Service Company of Colorado, a long-term land lease to the Department of Game and Fish, and now the Town of Estes Park. Historical uses of the site starting in the early 1900’s included a Fish Hatchery accompanied by lodging for the workers as well as Fish Hatchery related recreation options for the public & visitors. In the 1970s The State of Colorado was planning to wind down the Fish Hatchery operations as it had become an undersized fish hatchery compared to others in the state operating at the time. The Lawn Lake Flood in 1982 unfortunately expedited this closure as it created significant damage that the state deemed too costly to repair. Remediation of the site took place in the following years which included filling in the vast majority of fish hatchery ponds on the site. However, a few ponds, or depressions where former ponds stood remain and these areas are deemed wetlands due to the vegetation & soil type that exists, suggesting that water lies just below the surface. Due to the historic use of the site, the property faces unique conditions due to fish hatchery ponds that were not filled as part of the prior remediation & cleanup process on the site. These ponds and the associated setbacks have become the cornerstone of the design & layout of the site, and we have kept a 50’ buffer as best as we possibly can. There are 2 areas on the site where this has proven to be very difficult. Area H & I On the east side of the site, we have 15 units, roughly 14% of our total units, that are accessed via a road that runs along an existing berm between a former fish hatchery pond & the outflow back to the river. The entire site has approx 9 acres of developable land. This is land that is not on steep slopes, outside of wetlands and the associated 50’ setback, outside of the historic district, and outside of the NPS 60’ strip of land. The land to the left is 1.9 acres of the 9 acres of developable land. This request would allow 51 us to utilize roughly 21% of the developable land on site. Outside of the aftermath of heavy rain or snowfall, neither of these areas had notable standing water on any of our site visits. This berm is currently used for vehicular access to this portion of the site as tire tracks are present. This is the only route to access the east portion of the site that does not involve building a road on a steep slope to the north. The design team initially looked to minimize the impact in this setback by proposing a one lane bridge that would maintain a similar dimension to the existing berm. However, that idea was rejected by Public Works as they expressed emergency evacuation concerns and recommended a 2 lane road. Staff recommendations have been incorporated into the site plan presented today and the designed street section in this area is kept to a minimum width to limit any encroachment in setbacks while meeting life safety and access requirements. The Fire Department has also shown support for this approach. For the reasons noted above, there are special circumstances that exist on this site that are not common to other areas or buildings similarly situated. Practical difficulty will result from strict compliance with this Code's standards as access to ~14% of the designed units become inaccessible. A letter from our wetland consultant describes the best practices that the project commits to follow, and states that with these measures implemented, the wetlands will not be harmed. Therefore, the requested variance will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the specific standards of this Code or the Comprehensive Plan. Area B & C As part of the long history of the site, there was a component that was lost to history for roughly 50 years until it was rediscovered as part of the Town of Este Park’s redevelopment of this site. In the early 1900s, F.O Stanley owned the entirety of the parcel, and he donated a 60’ strip of land that crosses the site to the National Park for access to the park. Title, supplemented by a historical review of the site from a 3rd 52 party firm, indicates that this access was originally granted in 1909 and further formalized in 1924. This creates a unique aspect of this site with the Federal Gov’t owning land that runs across the site. This Federal Gov’t ownership runs across the Fish Hatchery Road bridge and is in roughly the same location as the unimproved dirt road south of Fish Hatchery Road and north of the river. Having a federally owned piece of land that bifurcates the property is a special circumstance and a unique condition. Multiple conversations with the NPS as well as members of the Town Manager's office and Town Attorney were facilitated to determine the best route forward. While one option was to have the federal government transfer the land to the Town of Estes Park, that would have required an Act of Congress that would be costly and take many years. It was mutually determined that the best path forward to allow workforce development of this site, is to realign Fish Hatchery Road along the National Park strip of land. The variance requests in area D & E are due to the location of the National Park owned land. To realign this section of the road, a variance that allows construction on the NPS strip of land, which requires some road construction & grading within the setback is required. 2. In determining "practical difficulty," the BOA shall consider the following factors: a. Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance Areas H & I: 14% of the total project units will not be accessible. The project currently has modest density at 5.5 units / acre, significantly short of the maximum 16 units per acre that is allowed by the code. Significant infrastructure investment including road realignment, offsite intersection improvement, and a water pressure system that will push $1M, dropping the unit count below 100 will create significant difficulty in following through on the desire of the Town of Estes Park to develop this land for workforce housing. This road will provide emergency access for existing residents to the east of the property, improving the network of evacuation routes during extreme circumstances. Areas B & C: There cannot be beneficial use of the property anywhere on or south of the Federally owned parcel of land. This strip of land was intended for vehicular access and the realignment of Fish Hatchery to this area conforms with the intent and the current unimproved use. Limiting the construction of workforce housing outside of this area will push the development further towards the steep slopes on the north and limit the overall developable area to accomplish the Town of Estes Parks goals of Workforce Housing on this site. b. Whether the variance is substantial 53 Areas H & I: No, the variance is not substantial and is for access purposes to the east side of the site. In no instance does the proposal touch or impact the wetlands themselves Areas B & C: No, the variance is not substantial and will be largely replacing an existing dirt road. In no instance does the proposal touch or impact the wetlands themselves c. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance Areas H & I: The buildings planned on the eastern portion of the site match and complement the existing single-family homes to the east in scale and character. This portion of the site has the lowest density with a gentle density increase toward the center of the site. Rental units are 4-unit buildings at the center of the site, and for sale buildings are a mix of single family, duplex, triplexes, fourplexes, and 1 five plex. This gradation of density and building types addresses existing conditions while achieving the communities’ housing needs. Areas B & C: No, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered nor whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. This request is on the southwestern portion of the property. The Town of Estes Park owns the land to the south, and the National Park owns the land to the west. d. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer Areas H & I: It will not. Meetings were held with both sewer and water who support this proposal. A manhole and sewer line currently exist in this part of the site, and new water utilities will run under the proposed road. Areas B & C: It will not. Meetings were held with both sewer and water who support this proposal. Utilities will be placed under the newly constructed road. Permitting for the utilities on this piece of land does fall under a unique process that is run through the Federal Gov’t. e. Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement; and Both: EPHA cannot speak to what the Town of Estes Park knew when they purchased this property. 54 f. Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance. Areas H & I: No, there is no other feasible way to access this portion of the site without a variance. Areas B & C: No, there is no other feasible alternative to utilize this federally owned strip of land. 3. No variance shall be granted if the submitted conditions or circumstances affecting the Applicant's property are of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations. Both: As outlined in the history of the site and use as a Fish Hatchery, this is an extremely unique parcel of land within the Estes Valley. A formulation of regulation for these specific requests can be managed at localized areas. 4. No variance shall be granted reducing the size of lots contained in an existing or proposed subdivision if it will result in an increase in the number of lots beyond the number otherwise permitted for the total subdivision, pursuant to the applicable zone district regulations. Both: Understood. This variance does not request a reduction in the size of lots, nor allowing lots beyond the number otherwise permitted in the total subdivision. The total lots permitted are approximately 320 (16 units x 20 acres), and we are only pursuing ~111 5. No variance shall be granted increasing the number of accommodation units beyond the number otherwise permitted. (Ord. 17-24, §1(Exh. A)) Both: Understood. This project does not plan to have any accommodations associated with it, and the variance will not allow the number of accommodations units to be increased. 6. If authorized, a variance shall represent the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. Both: Understood. Please see the table below that shows the changes that the design team made between our first submission and current submission. You can see that structures were completely removed from the setbacks, as well as limiting the number of road and hard surface areas. Additionally, grading disturbance has been pushed back further. This was accomplished with a focus along the north side 55 of Fall River, consolidating lots & turning some single-family detached homes into duplexes, and strategic placement of boulder walls. Through the help & guidance of Town Staff, particularly community development and public works, significant reductions in this variance request have been made and the project development team are confident that this proposal represents the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. 7. Under no circumstances shall the BOA grant a variance to allow a use not permitted, or a use expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of this Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. Both: Understood. This variance request is not asking for a use that is not permitted or a use that is expressly or by implication prohibited under the terms of the Code for the zone district containing the property for which the variance is sought. 8. In granting such variances, the BOA may require such conditions as will, in its independent judgment, secure substantially the objectives of the standard so varied or modified. Both: Understood 56 57 58 59 60 61 Fish Hatchery Road is realigned to fit within the National Park Service strip of land that runs across the site. The road and existing multi-use path glance the northern edge of wetland setbacks in this area. All improvements proposed for this project all outside of existing wetlands. Minor changes to topography that allow for the regrading of the multi-use path and the realignment of the Fish Hatchery Road occur near the existing bridge. An existing structure and the paved area in front of it are proposed to remain in place with some improvements. These existing amenities fall within the wetlands setbacks. B C HVARIANCE - WETLANDS SETBACK FISH H A T C H E R Y R D CLEA R W A T E R D R HEAD G A T E D R BRO O D H O U S E D R FALL RIVE R R D Modifications at locations B, C, H, and I reflect setback deviation requests that are due to road alignment needs related to National Park owned land, and fire access requirements among existing improved vehicular access distances vary and are provided in the chart below. Improvements to the grading and pavement that service existing structures surrounding the two north- most wetlands fall within the setbacks. Modifications in this area include the removal of pavement, capping an existing manhole and restoration. LEGEND: WETLAND SETBACK EXHIBIT Wetland Area 37.5’ Setback 45’ Setback 50’ Setback DISTANCE TO WETLAND B C H I Road 39.0’32.2’ 27.2’ Multi-Use Trail 14.5’ 18.8’ Earth Work 9.7’ 17.3’ 28.7’ 25.0’ Tree Lawn 25.0’ Restoration 13.0’ Existing Slope 5% 45% 25% 40% Proposed Slope 6% 50% 10% 33% * With the exception of the existing structures, all other structures are hypothetical and illustrative of one potential development scenario. Actual building locations to be determined at site plan submission. Setback concepts depicted are intended to be illustrative, but ultimate building location shall comply with this chart’s maximum distance to wetlands. The proposed road narrows and utilizes the existing unimproved crossing between wetlands. Existing infrastructure conveys water beneath the road at this section. The proposed improvements allow for emergency service access. I 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 IN REPLY REFER TO: A3815 (ROMO) Paul Hornbeck Senior Planner Community Development Department Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Fish Hatchery Wetland Setback Variance Dear Mr. Hornbeck: National Park Service staff attended the Board of Adjustment meeting held on March 3, 2026. The Board voted to continue the decision on the Estes Park Housing Authority and National Park Service application for a wetland setback variance. We understand the next meeting will be in April. To follow up on concerns raised by attendees and the Board, there are no wetlands on National Park Service lands in the project area. The encroachment into the 50-foot setback is needed because the allowable use of the NPS lands in the project area is to reconstruct the roadway in the historic location and to modern standards. Best management practices for construction as proposed by the Estes Park Housing Authority include construction exclusion fencing around sensitive areas, inspecting equipment, revegetating affected areas, erosion control such as silt logs, dust control measures, carefully selected staging and refueling areas, and designating access routes. The Estes Park Housing Authority will implement contractor controls such as site orientation, education, and monitoring to further assure the wetlands themselves are not inadvertently impacted during construction. These best management practices are consistent with what the National Park Service implements for all projects near wetlands and other sensitive resources. Wetland ecosystems are critically important to Rocky Mountain National Park. Wetlands provide important habitat for plants and animals, improve water quality, reduce wildfire impacts, and support a disproportionate amount of biodiversity per area. The National Park Service respectfully requests the variance to the wetland setback be approved by the Board of Adjustment. If you have any questions, contact Cheri Yost, Park Planner, at cheri_yost@nps.gov or (970) 586-1320. Sincerely, Caleb Waters Deputy Superintendent cc: Peter Levine, Estes Park Housing Authority NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Rocky Mountain National Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 80 COLORADO Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Area 2 4207 W CR 16E Loveland, CO 80537 P 970.472.4460 March 13th , 2025 October 23, 2025 (Updated letter) Peter Levine Estes Park Housing Authority 363 E Elkhorn Ave #101 Estes Park, CO 80517 plevine@estes.org RE: Preliminary review of pre-application for Fish Hatchery Workforce and Affordable Housing site plan Dear Mr. Levine, Thank you for the opportunity for Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to comment on the proposed site plan for Fish Hatchery Workforce and Affordable Housing. The Fish Hatchery Workforce and Affordable Housing is proposed to be located at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road south of U.S. Highway 34 and east of the Rocky Mountain National Park border in Larimer County. It is our understanding that this proposed site development will include 8 single family homes, 12 duplexes, 62 townhomes, and 16 4-unit walk up apartments. It is our understanding that the property will also include numerous paths leading to Fall River and around scattered wetlands. The mission of CPW is to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the state, to provide a quality state parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as active stewards of Colorado's natural resources. CPW has a statutory responsibility to manage all wildlife species in Colorado, and to promote a variety of recreational opportunities throughout Colorado. One way we achieve this goal is by responding to referral comment requests, as is the case for this project. After the review of this project and location, CPW has the following considerations and recommendations for the project proponent and City of Estes Park while considering the development of this property and surrounding area: Riparian and Aquatic Habitats Fall River flows through the border of the proposed site development. Riparian communities have some o f the highest species richness of all habitat types in Colorado. A broad diversity of avian species use riparian communities for the nesting component of their life history, :o;,·co{jj -��,:,!,, 'f' -i! ·t-.r.+ "o"'!�� 10. '*\:�-��)* \:'�� °'Zl(l7G • Jeff Davis, Director, c;;r;;;do Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair· Richard Reading, Vice-Chair· Karen Bailey, Secretary • Jessica Beaulieu Marie Haskett· Tai Jacober • Jack Murphy· Gabriel Otero· Murphy Robinson • James Jay Tutchton -Eden Vardy 81 making these systems a critical habitat type. Wetlands and riparian areas also provide valuable habitat for a variety of other wildlife, including small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Riparian corridors often serve as migratory corridors for seasonal movements of wildlife. Numerous native and non-native fish species are also present in Fall River. Intact and functioning riparian areas and wetlands are widely recognized for their ability to perform a variety of critical ecological functions. These functions include stabilizing stream channels; providing erosion control by regulating sediment storage, transport, and distribution; providing organic matter (e.g., leaves and large woody debris) that is critical for aquatic organisms; serving as nutrient sinks for the surrounding watershed; providing water temperature control through shading; reducing flood peaks; and serving as key recharge points for renewing groundwater supplies. Acute water quality changes due to excessive sedimentation from poor construction storm water management practices and dewatering activities can suffocate developing fish eggs attached to gravel river bottom substrate. In addition, long term impacts associated with upland and riparian vegetation removal can also contribute to changes in water quality. CPW recommends a construction buffer of at least 500 feet from the bank of Fall River to avoid impacts to intact riparian areas and aquatic habitat. In addition, CPW recommends a buffer of 300 feet from the banks of the identified wetland areas. High Priority Habitats Developers and permitting agencies by partnering with CPW to help avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wildlife from their projects. High priority habitats (HPH) are defined as sensitive habitats where CPW has recent maps regarding sensitive wildlife use, plus scientifically-backed best management practice (BMP) recommendations. HPHs are a subset of CPW's species activity maps that we collect and update for a variety of species and their particular habitats; we provide these maps to the public and regulatory agencies for the environmental assessment and land use commenting of proposed development on a given parcel, and general scientific research. Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Winter Concentration High Priority Habitat Mule Deer Severe Winter Ranges are defined as that part of the overall winter range where 90% of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. Mule deer winter concentration is defined as that part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average of five winters out of ten. These areas provide crucial wintering habitat during both severe and mild winters by providing ideal forage, vegetation, and topographic features for both species. Regardless of weather patterns, winter is the most stressful period for ungulates due to the challenges winter poses for forage availability. In particular, Mule Deer Severe Winter range and Winter Concentration areas occur across the entirety of the project. CPW recommends not constructing during the winter season (December 1 to April 30), if this is not feasible, CPW recommends that the applicant start construction outside of this window. 'Qf�Co� ,._y;Ji;,,;-:s�o-1.!.,·iS· � 0 V) <:-, . 01 .. ----8:[�J:,f,}'�7 ('Y Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parl<s and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair· Richard Reading, Vice-Chair· Karen Bailey, Secretary• Jessica Beaulieu Marie Haskett· Tai Jacober • Jack Murphy· Gabriel Otero • Murphy Robinson • James Jay Tutchton • Eden Vardy 82 Elk Winter Concentration High Priority Habitat The project area occurs in an elk winter concentration area. Elk winter concentration areas are defined as that part of the winter range of elk where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up, or during a site-specific period of winter as defined for each Data Analysis Unit. CPW recommends not constructing during the winter season (December 1 to April 30), if this is not feasible, CPW recommends that the applicant start construction outside of this window. Elk Production Area This area is also known as an area where elk have their young or an elk production area. An elk production area is defined as that part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU). CPW recommends not constructing during the calving season (May 15- June 30). Moose Moose are known to travel along the drainages in the area on a regular basis, and their presence could provide an enjoyable viewing opportunity for guests. To help reduce the chances of an aggressive encounter with moose, it is recommended that dogs and other pets not be allowed on the property by the guests, as moose often perceive them to be a threat. For more information on preventing conflicts with moose, please see the following link on the CPW website: https://cpw.state.co.us/living-moose. Fencing CPW is concerned for the safety of Mule deer in the area for the proposed project expansion. CPW recommends that if fencing (project perimeter or internal) is erected, either during or after the project, it should be the type that would allow the free passage of wildlife. Fencing plans should avoid the use of woven wire-type fences that will trap or prevent the movement of wildlife. CPW recommends using three or four-strand smooth-wire fencing with a bottom strand height of 17 inches above ground level and a maximum top strand height of 42 inches above ground level, along with the installation of double stays between posts. For more information on wildlife friendly fencing, please visit CPW's website: https: / / cpw. widencollective. com I assets/ share/ asset/ vlrphdeji6. Noxious Weeds and Native Re-seeding Also of importance to CPW is the revegetation of disturbed soils and the control of noxious weed species through the development of a noxious weed management plan prior to initiating construction activities. The revegetation of disturbed areas and control of invasive weed Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair· Richard Reading, Vice-Chair· Karen Bailey, Secretary • Jessica Beaulieu Marie Haskett • Tai Jacober • Jack Murphy • Gabriel Otero • Murphy Robinson • James Jay Tutchton • Eden Vardy 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Denver • Durango • Grand Junction • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Cultural Resource Survey On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado Prepared for Estes Park Housing Authority 363 East Elkhorn Avenue #101 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Prepared for National Park Service Rocky Mountain National Park 1000 Highway 36 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation 1626 Cole Boulevard, Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80401 (303) 830-1188 Written by Marie Matsuda Michelle Dinkel Emily Ortiz Prepared under the supervision of Jonathan Hedlund, Principal Investigator State Permit No. 85654 SHPO Report ID LR.PA.R34 ERO Project No. 25-087 September 8, 2025 For Official Use Only: Disclosure of site locations prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) 138 Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Cultural Resource Survey Management Information Form OAHP1421 I. PROJECT SIZE Total federal acres in project 1.25 Total federal acres surveyed 1.25 Total state acres in project Total state acres surveyed Total private acres in project Total private acres surveyed Total other acres in project Total other acres surveyed II. PROJECT LOCATION County:Larimer USGS Quad Map:Estes Park PrincipalMeridian:6th Township 5N Range 73W Section 16 1/4SW1/4 of NW Township 5N Range 73W Section 16 1/4SW1/4 of NE Smithsonian Number Pr e h i s t o r i c Hi s t o r i c Pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l Un k n o w n El i g i b l e No t E l i g i b l e Ne e d D a t a Su p p o r t i n g L i n e a r Se g m e n t No n - s u p p o r t i n g Li n e a r S e g m e n t Co n t r i b u t e s t o a Di s t r i c t No F u r t h e r W o r k Pr e s e r v e / A v o i d Mo n i t o r Te s t Ex c a v a t e Ar c h i v a l R e s e a r c h Ot h e r Resource Type Eligibility Management Recommendations III. SITES 5LR13378.9 X X X X 5LR15704 X X X 5LR15706 X X X 5LR15750 X X X (Page 1 of 1) 139 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 i ERO Resources Corporation Abstract The Estes Park Housing Authority proposes to complete the Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development project. This project involves rezoning 22 acres within the former boundary of the Estes Park Fish Hatchery to be razed and reconstructed into an affordable housing development. This project aims to develop affordable and attainable workforce housing for the Estes Park community. No federal funding is being obtained at this time, and no lead agency is requiring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). However, in anticipation of any changes to future funding requirements, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) conducted a cultural resource survey in compliance with Section 106 (54 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 306108) of the NHPA (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) to satisfy the requirements of the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) and the National Park Service (NPS). The project area overlaps with a 60 feet (ft) linear corridor of NPS lands. This report is the summary of all resources that intersect with NPS lands in the project area (1.25 acres). As part of the proposed development, the Estes Park Housing Authority will improve the NPS tract. Improvements will include paving, curbing, landscaping, parking, and drainage improvements. In addition, the project will include public and private utilities within the NPS tract. Public and private utility operators will be responsible for maintenance of utilities in accordance with NPS right-of-way permits. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) documented the Stanley Power Plant Distribution Line (5LR15706), one new segment of abandoned U.S. 34 (5LR13378.9), 21st Street Southwest (5LR15750), and a bridge (5LR15704) on NPS lands that intersect the project area. All sites are recommended not eligible (5LR15704 and 5LR15706) or nonsupporting of the overall eligibility of the resource for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (5LR13378.9 and 5LR15750). ERO recommends no further work for all resources. ERO recommends a determination of “no adverse effect” pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 of the NHPA. ERO recommends a determination of “no adverse effect” pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.5 of the NHPA. 140 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 ii ERO Resources Corporation Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................. i Project Description................................................................................................................. 1 Natural Environment .............................................................................................................. 5 Cultural Overview .................................................................................................................. 6 Historic Overview (AD 1800 to 1970s) ............................................................................................. 6 Exploration ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Early Resort Development ................................................................................................................ 8 Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 8 Outdoor Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 9 Colorado Fish Hatcheries.................................................................................................................. 9 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 10 Historic Property Identification ...................................................................................................... 10 Cultural Resource Documentation ................................................................................................. 11 Archaeological Sites ....................................................................................................................... 11 Historic Period Sites and Landscapes ............................................................................................. 12 Criteria for Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 13 File and Literature Review .................................................................................................... 15 Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 16 Resource Descriptions .................................................................................................................... 17 5LR13378.9: Abandoned U.S. Highway 34 ..................................................................................... 17 5LR15704: Fish Hatchery Road Bridge ........................................................................................... 24 5LR15706: Stanley Power Plant Distribution Line .......................................................................... 26 5LR15750: 21st Street Southwest .................................................................................................. 30 Summary and Management Recommendations .................................................................... 32 References Cited .................................................................................................................. 34 Figures Figure 1. Project location (1:24,000). ............................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Project location (aerial background). ................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Overview of the project area environment on NPS lands. ................................................ 5 Figure 4. 5LR13378.9, now named Fish Hatchery Road, view to the southeast. ........................... 19 Figure 5. 5LR13378.9, showing different portions of the road. ..................................................... 20 Figure 6. View of abandoned spur of 5LR13378.9, archaeologist between F1 and F2, view to the northwest. ......................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7. 1938 (top) and 1947 (bottom) aerial photographs of the historical U.S. 34 alignment as indicated by the red arrow (5LR13378.9) (University of Colorado Boulder Libraries 1938b, 1947b). ........................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 8. Overview of 5LR15704, view to the southeast. .............................................................. 25 141 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 iii ERO Resources Corporation Figure 9. Photograph of 5LR15704 damage in June 1983 (Estes Park Trail 1983b). ...................... 26 Figure 10. Overview of 5LR15706 entering the main powerhouse, view to the southeast. ......... 28 Figure 11. 5LR15706, overview of F1. ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 12. 5LR15750, eastern extent. ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 13. 5LR15750 mapped in 1959 (left) and 1965 (right), red arrows are pointing to resource (U.S. Geological Survey 1959b, 1965). ...................................................................... 32 Tables Table 1. Previous cultural inventories in the project area. ............................................................. 15 Table 2. Revisited and newly documented sites on NPS land. ....................................................... 17 Table 3. Management recommendations. ..................................................................................... 32 Appendices Appendix A Cultural Resource Location Map Appendix B OAHP Cultural Resource Documentation Forms 142 ERO Project No. 25-087 1 ERO Resources Corporation On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado September 8, 2025 Project Description Estes Park Housing Authority, in partnership with the Town of Estes, proposes to construct the Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development project (project) in Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado (project area; Figure 1). No federal funding is being obtained at this time, and no lead agency is requiring compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. However, in anticipation of any changes to future funding requirements, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) conducted a cultural resource survey in compliance with Section 106 (54 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 306108) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) to satisfy the requirements of the Colorado Office Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) and the National Park Service (NPS). The project area overlaps with a 60 feet (ft) linear corridor of NPS lands. This report is the summary of all resources that intersect with NPS lands in the project area (1.25 acres). The overall project proposes to develop affordable workforce housing for the Estes Park community at 1754 Fish Hatchery, south of Fall River Road/U.S. Highway 34 and north of Fall River. The survey area is defined as the entire project area in which all project activities will occur, including the construction of residential buildings, parking areas, road improvements, sidewalk systems, designated outdoor space, construction access, and staging of equipment (21.8 acres). The resources in the survey area/project area are reported separately in Cultural Resource Survey Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development, Larimer County, Colorado (LR.PA.R34). The area of potential effects (APE) is the area which overlaps with NPS lands (1.25 acres) (Figure 2). As part of the proposed development, the Estes Park Housing Authority will improve the NPS tract. Improvements will include paving, curbing, landscaping, parking, and drainage improvements. In addition, the project will include public and private utilities within the NPS tract. Public and private utility operators will be responsible for maintenance of utilities in accordance with NPS right-of-way permits. The project will also improve the existing parking lot at the historical Stanley Power Plant/Fall River Hydroelectric Plant/Estes Park Powerplant (5LR2164). The parking lot is modern and outside of the 5LR2164 resource boundary; therefore, the project will not impact the historical integrity of the resource. Land within the survey area is owned by the Town of Estes Park and the APE land is owned by NPS. The project area is located on the Estes Park, Colorado 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle. The legal location is Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. 143 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 2 ERO Resources Corporation ERO archaeologists Marie Matsuda, Michelle Dinkel, and Emily Ortiz conducted a Class III cultural resource survey of the project area on June 18 and June 19, 2025. 144 Prepared for: Estes Park Housing Authority File: 25-087 CR Figures.aprx (ME) August 28, 2025 ±Figure 1 Project Location Cultural Resource Survey Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2025 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 2,0001,000 Feet COLORADO Location Pa t h : Z : \ S h a r e d \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 _ 0 0 0 \ 2 5 _ 0 8 7 F i s h H a t c h e r y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g D e v e l o p m e n t C l a s s I I I S u r v e y \ M a p s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s . a p r x Section 16, T5N, R73W; 6th PM USGS Estes Park, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000; 1979) Larimer County, Colorado Area of Potential Effects Survey Area National Park Service Land 1:24,000 145 34 21stSt SW Fish Hatchery Rd Fish Hatchery Rd Fall River Prepared for: Estes Park Housing Authority File: 25-087 CR Figures.aprx (ME) August 28, 2025 ±Figure 2 Project Location Cultural Resource Survey Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2025 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 400200 Feet COLORADO Location Pa t h : Z : \ S h a r e d \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 _ 0 0 0 \ 2 5 _ 0 8 7 F i s h H a t c h e r y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g D e v e l o p m e n t C l a s s I I I S u r v e y \ M a p s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s . a p r x Section 16, T5N, R73W; 6th PM USGS Estes Park, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000; 1979) Larimer County, Colorado Survey Area National Park Service Land Area of Potential Effects 1:4,000 146 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 5 ERO Resources Corporation Natural Environment The project area is in the Crystalline Mid-elevation Forest physiographic province and located in the Southern Rockies (Chapman et al. 2006; Fenneman 1931). The area is characterized by montane meadow valleys and extensive montane forests (Figure 3). The elevation of the project area ranges from 8,005 ft to 8,101 ft (2,440 meters [m] to 2,469 m) above sea level (asl). The ground visibility ranges from 0 to 50 percent. The surface geology consists of Holocene and Pleistocene-age alluvium (Qa) and Middle Proterozoic quartz diorite (Yqd) (Braddock and Cole 1990). Figure 3. Overview of the project area environment on NPS lands. Based on the Web Soil Survey data compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, soils in the project area consist of (in order of dominance) Isolation gravelly sandy loam (5–35%), found in moraines; Rofork-Chasmfalls complex (5–35%), which is a very gravelly sandy loam found in pediments and mountain slopes; and Chaffee loam (0–3%), associated with floodplains (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2025). Vegetation associated with the montane zone (8,000 to 10,000 ft asl) includes thick tree groves, open meadows, and riparian environments. Ponderosa pine dominates the warm, south-facing slopes and can reach up to 150 ft tall (Mutel and Emerick 1992). The cooler, north-facing slopes contain a mix of Douglas fir, Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine. Quaking aspen and riparian species are found along mountain streams and lakes. 147 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 6 ERO Resources Corporation Fauna includes coyotes, mountain lions, cottontails, jackrabbits, foxes, bobcats, rodents, and various bird species. Mule deer, moose, black bears, and elk are found in the project area. Cultural Overview The overview provided here is regional and intended to provide a context for the historical development and construction of resources identified in the project area. The temporal framework for northeastern Colorado is divided into five major stages: Paleoindian (circa [ca.] 11500 to 7800 BP, 11400 to 6650 BC), Archaic (ca. 7800 to 1850 BP, ca. 6650 BC to AD 150), Late Prehistoric (1850 to 400 BP, AD 150 to 1540), Protohistoric (400 to 100 BP, AD 1540 to 1860), and Historic (AD 1800 to 1970). No detailed Native American cultural overview is provided in this report as no associated cultural materials were encountered or documented in the project area. An intensive Native American cultural overview for this region can be found in Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin (Gilmore et al. 1999), and an in-depth historical overview of the region can be found in Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology (Church et al. 2007) , America’s Switzerland (Pickering 2005), and He Came and Stayed: Pieter Hondius, the Estes Park Years (Pickering 2024). The Ute and Northern Arapaho occupied the area year-round, and Shoshone, Cheyenne, Apache, and Comanche visitor groups seasonally migrated to the area (Brett 2003). Archeological evidence of the earliest Ute presence in north-central Colorado dates to 1000 to 1400 BP, based on the occurrence of culturally modified trees, brush-structure architecture known as wickiups, and Uncompahgre Brownware pottery. The Ute continued to occupy the area around Estes Park until their forced removal to reservations in 1863 and 1865 (Brunswig 2005). Ethnographic studies indicate that the Utes occupied the area for thousands of years (McBeth 2007). The Northern Arapaho migrated to the Front Range in the early 1800s and occupied the vicinity until the 1860s (Brett 2003; Brunswig 2012). Although the U.S. government forcibly removed the Ute from the area, the Ute maintain an oral history that refers to visitation of the area for subsistence and religious practices throughout their history. Historic Overview (AD 1800 to 1970s) Exploration The exploration period overlaps with the Protohistoric period mentioned above and is focused on European and Euro-American arrival in the broader region. European/Euro-American exploration of the Estes Park area follows general state and national trends in European/Euro-American western exploration and political expansion. The period for exploration in Estes Park includes themes in government- and science-funded expeditions as well as independent and commercial establishment of trading posts, trading routes, and areas to exploit game and other natural resources, ranging from ca. 1820 until ca. 1875. The beginning of this period of significance is loosely defined by the earliest-known written records of the area left by European and Euro-American explorers and ends after the early European/Euro-American establishment of permanent settlements and completion of geologic and land surveys that mapped nearly the entire region. 148 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 7 ERO Resources Corporation Written records from government-funded expeditions provide information about the earliest-known contact between Europeans, the Rocky Mountain region, and Native Americans. The Spanish trade networks became important transportation and trade networks for later European/Euro-American trapper-traders. Trapper-traders, Native Americans, and local guides participated in important U.S.- government-funded expeditions, including the Pike Expedition (July 1806 to July 1807), the Fremont Expeditions (1845, 1848, and 1853), and the Farnham Expedition (1844) (Simmons 2002). Fur trapper-trader Rufus B. Sage left the earliest-known written account of the area today known as Estes Park. In 1842, Sage explored the adjacent regions of North and Middle Parks, and in 1843 he traveled over Wind River Pass and along Saint Vrain Creek and the Big Thompson River into Estes and Moraine Parks. Historians identified Sage’s route based on his descriptions of the area’s geology (Black 1969; Carothers 1951; Hafen and Hafen 1965). Sage’s accounts of the region included a general reverence for the beauty of the area and specific information about the area’s plants and game. The fur trade was short lived and ended by 1850, due in part to wildlife depletion and changing fashion trends. Evidence of the earliest Europeans and Euro-Americans in the area is available in place names. In addition to Longs and Pikes Peaks, named for government explorers, a number of historians credit fur trader Philip Thompson as the namesake of the Big and Little Thompson Rivers (Butler 2005). Euro-Americans began establishing year-round residences in and around Estes Park by the late 1850s. Many of the area’s pioneer settlers were typically attracted to the area because mountain parks provided plentiful grass and water for cattle and small gardens, potential mineral resources, timber for construction materials and fuel, and game. As the result of government expedition reports, the area gained attraction for its agricultural and commercial tourism industry. The period of significance for pioneer settlement and development of the resort industry begins ca. 1857, when Euro-Americans began establishing permanent settlements in and around Estes Park. During this period of significance, settlers left behind few records describing themselves, their properties, visitors, and industry in the area (Butler 2005). After the discovery of gold in Colorado in 1859 and Congress’s passage of the Homestead Act in 1862, many Euro-Americans entered the Colorado Territory to prospect and/or establish farms and ranches and other businesses to support the early mining industry. The Homestead Act allowed citizens of the U.S. to claim 160 acres of land. If, after 5 years, the homesteaders had met the requirements for improvement of the land, the General Land Office (GLO) would permanently deed the land to the settler. GLO records provide information only about people who successfully “proved up” a claim. No patents were ever filed in the project area, however, Pieter Hondius and F.L. Clerc owned the water rights at Fall River Road, which were given to F.O Stanley for construction of the hydroelectric plant at the turn of the twentieth century (Jackson and Kennedy 2021). And according to local meeting minutes, Hondius also owned the land along Fall River which was later donated to the Estes Park Protective and Improvement Association (EPPIA) for the Estes Park Fish Hatchery (Pickering 2024). 149 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 8 ERO Resources Corporation Early Resort Development By the mid-1880s, it was increasingly common for landowners to convert their cattle ranches into guest ranches by constructing additional cabins for summer visitors. Although ranchers originally settled in the area to raise cattle, they spearheaded the era of outdoor tourism and conservation in the area by 1900; their conservation philosophy was expressed through their efforts to develop commercial operations that preserved and celebrated the natural environment as a commercial commodity. Property owners improved wagon roads to connect mountain park areas with well-established trails among their land, population centers, and natural points of interest; from these roads, ranchers also offered guided hiking and tours. In addition to outfitting hunting parties, ranch operators dammed streams to create lakes and stocked waterways with fish. The increased popularity of the area for tourism after 1900 encouraged many ranchers to construct larger lodges with dining rooms and large-capacity kitchens. Among these was the Abner Sprague Ranch, which accommodated up to 100 guests; it became one of the most well-known guest ranches in the central Rockies (Buchholtz 1983; Holland 1971). No patents were ever filed in the project area, however, Pieter Hondius and F.L. Clerc owned the water rights at Fall River Road, which were given to F.O Stanley for construction of the hydroelectric plant at the turn of the twentieth century (Jackson and Kennedy 2021). And according to local meeting minutes, Hondius also owned the land along Fall River which was later donated to the Estes Park Protective and Improvement Association (EPPIA) for the Estes Park Fish Hatchery (Pickering 2024). Transportation Native Americans established the earliest trail networks throughout the region, networks that European explorers and trapper-traders later mapped and used. Prospectors and settlers followed existing trails from the Front Range into the area today known as the Park. Prior to establishment of the Park, ranchers, loggers, and resort owners improved these trails for wagon use and constructed new roads. After the establishment of the Park, the state and federal governments established a numbered highway system in the Park and oversaw road improvements and new road construction to improve access. One of the earliest-known formal roads is the Lyons to Estes Park toll road that Alexander MacGregor built in 1875. Bald Mountain Road, constructed beginning in 1876, was among the first free roads to the area. Local residents, ranchers, and resort owners collaborated on the road’s construction and maintenance. They also constructed the Big Thompson Canyon Road, Bear Lake Road, and Wild Basin Road during the first few years of the 1900s (Butler 2005; Standish 2004; TEC, Inc. 2010). When Congress established the Park in 1915, only about 5 miles of improved road were within federal jurisdiction, and the NPS was allotted only about $3,000 for maintenance and improvements (TEC, Inc. 2010). Because no railroad went into or through the Park, wagon and automobile road development was an important undertaking for local commercial resort operators, ranchers, and the Park administrators. About 50 miles of wagon road existed in state and local jurisdiction around the Park boundaries, many of which were narrow mountain trails, poorly maintained and impassable for much of the year. Due to issues with ownership, jurisdiction, and funding, the early Park administrators had little authority over 150 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 9 ERO Resources Corporation road development or improvement. During the 1910s, private donations and commercial recreation operators in the Park funded and oversaw construction of new road connections, and the State of Colorado and Larimer County allotted small sums of money for maintaining and conducting minor improvements to existing roads, including Moraine Park, Fall River, Longs Peak, High Drive, and Wind River Roads (ACRE 2002; Butler 2005; TEC, Inc. 2010). Various access roads to the Park were abandoned or reestablished as the Park began to formalize roads within the park boundaries. U.S. Highway 34 was one such road, which was rerouted as park boundaries and consequently the Fall River entrance gateway was shifted between 1915 and 1934. The abandoned highway and the road to the Stanley Power Plant continued to be in use a local access to the Park and to the newly established Aspenglen Campground (Atkins 1982; Jackson and Kennedy 2021). In 1925, a right-of-way was granted through the Stanley Power Plant property and the powerplant road became an NPS access roadway and access to private residences (Kilsdonk 1997). Outdoor Recreation Since the pioneer settlement period, people have been attracted to the Park region to conduct outdoor activities among the area’s mountain scenery. Before and after the establishment of the Park, visitors have used the area both for leisure-time activities and to refine their skills in mountain sports, such as skiing and climbing. In association with popular social and health movements related to Romanticism, with America’s fascination with the “rugged frontier,” and with the westerners’ newfound appreciation of the wilderness, the accounts of explorers and early settlers of the region’s rugged terrain and plentiful game attracted people to the region for outdoor recreation, not settlement or investment in mineral extraction (Abbott et al. 2005). In association with trends established by ranchers and commercial business operators in the Park, many tourists visited the Park for leisure-time activities, such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, picnicking, and stage tours, and by 1930, auto touring became a common and important American pastime. People began spending increasing amounts of their time in the Park from inside their cars, and automotive clubs and individual drivers benefited from state and federal improvement of roads. To better serve motorists, ranchers and business owners developed auto touring amenities, including filling stations, parking areas, more lodges and larger camping spots, and easily accessible roadside picnicking areas and attractions. Common evidence of leisure-time activities are the food and beverage containers left behind by picnickers and campers along roads and trails. It is still common to find hearths, food and beverage containers, and utensils downhill and along the edges of the demolished sites and roads (Butler 1997, 2005). Colorado Fish Hatcheries The National Fish Hatchery System was established by Congress on June 10, 1872, to raise food fish for commercial fisheries and to feed families (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Fisheries (later incorporated into the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service) established a National Fish Hatchery for the Rocky Mountain Region in Leadville in 1889. 151 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 10 ERO Resources Corporation The site location was chosen for “its cold, clean water supply and nearby sources of native Cutthroat trout” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service N.D.). Nationally, fish were transported by both wagon and first- class rail car. The hatchery distributed fingerling fish to streams throughout Colorado, South Dakota, and Nebraska while mature trout were transported across the United States. The Leadville National Fish Hatchery is the second-oldest operating federal hatchery (Baker 1975) and was listed in the NRHP in 1980 (5LK42). Colorado followed the federal trend in 1877 when Colorado’s first state legislature created the office of State Fish Commissioner (McWilliams 1993). Wilson E. Sisty was the first to be appointed to this position and oversaw the construction of the first state fish hatchery northeast of Denver in 1881 (Estes Park Trail 1912). By 1893, state hatcheries were operational in Gunnison, Leadville, and La Plata County (McWilliams 1993). They were originally initiated to support fish agriculture and market supply, but recreation soon became a motivating factor as well for the creation and support of fish hatcheries. In 1895, in the town of Estes Park, the EPPIA was founded to establish better local and tourism practices in hunting, fishing, and forest management. Fishing became a primary focus, and by May 1907, the Fish Hatchery Committee of the EEPIA opened the Estes Park Fish Hatchery (5LR15705). In response to statewide overhunting, overtrapping, and overfishing, the 12th session of the Colorado legislature established the Colorado Department of Game and Fish on April 27, 1899 (Encyclopedia Staff 2016). T. H. Johnson was appointed as the first commissioner of the department, and new laws included legal limits on the amounts of fish and game that could be taken. The sale of hunting and fishing licenses helped the state agency become self-sustaining through World War I under commissioner Roland G. Parvin. The sale of licenses and fees continues to serve as a significant source of Colorado Parks and Wildlife revenue (Encyclopedia Staff 2016). Methods Historic Property Identification This cultural resource survey provides compliance under Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations under 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800 by undertaking a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify historic properties (defined as listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP) within the APE. Identification and documentation standards conform to federal land managing agency requirements and secondly to guidelines provided by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In doing so, the standards imposed by the Secretary of the Interior for the Identification, Documentation, and Evaluation of Historic Properties are also met. All personnel supervising survey and documentation are listed on applicable federal and state permits and meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61). Historic properties may consist of buildings, structures, objects, or sites and can include districts, cultural landscapes, and traditional cultural properties. The NPS has established a minimum age criterion of 50 years for historic property evaluation and to be listed in the NRHP (but see criteria consideration [g] for 152 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 11 ERO Resources Corporation an exception to the age guideline) (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1997); in some instances, a federal agency will establish the age criterion for a potential historic property at 45 years to account for the duration of the undertaking. Cultural resources not identified in the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) file search and historical records were identified during pedestrian survey. This project used standard pedestrian survey transects spaced 15 m apart to identify unknown cultural resources within the project area. Cultural Resource Documentation ERO documents cultural resources according to a standardized approach to ensure consistency and accuracy. Sites are digitally photographed from multiple perspectives to provide setting, and all significant tools, diagnostic artifacts, and features are photographed to scale. The site datum is also photographed if physically established and directed by the land managing agency. Site maps are produced using a submeter-capable Trimble DA2 with Trimble Catalyst Service global positioning system (GPS) unit. Elements of the site map include all cultural features, diagnostic and point provenience artifacts (designated as field specimens), artifact concentrations, major vegetation breaks and topography, modern features and disturbances, and the site datum (whether physically established or for location reference). All required forms are completed digitally in the field using a tablet. Archaeological resources and newly defined segments of linear resources such as ditches and railroads are documented using a Management Data Form (OAHP 1400) and appropriate component form (precontact archeology, historical archeology, or linear). When feasible, newly defined linear resource segments are at least 1/4 mile long per OAHP recommendations (Horn and Norton 2021:22); however, state and federal agency guidance regarding linears takes precedence, and therefore the extent of linear resources may vary based on the lead federal agency (Horn and Norton 2021:1). Newly identified historical buildings and structures are documented on an Architectural Inventory Form (OAHP1403). Previously recorded cultural resources identified during the OAHP file search are revisited and reevaluated on OAHP form 1405. If the resource has not been reevaluated within the last 10 years, the eligibility has changed, and/or substantial changes have occurred to the resource since the previous evaluation, ERO rerecords and reevaluates the resource by completing new state documentation forms. Location maps (Appendix A) and OAHP resource documentation forms (Appendix B) are provided to the land managing agency only and reside permanently with the agency and OAHP. Archaeological Sites The NRHP defines an archaeological site as “the place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains” (Little et al. 2000). Archaeological sites must retain sufficient context and integrity to convey purposeful and patterned human activity. Isolated finds (IFs) represent evidence of past human activity that is either not patterned (as in the inadvertent loss or discard of one or more artifacts), too limited to qualify as a site, or indicative of conscious discard of material culture manufactured and/or used for its primary purpose 153 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 12 ERO Resources Corporation elsewhere. Professional judgment is generally used to distinguish between purposeful activity and isolated occurrences of artifacts, which are often attributable to “background noise.” For purposes of this project, an archaeological site is defined as an artifact scatter of more than 10 artifacts in a 10-m-diameter area or one or more site features with or without artifacts. Isolated thermal features, rock art panels, and human burials are considered archaeological sites. Surface lithic scatters that occur in a very confined area and consist of a single raw material may be attributable to a single reduction episode such that documentation as an IF is appropriate. Project areas that contain suitable lithic raw material or are in proximity to a primary source may produce an abundance of lithic scatters. An evaluation of raw material, flake density, spatial distribution, and overall cultural context is required to make an informed decision of isolated reduction episodes. The production of a complete biface can produce dozens of thinning flakes, for example, yet provides limited information regarding human behavior. Lithic scatters with multiple raw material types and artifact classes are considered archaeological sites. A ceramic scatter may contain dozens of individual sherds, but if the sherds represent a single vessel, the scatter is considered an IF. Precontact site types are defined by the classes of artifacts found and the types of features (if present). Lithic scatters are defined by the presence of flaked lithic tools and debitage and are generally interpreted as representing short-term occupation and limited activities related to the production or rejuvenation of stone tools; camps are defined by the presence of diverse artifact classes, including ground stone and often thermal features, which indicate extended occupation, possibly by a greater number of people and demographics. Architectural sites are defined by the presence of the remains of habitation structures (such as stacked masonry walls or wickiups) or by rubble mounds and pit structure depressions. Sheltered camps, in contrast, are found under natural rock overhangs or in other protected places but without associated architecture. Finally, lithic procurement areas must exhibit primary or secondary lithic raw material available on-site, such as nodules eroding from bedrock, lamellar bedrock, or clasts found in a secondary context (such as alluvial cobbles) at a distance from the primary source. A quarry must exhibit evidence for precontact period excavation, evidenced by holes dug to access geologic outcrops or gravel sources. Precontact artifact terminology follows Adams (2002) for ground stone and Callahan (1979) and Andrefsky (1998) for biface stage, which is determined by establishing a width-to-thickness ratio. Historic Period Sites and Landscapes Historic period sites include buildings, homesteads, ranching, or agricultural complexes; mining complexes; sites built under federal work programs; timber harvesting; and industry, among other site types. Cultural landscapes are defined as “a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.” (U.S. Department of the Interior 1996) Age is established for potential historic sites by referencing GLO patents, county assessor records, state water division records, historical maps, and 15-minute USGS maps. Historical dumps and artifact scatters without features are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A single artifact class within a dump, such as 154 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 13 ERO Resources Corporation sanitary cans, is recorded as an isolated occurrence; conversely, dumps that exhibit diverse artifact classes and date prior to World War II may be documented as archaeological sites, given their information potential. Linear structures such as water conveyance systems, transmission lines, trails, and roads are documented as cultural resources. An isolated fence is generally not recorded as a resource unless it demarcates a boundary significant to the history of the area and can be physically linked with a purposeful activity; an isolated fence may also be documented as a feature of a larger resource. Depending on their cultural context, single or small clusters of mining prospect pits with no associated artifacts are documented as IFs due to their general ubiquity and limited information potential. Historical dirt roads, stock ponds, soil berms, fence lines, small irrigation ditches, pastures, and fields may be exempted from recording on a case-by-case basis, based on recent History Colorado guidance (Horn and Norton 2021; Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2007:18). In the report, ERO identifies such features observed within the project area and describes archival efforts to identify them as historical resources and confirm they are not potential historic properties. Criteria for Evaluation Documented cultural resources are evaluated for their eligibility to be listed in the NRHP. Significance criteria are codified under 36 CFR 60.4, summarized below: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history [Criterion A]; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past [Criterion B]; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction [Criterion C]; or d) that have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history [Criterion D]. Cultural resources that do not meet the 50-year age criterion but that are integral parts of a historic district or carry exceptional importance to the history of the region are considered for eligibility under criteria consideration (g). Certain kinds of properties are not usually considered for listing in the NRHP: “religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties achieving significance within the past fifty years” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1997). In order for a property to be eligible under a criteria consideration, the property must qualify for one of the four criteria and must possess integrity. Regional contexts and 155 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 14 ERO Resources Corporation multi-property nominations are used to evaluate significance under Criteria A, B, and C by defining a period of significance in which the cultural resource achieved significance given events important to the interpretation of history. Regional contexts identified in the Cultural Overview section are used to evaluate significance under Criterion D by determining whether a potential property has the potential to answer defined research questions or date to a defined period of significance. Historical sites representative of the built environment (i.e., buildings, structures, and engineered features) typically qualify for listing in the NRHP under at least one of the first three criteria (A through C). Archaeological sites typically qualify exclusively under Criterion D, with notable exceptions. An otherwise heavily disturbed site may still retain information potential from intact features (potential chronometric or subsistence data) or discrete areas of the site that retain physical integrity. Archaeological sites with significant sediment deposition remain potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP even without evaluative testing. Sites evaluated as “needs data” may be eligible under one or more criteria but require further work to determine NRHP eligibility. Cultural resources recommended “needs data” are predominantly archaeological sites (either precontact or historical) suspected of containing buried cultural deposits or historical sites where additional research is necessary to ascertain significance. Sites that are evaluated as not eligible for listing in the NRHP do not meet any of the eligibility criteria and/or have lost physical integrity. Cultural resources are assessed for integrity only if the site meets one or more eligibility criteria. Eroded or otherwise heavily disturbed archaeological sites are typically not considered eligible since the ability to convey significance in the form of intact cultural deposits (i.e., information potential) has been lost through natural or modern disturbance. For a property to be eligible under one or more criteria, the property must possess physical integrity and retain most if not all aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Most important of these for any building or structure are the aspects of location, design, and setting. Any property or linear resource that has been relocated/realigned no longer retains integrity of location. The aspect of design is important for demonstrating a building or structure’s association with significant historical or architectural trends, and is required for a property to qualify under Criterion A or C. Considering most historical properties are still in use, a resource can maintain integrity of design if materials have been maintained in-kind to the design of the original structure or building; for example, in-kind replacement of materials such as wood siding or railroad hardware with modern materials does not diminish integrity of design. However, modern maintenance and upgrades to earthen ditches such as the placement of modern diversion structures and concrete lining do diminish the ditch segment’s ability to support eligibility under Criterion A or C. The aspects of feeling and association are intrinsically linked to the aspect of setting; suburban development and modern intrusions on the setting of a potential historic property diminish its ability to convey significance. ERO uses the following generalized approach to assess integrity under Criterion D. Most archaeological sites are considered to be in their original location unless post-depositional processes, such as erosion, have transported artifacts away from their original context. Artifacts can move both vertically and 156 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 15 ERO Resources Corporation horizontally in subsurface contexts. The site retains location if no significant post-depositional processes have altered the primary context of the artifacts. The aspect of design is present if the relationship between features or activity loci is apparent and the spatial organization of the site is discernible; design may also be present in highly formalized tools such as projectile points, ceramic vessels, architectural elements, or individual features. Setting refers to the surrounding physical environment of a site, which may be affected by modern development or changes to the natural environment (such as important biotic species) through climate change or modern development. Setting is considered intact if the surrounding environment is similar to the environment during the time of occupation and for precontact indigenous sites may be unknowable. The aspect of materials is almost always retained due to the nature of the archaeological record and the material culture inherent to archaeological sites: if there were no physical artifacts or features (i.e., materials) present, there would not be a site. Workmanship is retained by the presence of artifacts, architecture, or features emblematic of a particular culture or people, such as a Puebloan kiva or a Clovis projectile point. The aspect of feeling is difficult to ascertain for archaeological sites, is often dependent on Native American perspective, and in general is unknowable. Very few of the physical features present during occupation of a precontact site still exist in the present to convey a property’s character. A site that retains association can be linked to a particular cultural-historical period through the presence of diagnostic artifacts or architectural elements or by chronometric means. Each documented cultural resource described in the Survey Results section, below, is provided a recommendation of NRHP eligibility and evaluated for project effects. Based on this documentation, the lead agency will provide a determination of eligibility for each documented cultural resource based on ERO’s recommendation and will provide a determination of project effect on historic properties. The lead agency will then provide the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers an opportunity to review and provide comment regarding NRHP eligibility and project effects per 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.5. If, during consultation between the lead agency and SHPO, a determination of “adverse effects to historic properties” occurs, further consultation is required to resolve adverse effects. File and Literature Review ERO conducted a file and literature review for the project with the OAHP on May 13, 2025 (File Search No. 26956) and the Park’s internal database. Three previous inventories and no previously recorded sites intersect and are in the vicinity of the project area (Table 1). The surveys are a combination of linear and block inventories that were conducted in relation to U.S. Highway 34 (U.S. 34), hydroplant stabilization, and watershed planning. Approximately 15 percent of the project area was previously surveyed between 2005 and 2015. Table 1. Previous cultural inventories in the project area. State Project No. Report Title (Date) Institution LR.CH.R38 An Intensive Archaeological Resource Inventory Along U.S. Highway 34 from Estes Park to the Entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer County, - Colorado Department of Transportation 157 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 16 ERO Resources Corporation State Project No.Report Title (Date)Institution Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Morten Reach-Fall River Watershed Resilience Demonstration Project, Larimer County, Colorado (2015) Ageiss for the Manitou Springs Public Works and the Housing, Urban Development LR.H.R11 Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the Fall River Hydroplant and Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project, Larimer County, Colorado (2015) Ageiss, Inc. for the Housing and Urban There are no previously recorded sites that overlap the project area. However, approximately 100 ft to the west is the Stanley Power Plant/Fall River Hydroelectric Plant/Estes Park Powerplant (5LR2164). The hydroelectric plant was listed for the NRHP in 1998, (Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2025; Kilsdonk 1997). The most recent assessment (2015) recommended the site as contributing to the Stanley Hotel District. While this resource does not intersect the project area, there is potential for additional unrecorded cultural materials that may overlap the project area. Additionally, ERO reviewed historical maps, public records, GLO records, and aerial images to assess the potential for unknown historical resources, such as roads, ditches, and buildings, in the project area. ERO assessed maps dating from 1874 to 1961 (General Land Office 2025; U.S. Geological Survey 1915a, 1959a, 1961a) and aerial images from 1938 to 2024 (Google, Inc. 2025; Nationwide Environmental Title Research 2025; University of Colorado Boulder 2025). Historical maps as early as 1915 indicate that an undocumented, former alignment of Fall River Road/U.S. Highway 34 and two unnamed buildings intersect the project area (U.S. Geological Survey 1915a). Later maps have the buildings mapped at the State Fish Hatchery, and Fall River Road shifted to its current alignment by the 1950s (U.S. Geological Survey 1957, 1959a). After the realignment of U.S. 34, the old road was converted to Fish Hatchery Road. While the road was originally a part of U.S. 34 the road was not reference to as Fish Hatchery Road until 1951 as cited in Larimer County Right-of-Way ordinance documentation (Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park 2013). Although the road is historical, because it was never historically named on maps and became a local residential thoroughfare the road would not offer any significant historical information, and therefore, are recommended to be excluded from documentation. Based on historical Colorado newspapers, the hatchery was built in 1907 and closed in 1982 (Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection 2025). The hatchery is visible in aerial imagery dating from 1938 and appears to have been expanded by 1947 (University of Colorado Boulder 2025). By 1985, the complex appears to have been partially destroyed (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 2025). The partial destruction correlates with the Lawn Lake Flood, which occurred in July 1982 and was noted to have severely damaged the hatchery (Estes Park Trail 1982, 1983b). Several additional buildings and roads have been constructed in the location of the hatchery since the 1980s (Google, Inc. 2025). Survey Results ERO documented a two new linear resources (5LR15706 and 5LR15750), one new segment of a linear resource (5LR13378.9), and a bridge (5LR15704) on NPS land in the APE (Table 2). 158 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 17 ERO Resources Corporation The Stanley Power Plant/Fall River Hydroelectric Plant/Estes Park Powerplant (5LR2164) is 100 ft west of the project area. ERO did not observe any associated artifacts or features of the power plant in the project area; however, the transmission line from the power plant does intersect the project area on NPS land and was documented (5LR15706). Additionally, the Estes Park Fish Hatchery Cultural Landscape (5LR15705) resource boundary intersects NPS land, however, no features or buildings of the hatchery intersect with NPS land. A full report of the survey area is provided in a separate report, Cultural Resource Survey Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development, Larimer County, Colorado (LR.PA.R34). Table 2. Revisited and newly documented sites on NPS land. Smithsonian Site No.Resource Type/Name NRHP Eligibility Recommendation Contributing to Cultural Landscape or District 5LR13378.9 Abandoned U.S. Highway 34/Fish Hatchery Road Eligible, nonsupporting N/A 5LR15704 Fish Hatchery Road Bridge Not eligible N/A 5LR15706 Stanley Power Plant Distribution Line Not eligible Noncontributing 5LR15750 21st Street Southwest Not eligible Resource Descriptions 5LR13378.9: Abandoned U.S. Highway 34 Description: 5LR13378.9 is on the south-facing slope of McGregor Mountain (Figure 4). The western extent of the road has been incorporated as part of extant Fish Hatchery Road, and the easternmost extent has been abandoned and remains as a dirt road grade. The southern portion of 5LR13378.9, as Fish Hatchery Road, crosses over Fall River. Vegetation consists of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), aspen (Populus tremuloides), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), various low-lying shrubs, wax currant (Ribes cereum), primrose (Primula vulgaris), wallflower (Erysimum cheiri), mullein (Verbascum), showy daisy (Erigeron speciosus), purple penstemon (Penstemon cobaea), cinquefoil (Potentilla), and false hairy aster (Heterotheca villosa), and various grasses. Ground visibility is 0 percent in the paved portions on Fish Hatchery Road and ranges from 5 to 50 percent in the overgrown dirt road grade. The sediment is a tan to brown gravelly silty loam with gravel. The sediments on average are relatively shallow; however, road cuts indicate that some areas are as deep as 1 ft. The road ranges in elevation from 8,013 ft to 8,098 ft (2,442 m to 2,468 m) asl. Centennial Archaeology first documented the abandoned portions of U.S. 34, distinct from the existing highway, in 2015 (Gensmer et al. 2015). Eight segments of old alignments of U.S. 34 have been separately documented. The road was recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP for its significance to the development of transportation and early twentieth-century recreation in the Park (Criterion A) (Gensmer and Donkin 2014). Only segments 5LR13378.7 and 5LR13378.8 have been determined supporting of the NRHP eligibility of the entire linear resource; the remaining segments have been determined nonsupporting (Briggs and Knapp 2020; Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2025; Engleman and Nordstrom 2019; Gensmer and Donkin 2014). 159 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 18 ERO Resources Corporation 5LR13378.9 is a segment of the historical U.S. 34 alignment. While various segments of U.S. 34 have shifted and abandoned other segments continue to be extant roads and are renamed. Currently, most of the road has been converted into Fish Hatchery Road, a paved two-lane road with narrow shoulders (less than 12 inches) (Figure 4). Segment 9 extends approximately 0.25 mile in a northwest-to-southeast direction and is 25 ft wide (shoulder to shoulder). The segment consists of a paved portion (presently named Fish Hatchery Road) that generally extends northwest to southeast, an abandoned spur extending northwest where Fish Hatchery Road curves to the northeast, and a dirt road that extents generally east to west and continues towards NPS facilities (Figure 5). The northwesternmost extension, 166 ft spur, remains as an abandoned two-track that is 11 to 12 ft wide and includes two tree blazes (F1 and F2) (Figure 6). The road is cut into the south-facing slope, and in some areas the ruts are 1 ft deep. Artifacts are limited to two 3/4-inch-diameter logs that look to be old fence posts or road markings scattered alongside the road grade. The spur is a faint, single-lane dirt extension visible on the 1938 aerial imagery, but is absent by 1947 (University of Colorado Boulder Libraries 1938a, 1947a). This abandoned portion may represent an older precursor to U.S. 34. This abandoned portion becomes difficult to trace due to vegetation overgrowth and modern disturbances and terminates in an open meadow 340 ft southeast of the Fall River Visitor Center. Another spur to the south continues 195 ft, as an unpaved dirt road extending to the west towards NPS facilities. This portion was likely the primary abandoned U.S. 34 route and now appears to function as a dirt access road to the Fall River Visitor Center. 160 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 19 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 4. 5LR13378.9, now named Fish Hatchery Road, view to the southeast. 161 34 21st S t S W Fish Hatchery Rd Fish H a t c h e r y R d Fall River 5LR15704 5LR15705 5LR15706 5LR15724 5LR15725 5LR15726 5LR15727 5LR15728 25087-MM05 F1 F2 ±Figure 5 5LR13378.9 Showing Different Portions of the Road Prepared for: Estes Park Housing Authority File: 25-087 CR Figures.aprx (ME) August 28, 2025 Cultural Resource Survey Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2025 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 200100 Feet COLORADO Location Pa t h : Z : \ S h a r e d \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 _ 0 0 0 \ 2 5 _ 0 8 7 F i s h H a t c h e r y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g D e v e l o p m e n t C l a s s I I I S u r v e y \ M a p s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s . a p r x Section 16, T5N, R73W; 6th PM USGS Estes Park, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000; 1979) Larimer County, Colorado Resource Boundary Area of Potential Effects Original U.S. Highway 34 Fish Hatchery Road Abandoned Spur National Park Service Land Survey Area 1:2,000 162 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 21 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 6. View of abandoned spur of 5LR13378.9, archaeologist between F1 and F2, view to the northwest. F1 is a tree blaze on a ponderosa pine. It measures 8 inches by 3 inches and is approximately 2 inches deep. The scar faces south/southwest, with no discernible axe marks. The surrounding bark curls inward and shows healing. F2 is a blaze on a ponderosa pine, measuring roughly 22 inches by 10 inches, and is about 3 inches deep. The scar faces northeast. Several jagged, step-like cuts in the exposed wood suggest it was cut with an axe. The bark along the edges is curled inward, indicating some degree of healing. The two blaze scars face each other from opposite ends of the abandoned road grade and likely served as route markers for the Fall River Entrance prior to the establishment of the current U.S. 34 alignment. 5LR13378.9 was likely part of the primary route to late nineteenth-century homesteads before the Park was established; however, the earliest mapped evidence of the segment dates to 1915, where it aligns with the historical route of U.S. 34 (Clatworthy 1915; Steely et al. 2021; U.S. Geological Survey 1915b). By 1937, both the extant and historical alignments of U.S. 34 are visible. The historical alignment remained in use until sometime after 1931, when the northern portion was converted into Fish Hatchery Road and ceased to function as part of U.S. 34 (U.S. Geological Survey 1931). Between 1915 and 1934, the Fall River entrance gateway changed three times in conjunction with shifting private and park boundaries. These changes in property boundaries also likely affected U.S. 34 alignment (and 5LR13378.9) and later use of the Fish Hatchery Road. Based on historical maps and land exchange records, segment 5LR13378.9 likely served as part of U.S. 34 between 1915 and 1934, before the route 163 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 22 ERO Resources Corporation was shifted north and straightened by the mid-1930s (Steely et al. 2021). 5LR13378.9 was later damaged in the 1982 Lawn Lake Flood, which destroyed the nearby Fish Hatchery Road Bridge (5LR15704) and severely damaged the Estes Park Fish Hatchery (Estes Park Trail 1982). The extant portion of the road was later repaired and remains in use today. The Park acquired the land for Aspenglen Campground (west of 5LR13378.9) from Pieter Hondius in 1923. Visitor access to the campground was available via multiple routes (Atkins 1982). Its original route is not precisely identified but was known to be at the northeastern end of the campground, and several access roads were constructed to access the campground, including from the east connecting to Fish Hatchery Road (Pickering 2024:173). By 1925 a right-of-way was granted through the Stanley Power Plant/Fall River Hydroelectric Plant property. Aerials from 1938 to 1947 show that the road was the primary route into the park (Figure 7). The location of what is now U.S. 34/Trail Ridge Road/Fall River Road was moved north from the original road in 1953 (Jackson and Kennedy 2021:74; Steely et al. 2021). After the construction of U.S. 34, 5LR13378.9 still served as a travel corridor but at a more local level, providing access to the Estes Park Fish Hatchery (5LR15705), the Stanley Power Plant (5LR2164), and private residences. Figure 7. 1938 (top) and 1947 (bottom) aerial photographs of the historical U.S. 34 alignment as indicated by the red arrow (5LR13378.9) (University of Colorado Boulder Libraries 1938b, 1947b). In 1949, a newspaper article discussed the additional 1948 rerouting of U.S. 34 and noted local discontent over the obstruction of the historical alignment, including the location of segment 164 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 23 ERO Resources Corporation 5LR13378.9, which had served as the main route into the Park for 60 years and was no longer accessible (Estes Park Trail 1949). A 1973 newspaper article identifies 5LR13378.9 as “Fall River Road (Fish Hatchery Road)” (Estes Park Trail 1973). After the closure of the fish hatchery, the Estes Park Board of Trustees briefly discussed changing the name from Fish Hatchery Road to Harmony Road to recognize the Harmony Foundation located along the same road; however, the change never occurred (Estes Park Trail 1983a). NRHP Eligibility: The road is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP for its significance to the development of early automobile transportation and recreation in the Park during the early to mid- twentieth century (1900 to 1947) (Criterion A) (Gensmer and Donkin 2014). The road is not associated with a significant person in history (Criterion B). Due to extensive modifications over time, including modern road surfacing, regrading, and partial abandonment, the road no longer retains characteristics that embody the distinctive design or construction methods of its period of significance (Criterion C). Additional documentation of the road is unlikely to yield important information about the history of transportation in Larimer County (Criterion D) (Gensmer and Donkin 2014). ERO recommends segment 5LR13378.9 nonsupporting of the eligibility of the abandoned U.S. 34. Integrity Assessment: 5LR13378.9 only retains aspects of location and association. Location: Aspect of location is intact because the segment (both paved and abandoned) follows the original alignment. Design: Aspects of design have diminished since the 1900s to 1947 by the paving and widening of the road. Setting: Aspects of setting have been impacted because a portion of the segment was incorporated into Fish Hatchery Road and by circulation changes in the area including additional roads and the paving/widening of part of the road segment, all of which has altered the road’s original configuration for traffic and transportation. Materials: Aspects of materials is diminished due to the road being paved, resurfaced, and replaced over time, which has removed the original road fabric. Workmanship: Aspects of workmanship is diminished, as evidence of historic construction techniques have been obscured or lost through maintenance and abandonment. Feeling: Aspects of feeling are no longer retained, because the road is incorporated into a modern roadway and no longer provides visitor access to Rocky Mountain National Park. Association: Aspects of association are retained as it continues to connect with original segments outside the project area, it remains adjacent to the Stanley Power Plant, and it provides NPS access (although limited) to the Park. 165 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 24 ERO Resources Corporation Management Recommendations: No further work. 5LR15704: Fish Hatchery Road Bridge Description: 5LR15704 spans Fall River, south of McGregor Mountain and north of Deer Mountain. Vegetation consists of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), aspen (Populus tremuloides), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), various low-lying shrubs, wax currant (Ribes cereum), primrose (Primula vulgaris), wallflower (Erysimum cheiri), mullein (Verbascum), showy daisy (Erigeron speciosus), purple penstemon (Penstemon cobaea), cinquefoil (Potentilla), and false hairy aster (Heterotheca villosa), and grasses. Soils are a gravelly brown sandy loam. The ground visibility is 0 percent on the bridge and approximately 20 percent in the areas surrounding the structure. The elevation is 8,028 ft (2,247 m) asl. The bridge is in fair condition with moderate defects in the concrete and timber (U.S. Department of Transportation 2025). The bridge spans Fall River along a previously known segment of U.S. 34, now known as Fish Hatchery Road (5LR13378.9) (Figure 8). The bridge is two lanes with no median. Metal guard rails support both sides of the road and extend past the bridge itself. The guard rails are constructed of galvanized metal, steel cables, and 2-inch-by-5-inch lumber posts bolted to the metal railing. The bridge is 210 ft long from the end of the guardrails and 40 ft wide. The structure is supported by four concrete wingwalls that are approximately 10 to 12 ft tall and 1 to 2 ft thick. Local boulders are used as riprap placed around the wingwalls. There is a polyvinyl chloride culvert under the bridge draining east into Fall River. Alongside the road bridge, running parallel and 6 ft to the southwest, is a pedestrian bridge, which was constructed after 2019 (Google, Inc. 2025). The pedestrian bridge measures 88 ft long by 12 ft wide and is a steel truss design constructed with a combination of steel and concrete. A concrete weir (approximately 10 ft to 15 ft long by 4 ft wide) is under the bridge (F1). It is located on the east side of the bridge and likely is used to measure water flow in the river. A steel pipe containing cables parallels under the bridge between the bridge and the pedestrian walkway. The pipe connects the weir to a measurement device that leads to a solar-powered flood warning monitoring station at the northwest corner of the bridge (F2). The monitoring feature is connected to and runs roughly 66 ft along the western side of the bridge, parallel to the guardrail, before it extends 6–8 ft down a concrete southwestern wingwall to Fall River below. The station access point, a brown metal pole with a solar panel, is situated on the northern end of the bridge to the west side of Fish Hatchery Road. 166 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 25 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 8. Overview of 5LR15704, view to the southeast. The structure number is EP-FHATRD2-FALL assigned by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The bridge carries Fish Hatchery Road, which is classified as an urban local route with annual daily traffic of 130 vehicles (U.S. Department of Transportation 2025). Topographic maps indicate that a bridge at this location was present as early as 1915 (U.S. Geological Survey 1915a), and the earliest aerial images confirm that a bridge was present in 1938 (University of Colorado Boulder Libraries 1938a, 1938b). This bridge has been replaced numerous times over the course of its history. Newspaper articles indicate that a road maintenance crew replaced the original bridge infrastructure with a new cement bridge beginning in the fall of 1924, and work was completed by 1925 (Estes Park Trail 1925). In the spring of 1982, the bridge was rebuilt, costing $70,000. However, several months later in July 1982, the bridge was destroyed by the Lawn Lake Flood. The following year, the bridge was once again in need of repairs, propelling an agency dispute between the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Larimer County, and the Army Corps of Engineers, in who would pay for the replacement of the bridge (Estes Park Trail 1983b, 1983c) (Figure 9). The dispute took close to 2 years to resolve before the bridge was finally replaced in 1985 (Estes Park Trail 1984; U.S. Department of Transportation 2025). 167 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 26 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 9. Photograph of 5LR15704 damage in June 1983 (Estes Park Trail 1983b). NRHP Eligibility: ERO recommends 5LR15704 not eligible for listing in the NRHP because the existing bridge is 40 years old and is not historical. The bridge is not associated with an important event or person in history (Criteria A and B). The bridge is not characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction (Criterion C). Additional documentation of the bridge is unlikely to yield important information about the history of transportation in Larimer County (Criterion D). Because the bridge is recommended not eligible, aspects of historical integrity were not assessed. Management Recommendations: No further work. 5LR15706: Stanley Power Plant Distribution Line Description: 5LR15706 is on the south-facing slopes of McGregor Mountain. The transmission line parallels Fall River, approximately 200 ft to the south. Vegetation consists of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), aspen (Populus tremuloides), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), various low-lying shrubs, wax currant (Ribes cereum), primrose (Primula vulgaris), wallflower (Erysimum cheiri), mullein (Verbascum), showy daisy (Erigeron speciosus), purple penstemon (Penstemon cobaea), cinquefoil (Potentilla), and false hairy aster (Heterotheca villosa), and grasses. Ground visibility ranges from 0 to 20 percent. Soils are a gravelly brown sandy loam. The elevation is 8,097 to 8, 045 ft (2,468 to 2,452 m) asl. The transmission line has been impacted by the construction of a concrete pedestrian walkway and the replacement of several transmission poles. 168 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 27 ERO Resources Corporation ERO evaluated the entire extent of 5LR15706 through a combination of aerial images and field documentation of the extant portion (0.25 mile) that intersected the project area. Beyond the project area, ERO reviewed the entire distribution line through aerial imagery and historical maps (Marshall 1937; Passenger Department of the Burlington Route 1897; Sanborn Map Company 1926; U.S. Geological Survey 1915c, 1957, 1961b). The entire transmission line historically began at the Stanley Power Plant (5LR2164) and terminated at the Stanley Hotel/Historic District (5LR478). 5LR478 was listed in the NRHP in 1977, and its boundaries were expanded in 1985 and in 1998 to include adjacent and related properties owned by F. O. Stanley, including 5LR2164. 5LR2164 was reassessed in 2015 and was once again determined to officially contribute to the historic district (Tyberg 2015). Although the Stanley Power Plant has been extensively documented, the transmission line has not been documented as a linear resource. 5LR15706 begins from the Stanley Power Plant (now named the Historic Fall River Hydroplant), runs northwest, and takes a sharp eastern turn between a concrete pedestrian walkway and an unnamed dirt road. The line continues east until U.S. 34 where it turns southwest and continues, parallelling U.S. 34 until it reaches the Stanley Hotel. The entire length is approximately 4 miles long. At the power plant, the electrical wires are connected to an H-frame transmitter pole that feeds the main powerhouse (Figure 10). The electrical boxes on the poles and wiring appear to be modern and maintained. The poles after the powerhouse are single poles with one cross arm and three ceramic insulators with wires and appear to be modern. The line continues east, crossing over Fall River Road twice and ultimately leading to the Stanley Hotel. 5LR15706 is now a lateral distribution line that provides electricity to the Historic Fall River Hydroplant. The primary line continues west following an NPS access road and east towards Estes Park. ERO documented one associated feature (Figure 11). F1 is a ponderosa pine with utility implements. The ponderosa pine is approximately 3 ft in diameter. One 2-by-4-inch and another smaller piece of lumber are nailed to the tree approximately 11 ft from the ground. A single strand of wire encompasses half of the diameter of the tree, while the other half is obscured because the tree has grown over it. The tree is between Fish Hatchery Road and a pedestrian walkway. It was likely an old utility pole but was abandoned when the utility line was improved, which is now 20 ft to the south. A smaller ponderosa (1 ft in diameter) is northwest of the primary tree and also has wood (natural branch) nailed approximately 6 ft up and a plastic fragment nailed to it. 169 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 28 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 10. Overview of 5LR15706 entering the main powerhouse, view to the southeast. Figure 11. 5LR15706, overview of F1. 170 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 29 ERO Resources Corporation The original line was constructed by the Estes Park and Electric Light and Power Company (EPEL&PC) in 1907 to provide electrical power to the Stanley Hotel and eventually the town of Estes Park, 3 miles to the southeast. EPEL&PC was incorporated in 1908 and was later called the Stanley Power Company between 1908 and 1928 (Estes Park Trail 1927; Fogelberg 2002; Tyberg 2015). The Stanley Hotel was the first in the United States to become all-electric (Discover our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary Series 2012). The plant originally produced 200 kilowatts of electricity from a water turbine, which pulled water originally from Fall River and Cascade Lake (Estes Park Trail 1927; Fogelberg 2002). Increasing power demands from the town propelled an additional turbine and generator to be installed in 1919, increasing the transmission power from the facility (Estes Park Trail 1998; Tyberg 2015). Historical maps do not show the distribution line location (Marshall 1937; Passenger Department of the Burlington Route 1897; Sanborn Map Company 1926; U.S. Geological Survey 1915c, 1957, 1961b). The distribution line provided electricity from April to October when hydropower was readily available (Estes Park Trail 1998). Although the power plant was in operation until the Lawn Lake Flood of 1982, in 1950 the Estes Powerplant was constructed in downtown Estes Park, providing most of the town’s needed electricity (Discover our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary Series 2012). It is unclear whether the line follows the original 1908 line, and the current poles are likely modern and maintained (Rueben Bergsten, Estes Park Power and Communication, personal communication, 2025). NRHP Eligibility: ERO recommends 5LR15706 as significant under Criterion A, but not eligible for listing in the NRHP due to a lack of integrity. The distribution line intersects with the Stanley Hotel/Historic District (5LR478) and recommended to be a non-contributing due to a lack of integrity. Although the distribution line leads directly from the hydroplant, it is unclear whether the current distribution line is in the same location of the historical Stanley Power Plant line that delivered power to the Stanley Hotel during the period of significance (1907 to 1912) (Kilsdonk 1997). The likely only remaining infrastructure from the Stanley Power Plant period is F1. All of the current poles are modern and maintained including the poles at the plant itself. The line is still associated with the Stanley Hotel, however, the distribution line no longer conveys electricity to the Stanley Hotel, and rather, now receives electricity from Estes Park via a distribution line (Criterion A). The distribution line is not associated with any important event or person in history (Criterion B). The distribution line no longer retains characteristics that embody the distinctive design or construction methods of its period of significance (Criterion C). Additional documentation of the distribution line is unlikely to yield important information about the history of electricity in Larimer County (Criterion D). Integrity Assessment: 5LR15706 only retains some aspects of integrity and association. Location: The integrity of location is partially intact. The transmitter poles at the hyrdoplant appear to be modern, however, they are likely in their original location. However, the remaining associated poles are modern and are not likely in the same location since 1907. 171 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 30 ERO Resources Corporation Design: Aspects of design are partially intact in that the line still functions as an electrical transmission line, however, it no longer provides electricity. Additionally, the original line appears to have used trees and only one of which remains (F1). Setting: Aspects of setting have diminished in that the surrounding landscape has changed since the construction of the Stanley Power Plant in 1907 by modern improvements to the buildings and the construction of a parking lot. It has also been impacted by improvements made to Fish Hatchery Road. Workmanship: Aspects of workmanship have been compromised because of the change of materials, height, and type of poles since 1907 to 1912. Materials: Aspect of materials have remained intact in that the original poles were likely constructed of wood. However, the line and insulators have been changed and most of the poles have been replaced. Feeling: Aspects of feeling have been compromised because the line does not provide electricity to the Stanley Power Plant, and it does not convey characteristics from 1907 to 1912. Association: Aspects of association are intact in that the line still functions as an electrical transmission line and is directly attached to the Stanley Power Plant. However, it no longer transmits power to the Stanley Hotel. Management Recommendations: No further work. The project will likely bury the utility lines in the project area but will not remove any poles. Because the poles are modern and have been replaced, project work on the poles will not impact the integrity of the transmission line. 5LR15750: 21st Street Southwest Description: 21st Street Southwest (5LR15750) is on a low south-facing slope south of U.S. 34 and west of Fish Hatchery Road. Fall River is 232 ft south. Vegetation consists of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), aspen (Populus tremuloides), wax currant (Ribes cereum), and low-lying grasses. Sediments are a gravelly, brown sandy loam. The ground visibility is 100 percent on the dirt surface and 0 percent on the asphalt surface. The elevation is 8,045 to 8,133 ft (2,452 to 2,479 m) asl. ERO documented the extent of 21st Street Southwest. The road is 0.41 miles long leading from Fish Hatchery Road to Aspenglen Campground. The road begins as a 25 ft wide asphalt surface road at the intersection with Fish Hatchery Road across from the entrance to the Estes Park Fish Hatchery (5LR15705) (Figure 12). From there, it extends northeast for 650 ft where it becomes a narrow 10 ft dirt surface road for 0.21 miles until a wide bend to the south. The road continues as a concrete pedestrian path for 259 ft, crossing Fall River, and continuing south until it terminates at a junction with C Loop Road of Aspenglen Campground. 172 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 31 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 12. 5LR15750, eastern extent. In 1924, F. O. Stanley granted the Park a right-of-way deed through the Stanley Power Plant property for the purposes of accessing the campground. Aspenglen Campground was constructed in 1925 and visitor access to the campground was available via multiple routes (Atkins 1982). 5LR15750 was one of these routes accessing the campground at the northeastern end from a bridge over Fall River (Jackson and Kennedy 2021; Pickering 2024:173). Although not precisely the same alignment, the western extent of the road is first mapped east of the Stanley Power Plant in a 1925 dependent survey (DM ID:175288) (Figure 13) (Bureau of Land Management 2025). By 1959, the road is mapped to its full extent, however, by 1965 the road is depicted as terminating north of Fall River and no longer connected to Aspenglen Campground (Figure 13). Aerial imagery indicates that the general alignment of the road has not changed since 1938 (University of Colorado Boulder Libraries 1938a). The road remained largely unchanged until 2011 when the first 650 ft were paved and in 2021 when the western extent was converted into a concrete pedestrian path (Google, Inc. 2025; Nationwide Environmental Title Research 2025). The current road is utilized to access the Stanley Power Plant and private residences. 173 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 32 ERO Resources Corporation Figure 13. 5LR15750 mapped in 1959 (left) and 1965 (right), red arrows are pointing to resource (U.S. Geological Survey 1959b, 1965). NRHP Eligibility: ERO recommends 5LR15750 not eligible for listing in the NRHP under any criteria and noncontributing to the Stanley Hotel/Historic District (5LR478). The road represents one of many original access roads to the Aspenglen Campground in Rocky Mountain National Park, but its function changed numerous times over the years. As such, the road was not important to the development or use of Aspenglen Campground or Rocky Mountain National Park (Criterion A). The road’s association with F.O. Stanley is secondary because Mr. Stanley only granted an access easement for the road (Criterion B). Due to extensive modifications over time, including modern road surfacing and regrading the road no longer retains characteristics that embody any distinctive design or construction methods (Criterion C). The road was one of many access routes into the campground and additional documentation of the road is unlikely to yield important information about the history of transportation in Larimer County or recreation in Rocky Mountain National Park (Criterion D). Management Recommendations: No further work. Summary and Management Recommendations ERO documented the Stanley Power Plant Distribution Line (5LR15706), one new segment of abandoned U.S. 34 (5LR13378.9), a bridge (5LR15704), and 21st Street Southwest (5LR15750) on NPS lands that intersect the project area (Table 3). All sites are recommended not eligible (5LR15704, 5LR15706) or nonsupporting of the overall eligibility of the resource for listing in the NRHP (5LR13378.9 and 5LR15750). ERO recommends no further work for all resources. ERO recommends a determination of “no adverse effect” pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 of the NHPA. Table 3. Management recommendations. Smithsonian Site No.Resource Type/Name NRHP Eligibility Recommendation Management Recommendations 5LR13378.9 Abandoned U.S. Highway 34/Fish Hatchery Road Eligible, nonsupporting No further work 5LR15704 Fish Hatchery Road Bridge Not eligible No further work 5LR15706 Stanley Power Plant Distribution Line Not eligible No further work 174 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 33 ERO Resources Corporation Smithsonian Site No. Resource Type/Name NRHP Eligibility Recommendation Management Recommendations 5LR15750 21st Street Southwest Not eligible No further work 175 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 34 ERO Resources Corporation References Cited Abbott, Carl, Stephen J. Leonard, and Thomas J. Noel. 2005. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. 5th ed. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. ACRE. 2002. Final Highways to the Sky: A Context of History of Colorado’s Highway System. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver. Adams, Jenny. 2002. Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology No. Cambridge University Press. Atkins, Ferrel D. 1982. Copy from Historic Structures, Volume II. Fall River Valley, Aspenglen/Endovalley. Baker, J.R. 1975. 5LK42 Cultural Resource Survey Form. On file at the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver. Black, Robert C., III. 1969. Island in the Rockies: A History of Grand County, Colorado, to 1930. Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, Colorado. Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. 2013. ORDINANCE NO. 07-13: An Ordinance Approving the Annexation of Certain Territory to the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, to Be Known and Designated as Fall River Addition 12,13,14,15,16,17 18 and 19 Addition. Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. Braddock, William A., and James C. Cole. 1990. Geologic Map of Rocky Mountain National Park and Vicinity, Colorado. Map, 1:50,000. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1973, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. Brett, John A. 2003. Ethnographic Assessment and Documentation of Rocky Mountain National Park. Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado at Denver. Briggs, Clive, and Dante Knapp. 2020. 5LR13378.8 Cultural Resource Documentation Form. Prepared by the Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Prepared for Rocky Mountain National Park. On file at the Colorado Office for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado. Brunswig, Robert H. 2005. Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Early Historic Native American Archeology of Rocky Mountain National Park: Volume 1 - Final Report of Systemwide Archeological Inventory Program Investigations by the University of Northern Colorado (1998-2002). Prepared for the National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park, Intermountain Region by the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley. Brunswig, Robert H. 2012. Apachean Archaeology in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, and the Front Range. In From the Land of Ever Winter to the American Southwest: Athapaskan 176 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 35 ERO Resources Corporation Migrations, Mobility, and Ethnogenesis, edited by Deni Seymour, pp. 20–36. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. Buchholtz, Curt W. 1983. Rocky Mountain National Park: A History. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder. On file at Rocky Mountain National Park. Bureau of Land Management. 2025. Bureau of Land Management General Land Office Records. Bureau of Land Management General Land Office Records. Database, https://glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx, accessed February 20, 2025. Butler, William B. 1997. Rocky Mountain National Park Research Design for Archeology. Rocky Mountain National Park. Butler, William B. 2005. The Historic Archaeology of Rocky Mountain National Park. Prepared for Rocky Mountain National Park Intermountain Region Department of the Interior. Report on file at Rocky Mountain National Park. Callahan, Errett (editor). 1979. The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1–180. Carothers, June E. 1951. Estes Park, Past and Present. The University of Denver Press, Denver. Chapman, S. S., G. E. Griffith, J. M. Omernik, A. B. Price, J. Freeouf, and D. L. Schrupp. 2006. Ecoregions of Colorado (Color Poster with Map, Descriptive Text, Summary Tables, and Photographs). Reston Virginia, U.S. Geological survey (map scale 1:1,200,000). Church, Minette C., Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J. Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn, Carl D. Späth, David R. Guilfoyle, and Steve E. Cassell. 2007. Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado. Clatworthy, Fred Payne (Colorado Historical Maps). 1915. Road and Trail Map of Estes Park and Vicinity, Colorado. 1:126,720. Colorado Historical Maps. Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection. 2025. Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection. Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/. Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2025. Compass. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Compass: Colorado’s On-Line Cultural Resource Database. https://gis.colorado.gov/compass/OAHP/M_Search_e.asp. Discover our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary Series. 2012. Colorado: Estes Powerplant. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/colorado-estes-powerplant.htm, accessed July 16, 2025. Encyclopedia Staff. 2016. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Colorado Encyclopedia. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/colorado-parks-and-wildlife. Accessed 14 July 2023. 177 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 36 ERO Resources Corporation Engleman, Jenny, and Ryan Nordstrom. 2019. 5LR13378.8 Cultural Resource Documentation Form. Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation. Prepared for Rocky Mountain National Park. On file at the Colorado Office for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado. Estes Park Trail. 1912. Estes Park Fish Hatchery. Estes Park Trail, July 6. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19120706.2.11&e=-------en-20--1-- img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA--------0------, accessed June 16, 2025. Estes Park Trail. 1925. Road Maintenance Crews Hard at Work in Park. Estes Park Trail, April 10, Volume 5, Number 1 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19250410- 01.2.2&e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22Estes+Park+Fish+Hatchery%22-------0---- --. Estes Park Trail. 1927. Estes Park Has Many Attractive Hotels and Lodges. Estes Park Trail, June 3, Volume 7, Number 9 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19270603- 01.2.83&srpos=7&e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22Stanley+power+plant%22----- --0-Larimer-----. Estes Park Trail. 1949. Property Owners on Fall River Oppose Closing of Old Road. Estes Park Trail, September 30, Volume 29, Number 24 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19490930-01.2.38&srpos=83&e=----- --en-20--81--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22State+Fish+Hatchery%22-------0-Larimer-----. Estes Park Trail. 1973. Advertisements Column 1. Estes Park Trail, June 29, Volume 3, Number 28 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19730629-01.2.46.1&srpos=5&e=-- 1926---1983--en-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22Fish+Hatchery+Road%22-------0------. Estes Park Trail. 1982. EP Hatchery Still in Business Despite Major Flood Damages. Estes Park Trail, August 11, Volume 12, Number 43 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19820811-01.2.29&srpos=169&e=--- ----en-20--161--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22Estes+Park+Fish+Hatchery%22-------0------. Estes Park Trail. 1983a. Referrals Top Town Agenda. Estes Park Trail, January 21, Volume 12, Number 90 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19830121- 01.2.89&srpos=31&e=--1926---1983--en-20--21--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA- %22Fish+Hatchery+Road%22-------0------. Estes Park Trail. 1983b. Spring Runoff Watch Continues: River Undercuts Hatchery Road. Estes Park Trail, June 22, Volume 13, Number 29 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19830622-01.2.3&srpos=47&e=-- 1926---1983--en-20--41--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22Fish+Hatchery+Road%22-------0------. Estes Park Trail. 1983c. 4 Months Later, Bridge Still in Disrepair as Agencies Feud. Estes Park Trail, October 21, Volume 13, Number 64 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19831021-01.2.5&srpos=42&e=-- 1926---1983--en-20--41--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22Fish+Hatchery+Road%22-------0------. 178 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 37 ERO Resources Corporation Estes Park Trail. 1984. More Bridge Repair Delays Anticipated. Estes Park Trail, April 4, Volume 14, Number 7 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19840404- 01.2.35&srpos=27&e=--1983---1986--en-20--21--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA- %22Fish+Hatchery+Road%22-------0------. Estes Park Trail. 1998. Fall River Hydro Plant on National Register. Estes Park Trail, July 10, Volume 29, Number 8 edition. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ETG19980710- 01.2.50&srpos=3&e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-%22Fall+River+power+plant%22-- -----0-Larimer-----. Fenneman, Nevin M. 1931. Physiography of Western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York. Fogelberg, Joel. 2002. Fall River Hydroelectric Plant. History Colorado. https://www.historycolorado.org/grant-news/2002/01/01/fall-river-hydroelectric-plant, accessed July 16, 2025. General Land Office. 2025. Search Results - BLM GLO Records. https://glorecords.blm.gov/results/default.aspx?searchCriteria=type=patent|st=CO|cty=|twp_nr =2|twp_dir=S|rng_nr=68|rng_dir=W|sec=22|m=06|sp=true|sw=true|sadv=false. Gensmer, Kristen, and Eva Donkin. 2014. 5LR13378.7 Cultural Resource Documentation Form. Prepared by Centennial Archaeology. Prepared for Rocky Mountain National Park. On file at the Colorado Office for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado. Gensmer, Kristen, Eva Donkin, Sarah F Herrera, Jena Sadd, Rosemarie Pavel, and Nicole C. Boughton. 2015. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Of The Proposed Flood-Related Road Reconstruction Project Along U.S. Highway 34 From Loveland To Estes Park In Larimer County, Colorado Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. On file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society, Denver. Gilmore, Kevin P., Marcia Tate, Mark Chenault, Bonnie Clark, Terri McBride, and Margaret Wood. 1999. Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado. Google, Inc. 2025. Google Earth Pro. Google Earth Pro Version 7.3.3.7786 (64-Bit). Online database, https://earth.google.com/web. Hafen, LeRoy R., and Anne W. Hafen. 1965. Rufus B. Sage, His Letters and Papers, 1836–1847. Two volumes. Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, California. Holland, F. Ross, Jr. 1971. Rocky Mountain National Park—Historical Background Data. On file at Rocky Mountain National Park and National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Horn, Jonathon C., and Holly K. Norton. 2021. Walking the Line: Guidance for Identification, Evaluation, and Field Recordation of Historical Linear Sites in Colorado. Written by Alpine Archaeological Consultants, LLC for History Colorado. 179 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 38 ERO Resources Corporation Jackson, Dan, and Allison Kennedy. 2021. National Park Service Cultural Landscape Inventory, Aspenglen Campground, Rocky Mountain National Park. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Colorado. Kilsdonk, Betty. 1997. 5LR2164 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Prepared by Town of Estes. On file at the Colorado Office for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado. Little, Barbara, Erika M. Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle Jr., and John Knoerl. 2000. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Marshall, R.B. 1937. Rocky Mountain National Park Topographic Map: Area of Study, Surveyed from 1912 to 1915. Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. McBeth, Sally. 2007. Native American Oral History and Cultural Interpretation in Rocky Mountain National Park. University of Northern Colorado, Prepared for Rocky Mountain National Park. McWilliams, Carl. 1993. Durango Fish Hatchery - An Historical Analysis. Submitted to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Mutel, Cornelia Fleischer, and John C. Emerick. 1992. From Grassland to Glacier: The Natural History of Colorado and the Surrounding Region. Johnson Books, Boulder. Nationwide Environmental Title Research. 2025. Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC. Online database, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2025. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2007. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Manual Guideline for Identification: History and Archaeology. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Denver, CO. Passenger Department of the Burlington Route (Passenger Department of the Burlington Route). 1897. Estes Park, Colorado: A Health Resort in the Heart of the Rockies. Passenger Department of the Burlington Route. Pickering, James H. 2005. America’s Switzerland: Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park, the Growth Years. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Pickering, James H. 2024. He Came and Stayed. Pieter Hondius: The Estes Park Years. Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. Press, Estes Park, Colorado. Sanborn Map Company (Sanborn-Perris Map Company). 1926. Sanborn Map of Estes Park. Sanborn- Perris Map Company. University of Colorado Boulder Archives. 180 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 39 ERO Resources Corporation Simmons, Virginia McConnell. 2002. Bayou Salado: The Story of South Park (Revised Edition). University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Standish, Sierra. 2004. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form: Rocky Mountain National Park MPS (Additional Documentation—Trails). On file at Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Steely, James, Jeremy Huey, and Anderson Hallas Architects. 2021. Fall River Entrance Rocky Mountain National Park Larimer County, Colorado Historic Context and Review of Other East-Park Entrances, 1917–1960. National Park Service, Estes Park, Colorado. TEC, Inc. 2010. Rocky Mountain National Park Historic Context. Prepared for and on file at Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Tyberg, Joel. 2015. Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the Fall River Hydroplant and Upper Fish Hatchery Reaches Stabilization Project, Larimer County, Colorado. Prepared by AGEISS, Inc. On file at the Colorado Office for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado. University of Colorado Boulder. 2025. Aerial Photographs of Colorado. https://cudl.colorado.edu/luna/servlet, accessed December 9, 2024. University of Colorado Boulder Libraries. 1938a. CU Aerial Photographs of Colorado: Larimer BOW 21-40. https://cudl.colorado.edu/luna/servlet/detail/UCBOULDERCB1~17~17~37005~103599:BOW-21- 40?sort=sortorder%2Cdate&qvq=w4s:/where%2FEstes%2BPark%2Fwhen%2F1938-10- 26;sort:sortorder%2Cdate;lc:UCBOULDERCB1~17~17&mi=12&trs=15. University of Colorado Boulder Libraries. 1938b. CU Aerial Photographs of Colorado: Larimer BOW 22-26. https://cudl.colorado.edu/luna/servlet/detail/UCBOULDERCB1~17~17~37005~103599:BOW-21- 40?sort=sortorder%2Cdate&qvq=w4s:/where%2FEstes%2BPark%2Fwhen%2F1938-10- 26;sort:sortorder%2Cdate;lc:UCBOULDERCB1~17~17&mi=12&trs=15. University of Colorado Boulder Libraries. 1947a. CU Aerial Photographs of Colorado: Larimer BOW 34- 158. https://cudl.colorado.edu/luna/servlet/detail/UCBOULDERCB1~17~17~39152~104269:BOW-34- 158?sort=sortorder%2Cdate&qvq=w4s:/where%2FEstes%2BPark%2Fwhen%2F1947-10- 04;sort:sortorder%2Cdate;lc:UCBOULDERCB1~17~17&mi=3&trs=5. University of Colorado Boulder Libraries. 1947b. CU Aerial Photographs of Colorado: Larimer BOW 34- 160. https://cudl.colorado.edu/luna/servlet/detail/UCBOULDERCB1~17~17~39155~104270:BOW-34- 160?sort=sortorder%2Cdate&qvq=q:estes%20park;sort:sortorder%2Cdate;lc:UCBOULDERCB1~1 7~17&mi=30&trs=31. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: With Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Edited by Charles A. Birnbaum with Christine Capella Peters. Designed by Charles A. Birnbaum and Kathleen J. Madigan. Washington, D.C. 181 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 40 ERO Resources Corporation U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1997. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/, accessed December 12, 2018. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2025. National Bridge Inventory. Electronic document, https://geodata.bts.gov/datasets/usdot::national-bridge- inventory/explore?location=40.036933%2C-105.270149%2C15.00. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Meet Your National Fish Hatchery System. https://www.fws.gov/story/meet- your-national-fish-hatchery- system#:~:text=National%20fish%20hatcheries%20were%20some,conservation%20aquaculture %20and%20applied%20science., accessed January 21, 2025. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. N.D. Leadville National Fish Hatchery. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/fish-hatchery/leadville/about-us, accessed July 14, 2023. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1915a. Longs Peak, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1915b. Longs Peak, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1915c. Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1931. Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:125,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1957. Estes Park, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1959a. Longs Peak, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1959b. Estes Park, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1961a. Longs Peak, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1961b. Estes Park, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey). 1965. Estes Park, Colorado. Topographic Map. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. 182 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Cultural Resource Location Map For Official Use Only: Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) 183 5LR15704 5LR15705 5LR13378.9 5LR15706 5LR15724 5LR15725 5LR15726 5LR15727 5LR15728 5LR15750 5LR478 Prepared for: Estes Park Housing Authority File: 25-087 CR Figures.aprx (ME) September 9, 2025 ±Figure A1 Cultural Resource Location Map Cultural Resource Survey On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2025 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 2,0001,000 Feet COLORADO Location Pa t h : Z : \ S h a r e d \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 _ 0 0 0 \ 2 5 _ 0 8 7 F i s h H a t c h e r y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g D e v e l o p m e n t C l a s s I I I S u r v e y \ M a p s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s . a p r x Section 16, T5N, R73W; 6th PM USGS Estes Park, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000; 1979) Larimer County, Colorado Resource Boundary Area of Potential Effects Survey Area National Park Service Land 1:24,000 5LR15704 5LR15705 5LR13378.9 5LR15706 5LR15724 5LR15725 5LR15726 5LR15727 5LR15728 5LR15750 5LR478 184 5LR15706 5LR478 Prepared for: Estes Park Housing Authority File: 25-087 CR Figures.aprx (ME) September 9, 2025 ±Figure A2 Cultural Resource Location Map Cultural Resource Survey On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2025 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 2,0001,000 Feet COLORADO Location Pa t h : Z : \ S h a r e d \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 _ 0 0 0 \ 2 5 _ 0 8 7 F i s h H a t c h e r y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g D e v e l o p m e n t C l a s s I I I S u r v e y \ M a p s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s \ 2 5 - 0 8 7 C R F i g u r e s . a p r x Section 16, T5N, R73W; 6th PM USGS Estes Park, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000; 1979) Larimer County, Colorado Resource Boundary 1:24,000 185 On National Park Service Lands Fish Hatchery Affordable Housing Development Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project No. 25-087 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B OAHP Cultural Resource Documentation Forms For Official Use Only: Disclosure of Site Locations Prohibited (43 CFR 7.18) 186 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado September 22, 2022 Terracon Project No. 20227095 Prepared for: Fish Hatchery Development Partners LLC Woodland Park, Colorado Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Fort Collins, Colorado 187 188 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... i Findings and Opinions ................................................................................................................. i Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ ii Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Site Description .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of Services........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Standard of Care ............................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Additional Scope Limitations, ASTM Deviations and Data Gaps ...................................... 2 1.5 Reliance ......................................................................................................................... 3 1.6 Client Provided Information ............................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 5 3.1 Historical Topographic Maps, Aerial Photographs, Sanborn Maps................................... 5 3.2 Historical City Directories ................................................................................................ 6 3.3 Site Ownership ............................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Title Search .................................................................................................................... 7 3.5 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations ..................................................... 7 3.6 Interviews Regarding Current and Historical Site Uses.................................................... 7 3.7 Prior Report Review ....................................................................................................... 8 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Federal and State/Tribal Databases ................................................................................ 8 4.2 Local Agency Inquiries .................................................................................................. 10 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ....................................................................................................... 10 5.1 General Site Information ............................................................................................... 10 5.2 Overview of Current Site Occupants ............................................................................. 12 5.3 Overview of Current Site Operations ............................................................................. 12 5.4 Site Observations ......................................................................................................... 12 6.0 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE ........................................................................ 15 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ......................................................................................................... 15 7.1 Visual Observations for Suspect Asbestos .................................................................... 16 7.2 Visual Observations for Microbial Growth ...................................................................... 21 7.3 Visual Observations of Suspect Lead-Based Paint ........................................................ 21 7.4 Wetland Records Review.............................................................................................. 22 7.5 Threatened/Endangered Species Records Review ....................................................... 23 7.6 Historic Properties/Archaeological Resources Review................................................... 25 8.0 DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ 28 189 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDICES APPENDIX A Exhibit 1 - Topographic Map Exhibit 2 - Site Diagram Exhibit 3 – Wetlands Map APPENDIX B Site Photographs APPENDIX C Historical Documentation and User Questionnaire APPENDIX D Environmental Database Information APPENDIX E Credentials APPENDIX F Description of Terms and Acronyms 190 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P20227095, dated July 12, 2022, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E1527-21,Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The ESA was conducted under the supervision or responsible charge of Christina L. Ruble, Environmental Professional. Victoria L. Vollert and Jonathan Brown performed the site reconnaissance on August 25, 2022. Findings and Opinions A summary of findings is provided below. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. Site Description and Use The site is located at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado and comprises a total of approximately 40 acres, corresponding to a portion of Larimer County parcel number 3516000938. The site is developed with Fish Hatchery Road, the Fall River Hydroplant and Museum, O’Conner Picnic Pavilion, and several residential and commercial structures. Historical Information Based on a review of historical information, the site has been developed with ponds associated with a State Fish Hatchery, several buildings, and Fish Hatchery Road has been present though the site since at least 1953. Fall River flows through the site from west to east. The Fall River Power Plant has been present since 1909. By 1985, the ponds associated with the Fish Hatchery no longer appear on the site. The site remained relatively unchanged through 2021. Adjoining properties have consisted of vacant land with some residential development, a golf course to the east, a campground to the west, and a building similar to the present day Fall River Visitors Center to the northwest of the site between 1999 through 2021. Records Review Selected federal and state environmental regulatory databases were reviewed. Regulated facilities were not identified within the standard ASTM search distances. Site Reconnaissance During the site reconnaissance, the site was observed to consist of forested land, several residential buildings, and commercial buildings including a former power plant and museum. RECs were not identified during the site reconnaissance. 191 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable ii Adjoining Properties Adjoining properties include the Fall River Visitor Center, Fall River Road and vacant land to the north, residential properties to the east, vacant land and Estes Park Memorial Garden to the south, and vacant land to the west. Additional Services Additional services beyond the scope of the ASTM 1527-21 Phase I ESA include the following: n Visual Observations for Suspect Asbestos Terracon visually assessed the interior and exterior of the on-site buildings for suspect ACM. Suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) was identified. n Visual Observations for Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Since the on-site buildings were constructed before 1978, it is likely that lead- based paint is present in these materials; however, the presence of lead can only be confirmed through bulk sampling and laboratory analysis. n Visual Observations for Microbial Growth Terracon observed obvious indications of significant water infiltration throughout Building ID 4: Telephone/Hatchery Building. n Wetland Records Review Terracon’s review of United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map identified mapped wetlands or other potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on the site. n Threatened/Endangered Species Records Review Literature and agency file searches were conducted to review the potential occurrence of federally- and state-listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species located in the site vicinity. Based on the project site consisting of forested areas surrounded by vacant land with some developed land, the site is likely to support T&E species. n Historic Properties/Archaeological Resource Review Based on the results of our desktop cultural resources records review, known historic properties are within the project area, and the project area likely overlaps a NRHP-listed historic district. Conclusions We have performed a Phase I ESA consistent with the procedures included in ASTM Practice E1527-21 at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road in Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, the site. Any 192 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable iii exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.4 of this report. Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs) and/or Significant Data Gaps (SDGs) were not identified in connection with the site. Recommendations Based on the scope of services, limitations, and conclusions of this assessment, Terracon did not identify RECs, CRECs, or SDGs in connection with the site. As such, no additional investigation is warranted at this time. Terracon recommends conducting a thorough asbestos survey prior to disturbance of suspect ACM during planned renovations or building demolition. Since the on-site buildings were constructed before 1978, it is likely that lead-based paint is present in these materials; however, the presence of lead can only be confirmed through bulk sampling and laboratory analysis. Based on the presence of mapped wetlands on the site and potential for threatened or endangered (T&E) species, a wetland/waters of the U.S. delineation and T&E surveys are recommended. Based on previous cultural resource surveys in the vicinity, the project area has the potential for undocumented prehistoric and historical-period archaeological sites. 193 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Site Description Site Name Fish Hatchery Estes Park Site Location/Address 1754 Fish Hatchery Road, Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado Land Area Approximately 40 acres Site Improvements Fish Hatchery Road, the Fall River Hydroplant and Museum, O’Conner Picnic Pavilion, and several residential and commercial structures Anticipated Future Site Use Redevelopment for multi-family housing Reason for the ESA Acquiring the site The location of the site is depicted on Exhibit 1 of Appendix A, which was reproduced from a portion of the USGS 7.5-minute series topographic map. The site and adjoining properties are depicted on the Site Diagram, which is included as Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. Acronyms and terms used in this report are described in Appendix F. 1.2 Scope of Services This Phase I ESA was performed in accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P20227095 dated July 12, 2022, and was conducted consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The purpose of this ESA was to assist the client in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of this report. Recognized environmental conditions are defined by ASTM E1527-21 as “(1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” A de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition. This purpose was undertaken through user-provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties. Limitations, ASTM deviations, and significant data gaps (if identified) are noted in the applicable sections of the report. 194 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 2 As requested by the client, the following additional services were performed: n Visual Observations for Suspect Asbestos n Visual Observations for Microbial Growth n Visual Observations for Suspect Lead-Based Paint n Wetland Records Review n Threatened/Endangered Species Records Review n Historic Properties/Archaeological Resource Review 1.3 Standard of Care This ESA was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of this profession, undertaken in similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. We have endeavored to meet this standard of care, but may be limited by conditions encountered during performance, a client-driven scope of work, or inability to review information not received by the report date. Where appropriate, these limitations are discussed in the text of the report, and an evaluation of their significance with respect to our findings has been conducted. Phase I ESAs, such as the one performed at this site, are of limited scope, are noninvasive, and cannot eliminate the potential that hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances are present or have been released at the site beyond what is identified by the limited scope of this ESA. In conducting the limited scope of services described herein, certain sources of information and public records were not reviewed. It should be recognized that environmental concerns may be documented in public records that were not reviewed. No ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. Performance of this practice is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. The limitations herein must be considered when the user of this report formulates opinions as to risks associated with the site or otherwise uses the report for any other purpose. These risks may be further evaluated – but not eliminated – through additional research or assessment. We will, upon request, advise you of additional research or assessment options that may be available and associated costs. 1.4 Additional Scope Limitations, ASTM Deviations and Data Gaps Based upon the agreed-on scope of services, this ESA did not include subsurface or other invasive assessments, vapor intrusion assessments or indoor air quality assessments (i.e. evaluation of the presence of vapors within a building structure), business environmental risk evaluations, or other services not particularly identified and discussed herein. Credentials of the company (Statement of Qualifications) have not been included in this report but are available upon request. Pertinent documents are referred to in the text of this report, and a separate reference section has not been included. Reasonable attempts were made to obtain information within the scope and time constraints set forth by the client; however, in some instances, information requested is not, or was not, received by the issuance date of the report. Information obtained for this ESA was received from several sources that we believe to be reliable; 195 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 3 nonetheless, the authenticity or reliability of these sources cannot and is not warranted hereunder. This ESA was further limited by the following: n Terracon was unable to research site use prior to 1953, at which time the site was developed. Based on the type of development of the site at that time, Terracon does not believe that the lack of historical information prior to 1953 constitutes a significant data gap. An evaluation of the significance of limitations and missing information with respect to our findings has been conducted, and where appropriate, significant data gaps are identified and discussed in the text of the report. However, it should be recognized that an evaluation of significant data gaps is based on the information available at the time of report issuance, and an evaluation of information received after the report issuance date may result in an alteration of our conclusions, recommendations, or opinions. We have no obligation to provide information obtained or discovered by us after the issuance date of the report, or to perform any additional services, regardless of whether the information would affect any conclusions, recommendations, or opinions in the report. This disclaimer specifically applies to any information that has not been provided by the client. This report represents our service to you as of the report date and constitutes our final document; its text may not be altered after final issuance. Findings in this report are based upon the site’s current utilization, information derived from the most recent reconnaissance and from other activities described herein; such information is subject to change. Certain indicators of the presence of hazardous substances, petroleum products or PFAS compounds may have been latent, inaccessible, unobservable, or not present during the most recent reconnaissance and may subsequently become observable (such as after site renovation or development). Further, these services are not to be construed as legal interpretation or advice. 1.5 Reliance This ESA report is prepared for the exclusive use and reliance of Fish Hatchery Development Partners LLC. Use or reliance by any other party is prohibited without the written authorization of Fish Hatchery Development Partners LLC and Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon). Reliance on the ESA by the client and all authorized parties will be subject to the terms, conditions and limitations stated in the proposal, ESA report, and Terracon’s Agreement. The limitation of liability defined in the Agreement is the aggregate limit of Terracon’s liability to the client and all relying parties. Continued viability of this report is subject to ASTM E1527-21 Sections 4.6. If the ESA will be used by a different user (third party) than the user for whom the ESA was originally prepared, the third party must also satisfy the user’s responsibilities in Section 6 of ASTM E1527-21. 196 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 4 1.6 Client Provided Information Prior to the site visit, Jim Potter, client’s representative, was asked to provide the following user questionnaire information as described in ASTM E1527-21 Section 6. Client Questionnaire Responses Client Questionnaire Item Client Did Not Respond Client’s Response Yes No Specialized Knowledge or Experience that is material to a REC in connection with the site. X Actual Knowledge of Environmental Liens or Activity Use Limitations (AULs) that may encumber the site. X Actual Knowledge of a Lower Purchase Price because contamination is known or believed to be present at the site. *Not applicable Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information that is material to a REC in connection with the site. X Obvious Indicators of Releases at the site.X * Not applicable - Land donation from the Town Terracon’s consideration of the client provided information did not identify RECs. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix C. 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING Physical Setting Information Source Topography Site Elevation Approximately 8,000 feet above sea level USGS Topographic Map, Estes Park, Colorado Quadrangle, 1977 (Appendix A) Topographic Gradient Gently to steeply sloping towards the south Closest Surface Water Fall River flows through the site to the east. Soil Characteristics Soil Type Isolation gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 35 percent slopes, Rofork-Chasmfalls complex, 5 to 35 percent slopes, Chaffee loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Larimer County, CO NRCS Web Soil Survey, accessed September 2022 Description Isolation gravelly sandy loam: Somewhat excessively drained with medium runoff 197 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 5 Physical Setting Information Source Rofork-Chasmfalls complex: Somewhat excessively drained with very high runoff Chaffee loam: poorly drained with low runoff potential Geology/Hydrogeology Formation Granitic rocks of 1400-m.y. age group Tweto, Ogden, 1979, Geologic Map of Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Special Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. Description Includes Sherman Granite and unnamed granitic rocks Estimated Depth to First Occurrence of Groundwater Approximately 7 to 18 feet bgs Previous Terracon Geotechnical investigation conducted on the site (August 2022) *Hydrogeologic Gradient Not known - may be inferred to be parallel to topographic gradient (primarily to the south). * The groundwater flow direction and the depth to shallow, unconfined groundwater, if present, would likely vary depending upon seasonal variations in rainfall and other hydrogeological features. Without the benefit of on-site groundwater monitoring wells surveyed to a datum, groundwater depth and flow direction beneath the site cannot be directly ascertained. 3.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION Terracon reviewed the following historical sources to develop a history of the previous uses of the site and surrounding area, in order to help identify RECs associated with past uses. Copies of selected historical documents are included in Appendix C. 3.1 Historical Topographic Maps, Aerial Photographs, Sanborn Maps Readily available historical USGS topographic maps and selected historical aerial photographs (at approximately 10 to 15-year intervals) were reviewed to evaluate land development and obtain information concerning the history of development on and near the site. Reviewed historical topographic maps, and aerial photographs are summarized below. Historical fire insurance maps produced by the Sanborn Map Company were requested from ERIS to evaluate past uses and relevant characteristics of the site and surrounding properties. Based upon inquiries to the above-listed Sanborn provider, Sanborn maps were not available for the site. n Topographic map: USGS, Estes Park, Colorado, 1957, 1961, 1977, 2013, 2016 and 2019 (1:24,000) n Aerial photograph: USGS, 1953; NASA, 1973; USGS, 1975, 1985, 1990, 1999; USDA, 2005, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021 (1” = 500’) 198 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 6 Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs Direction Description Site Developed with multiple buildings, Fish Hatchery Road, multiple ponds and Fall River flowing though the site (1953); appears developed with a Power Plant and Fish Hatchery (1957-1975); previous on-site ponds no longer appear, site buildings remain relatively unchanged (1985-2021) North Vacant land and Fall River Road (1953); apparent residential and commercial buildings to the northwest of the site (1957-1990); building similar to present day Visitor’s Center (1999-2021) East Vacant land with apparent residential buildings (1953); golf course to the southeast of the site and apparent residential properties (1957-1977); residential properties (1985-2021) South Vacant land (1953-1977); Vacant land and Estes Valley Memorial Gardens (1985-2021) West Vacant land and Aspenglen campground (1953-2021) 3.2 Historical City Directories The city directories used in this study were made available through ERIS (selected years reviewed: 1999-2020) and were reviewed at approximate five-year intervals, if readily available. Listings were not available prior to 2003. The current street addresses associated with the site were identified as 1703, 1705, 1707, 1746, and 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. Historical City Directories Direction Description Site 1703 Fish Hatchery Road: Individual Names (2012-2020) 1705 Fish Hatchery Road: No Listings 1707 Fish Hatchery Road: Individual Names (2003-2020) 1746 Fish Hatchery Road: Fall River Hydro Interpretive (2003-2020) 1754 Fish Hatchery Road: FallRvr Hydro MSM (2003) North 3355 Fall River Road: No Listings 3450 Fall River Road: Rocky Mountain Gateway Gift (2003-2016); ATM (2016); Trailhead Restaurant (2003-2020); George & Beth E Carle (2008-2020); East 2864 Fall River Road: Individual Names (2003-2020) 1600 Fish Hatchery Road: Individual Names (2003-2020); Harmony Foundation Inc (2003-2020) South Vacant land (No address) West Vacant land (No address) 199 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 7 3.3 Site Ownership Based on a review of information obtained from the Larimer County Assessor’s records, the current site owner is Town of Estes Park. 3.4 Title Search At the direction of the client, a title search was not included as part of the scope of services. Unless notified otherwise, we assume that the client is evaluating this information outside the scope of this report. 3.5 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations The ERIS regulatory database report included a review of both Federal and State Engineering Control (EC) and Institutional Control (IC) databases. Based on a review of the database report, the site was not listed on the EC or IC databases. Please note that in addition to these federal and state listings, AULs can be recorded at the county and municipal level that may not be listed in the regulatory database report. Environmental lien and activity and use limitation records recorded against the site were not provided by the client. At the direction of the client, performance of a review of these records was not included as part of the scope of services and unless notified otherwise, we assume that the client is evaluating this information outside the scope of this report. 3.6 Interviews Regarding Current and Historical Site Uses The following individual was interviewed regarding the current and historical use of the site. Interviews Interviewer Name / Phone #Title Date/Time Victoria Vollert Kasey McMorton Facilities Maintenance Worker II August 25, 2022 Terracon interviewed Kasey McMorton, Facilities Maintenance Worker II, during the site reconnaissance. Mr. McMorton indicated that he has been working for the Town of Estes for approximately 4 ½ years. Mr. McMorton noted he is unaware of previous environmental inspections, assessments, or violations on the site. However, he did note that they had some previous asbestos and lead testing done on some of the staff houses. Mr. McMorton was also not aware of previous oil and gas facilities on the site. Mr. McMorton did note that the site was previously used as a fish hatchery and also operated a water treatment plant and a power plant. He notes that the power plant was used to power the Stanley hotel but was later used to provide power for the town until it was destroyed by a flood in 1982. The power plant was subsequently converted into a museum in 2002, which remains present today. Mr. McMorton noted that the water treatment plant was a conventional plant with sand filters and chemicals such as soda 200 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 8 ash, alum and chlorine gas were used. Mr. McMorton noted the water treatment plant has been abandoned since approximately 1992. Mr. McMorton noted that some of the buildings currently on site are used for staff housing, while others are used for storage, file rooms, and police files. Mr. McMorton is unaware of USTs or ASTs on the site and has not noticed spills or signs indicating a spill on the site. Mr. McMorton also noted that he was unaware of environmental issues with adjoining properties. 3.7 Prior Report Review Terracon requested the client provide any previous environmental reports they are aware of for the site. A 2016 asbestos sampling report was provided by the client to Terracon. While asbestos is outside the scope of work of a Phase I ESA, it is noted that asbestos was detected in samples collected as part of the 2016 report. 4.0 RECORDS REVIEW Regulatory database information was provided by ERIS, a contract information services company in a report dated August 19, 2022. The purpose of the records review was to identify RECs in connection with the site. Information in this section is subject to the accuracy of the data provided by the information services company and the date at which the information is updated. The scope herein did not include confirmation of facilities listed as "unmappable" by regulatory databases. In some of the following subsections, the words up-gradient, cross-gradient and down-gradient refer to the topographic gradient in relation to the site. As stated previously, the groundwater flow direction and the depth to shallow groundwater, if present, would likely vary depending upon seasonal variations in rainfall and the depth to the soil/bedrock interface. Without the benefit of on-site groundwater monitoring wells surveyed to a datum, groundwater depth and flow direction beneath the site cannot be directly ascertained. 4.1 Federal and State/Tribal Databases Listed below are the facility listings identified on federal and state/tribal databases within the ASTM-required search distances from the approximate site boundaries. Database definition, descriptions, and the database search report are included in Appendix D. Federal Databases Database Description Distance (miles)Listings NPL National Priorities List 1 0 DELETED NPL Delisted NPL 1 0 201 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 9 Database Description Distance (miles)Listings SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System 0.5 0 SEMS- ARCHIVE SEMS Archive 0.5 0 CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 0.5 0 CERCLIS NFRAP CERCLIS - No Further Remedial Action Planned 0.5 0 RCRA CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Action Activity 1 0 RCRA TSD RCRA Non-Corrective Action Activity 0.5 0 RCRA GEN Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Generator Facility Site and Adjoining 0 RCRA NON GEN RCRA Non-Generator/No Longer Regulated Site and Adjoining 0 FED IC / FED EC Institutional Control/Engineering Control Site 0 ERNS Emergency Response Notification System Site 0 FED BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Management System 0.5 0 State/Tribal Databases Database Description Distance (miles)Listings SHWS State Hazardous Waste Sites 0.5 0 SWF/LF Solid Waste Facilities/Landfills 0.5 0 LST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 0.5 0 UST Underground Storage Tanks Site and Adjoining 0 AST Aboveground Storage Tank Facilities Site and Adjoining 0 TANKS Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS)Site and Adjoining 0 AUL Activity and Use Limitation 0.5 0 VCP The Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Program 0.5 0 SPILLS Hazardous material spills and releases Site and Adjoining 0 In addition to the above ASTM-required listings, Terracon reviewed other federal, state, local, and proprietary databases provided by the database firm. A list of the additional reviewed databases is included in the regulatory database report included in Appendix D. Regulated facilities were not listed within the specified ASTM search distances from the site. 202 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 10 Unmapped facilities are those that do not contain sufficient address or location information to evaluate the facility listing locations relative to the site. The report listed five facilities in the unmapped section. Determining the location of unmapped facilities is beyond the scope of this assessment; however, none of these facilities were identified as the site or adjacent properties. These facilities are listed in the database report in Appendix D. 4.2 Local Agency Inquiries Agency Contacted/ Contact Method Response Estes Valley Fire District / email / Egoetz@estesvalleyfire.org According to Erika Goetz of the Estes Valley Fire District, she was unaware of any environmental concerns associated with the site. Town of Estes Park / Website / townclerk@estes.org The Town of Estes Park Clerks Office provided multiple permits associated with streambank stabilization, repair/remodeling permits and sign permits. Records of environmental concern were not identified. Larimer County Assessor Website Larimer.org According to the Larimer county assessor’s website there are no records of septic system permits on the site. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commissions (COGCC) / website / https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/ According to the COGCC website, there are no oil and gas wells located on the site or on adjoining properties. 5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 5.1 General Site Information Information contained in this section is based on a visual reconnaissance conducted while walking through the site and the accessible interior areas of structures, if any, located on the site. The site and adjoining properties are depicted on the Site Diagram, which is included in Exhibit 2 of Appendix A. Photo documentation of the site at the time of the visual reconnaissance is provided in Appendix B. Credentials of the individuals planning and conducting the site visit are included in Appendix E. 203 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 11 General Site Information Site Reconnaissance Field Personnel Victoria L. Vollert and Jonathan R. Brown Reconnaissance Date August 25, 2022 Weather Conditions Sunny, dry, 75°F Site Contact/Title Kasey McMorton / Facilities Maintenance Worker II Building Description Building Identification Building Use Approx. Construction Date Number of Stories Approx. Size (ft²) Building 1 Residential 1906 1 1,146 Building 2 (1705 Fish Hatchery Road)Residential 1946 1 943 Building 3 (1703 Fish Hatchery Road)Residential 1946 1 808 Building 4 Water treatment plant 1999 1 2,560 Building 5 Hydro Plant 1903 1 2,066 Building 503 (1701 Fish Hatchery Road)Christmas Storage 1957 1 1,568 Building 6 (1711 Fish Hatchery Road)Storage 1932 1 598 Building 7 (1707 Fish Hatchery Road)Residential 1932 1 886 Building 8 Restroom Building/Concessions 1986 1 300 Building 9 (1709 Fish Hatchery Road) Storage/ Former Fish Hatchery 1946 1 2,178 Well house Former water well, not in use NA*1 NA* Well house Former water well, not in use NA*1 NA* Shed Not in use NA*1 NA* Site Utilities Drinking Water Town of Estes Park Wastewater Upper Thompson Electric Xcel 204 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 12 Building Description Building Identification Building Use Approx. Construction Date Number of Stories Approx. Size (ft²) Natural Gas Xcel *Information related to the approximate construction size and approximate year built was not available. 5.2 Overview of Current Site Occupants The residential buildings are occupied by staff, while the remainder of the site buildings are generally unoccupied and used for storage. 5.3 Overview of Current Site Operations The current site operations include a museum, staff housing, and general storage. 5.4 Site Observations The following table summarizes site observations and interviews. Affirmative responses (designated by an “X”) are discussed in more detail following the table. Site Characteristics Category Item or Feature Observed or Site Operations, Processes, and Equipment Emergency generators Elevators Air compressors Hydraulic lifts Dry cleaning Photo processing Ventilation hoods and/or incinerators Waste treatment systems and/or water treatment systems X Heating and/or cooling systems X Paint booths Sub-grade mechanic pits Wash-down areas or carwashes Pesticide/herbicide production or storage Printing operations Metal finishing (e.g., electroplating, chrome plating, galvanizing, etc.) 205 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 13 Category Item or Feature Observed or Salvage operations Oil, gas or mineral production Other processes or equipment X Aboveground Chemical or Waste Storage Aboveground storage tanks Drums, barrels and/or containers ³ 5 gallons MSDS or SDS Underground Chemical or Waste Storage, Drainage or Collection Systems Underground storage tanks or ancillary UST equipment Sumps, cisterns, French drains, catch basins and/or dry wells Grease traps Septic tanks and/or leach fields Oil/water separators, clarifiers, sand traps, triple traps, interceptors Pipeline markers Interior floor drains X Electrical Transformers/ PCBs Transformers and/or capacitors X Other equipment Releases or Potential Releases Stressed vegetation Stained soil Stained pavement or similar surface Leachate and/or waste seeps Trash, debris and/or other waste materials Dumping or disposal areas Construction/demolition debris and/or dumped fill dirt Surface water discoloration, odor, sheen, and/or free-floating product Strong, pungent or noxious odors Exterior pipe discharges and/or other effluent discharges Other Notable Site Features Surface water bodies X Quarries or pits Wastewater lagoons Wells X 206 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 14 Site Operations, Processes, and Equipment Water treatment system A water treatment plant was observed near the northern portion of the site adjacent to Fish Hatchery Road. According to Mr. McMorton, this treatment plant has not been used since approximately 1992 and was previously used to treat water for on-site consumption. The water treatment process included the use of soda ash, alum, and chlorine gas. Heating and/or cooling systems The site buildings are heated via natural gas heating systems (ceiling mounted and forced air), and no evidence of improper maintenance of the heating systems was observed. Other processes or equipment Numerous mechanical components were observed associated with the power plant and water treatment plant. However, both of these facilities have not been operational for several years. Terracon did not observe hazardous substances or petroleum products in either building. Mr. McMorton is not aware of any past spills or releases associated with the power plant or water treatment plant. Underground Chemical or Waste Storage, Drainage or Collection Systems Interior floor drains A trench floor drain was observed within the former fish hatchery building. According to Mr. McMorton, the floor drains discharge outside the building. Staining and/or releases to the floor drains was observed during the site reconnaissance. Potentially hazardous materials do not appear to be stored in the vicinity of the floor drains. Electrical Transformers/PCBs Transformers and/or capacitors During Terracon’s site visit, one pad-mounted and one pole-mounted transformer, owned and serviced by Xcel were observed near the power plant; however, no information with regard to PCB content of the transformer fluids was observed. Some transformers contain mineral oil which may contain PCBs. Xcel maintains responsibility for the transformers, and if the transformers were “PCB contaminated,” Xcel is not required to replace the transformer fluids until a release is identified. However, evidence of current or prior release was not observed in the vicinity of the electrical equipment during the site reconnaissance. 207 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 15 Other Notable Site Features Surface water bodies A pond and Fall River were observed on the site. No evidence of chemical sheens was observed on the surface of the waters, and no noxious odors were noted emanating from within the river or pond at the time of the site reconnaissance. Wells Two apparent well houses were observed near the staff housing on the site, and one apparent well was observed in the basement of one of the homes. According to Mr. McMorton, the water wells were installed as a drinking water source when the Fish Hatchery was active. The wells are not currently in use. Indications of RECs were not observed during the site reconnaissance. 6.0 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE Visual observations of adjoining properties (from site boundaries) are summarized below. Adjoining Properties Direction Description North Fall River Visitors Center (3450 Fall River Road) Vacant (3355 Fall River Road) Vacant (no address) East Residential (2864 Fall River Road) Residential (1600 Fish Hatchery Road) South Estes Valley Memorial Garden (1672 Fish Hatchery Road) Vacant (no address) West Vacant (no address) RECs were not observed associated with the adjoining properties. 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Per the agreed scope of services specified in the proposal, the following additional services were conducted: n Visual Observations for Suspect Asbestos n Visual Observations for Microbial Growth 208 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 16 n Visual Observations for Suspect Lead-Based Paint n Wetland Records Review n Threatened/Endangered Species Records Review n Historic Properties/Archaeological Resource Review 7.1 Visual Observations for Suspect Asbestos Terracon visually assessed the interior and exterior of the on-site buildings for suspect ACM. The limited visual observations were performed by Jonathan R. Brown, an AHERA-accredited and State of Colorado-certified asbestos inspector (Certificate No. 27977). No samples of suspect ACM were collected or analyzed as part of the observations. The visual observations for suspect ACM were restricted to readily visible and accessible building materials. The following suspect ACM was observed: Summary of Suspect ACM Building 1 Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Tan/Beige Diamond Pattern Carpet w/ Black & Red Specks West Entry, Living Room, Southwest Room, Floor Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Tan Carpet w/ Blue & White Specks Southeast Room, Floor Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Beige Swirl Pattern Carpet w/ Blue Specks Northeast Room, Floor Good Nonfriable Tan, Brown, & Gray Faux Stone Pattern VSF & associated Mastic South Entry, Floor Good Nonfriable Tan Stone Tile Pattern VSF & associated Mastic Kitchen, Pantry, Floor Good Nonfriable 6” x 6” Tile w/ Partial Hatch Pattern VSF & associated Mastic Restroom, Floor Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ 4” Tan Cove Base Pantry, Base of Walls Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ 4” White Cove Base Restroom, Base of Walls Good Nonfriable 209 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 17 Drywall & Taping Mud Throughout, Walls Good Nonfriable Painted Plaster Throughout, Walls & Ceiling Good Nonfriable Painted Knockdown Texture Restroom, Walls & Ceiling Good Nonfriable Spray Applied Texture Throughout, Ceiling, Walls Good Nonfriable Window Caulk Windows Good Nonfriable Window Glazing Exterior, Windows Good Nonfriable Painted Stucco Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Trowel Applied Texture Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Roof Good Nonfriable Building 2 Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Carpet Interior, Floor Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Laminate Wood Flooring Interior, Floor Good Nonfriable Painted Drywall & Taping Mud Interior, Walls and/or Ceilings Good Nonfriable Possible Drywall Texture Interior, Walls Good Nonfriable Painted Plaster Interior, Walls and/or Ceilings Good Nonfriable Possible Plaster Texture Interior, Walls Good Nonfriable Window Caulk Windows Good Nonfriable Window Glazing Exterior, Windows Good Nonfriable Painted Stucco Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Trowel applied Texture Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable 210 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 18 Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Roof Good Nonfriable Building 3 Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Drywall & Taping Mud Interior, Walls and/or Ceiling Good Nonfriable Window Glazing Exterior, Windows Good Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Roof Good Nonfriable Building 4 Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Grout associated w/ 6” x 6” Red Ceramic Tile Throughout, Floors Good Nonfriable Mortar associated w/ 6” x 6” Red Ceramic Tile Throughout, Floors Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ 4” Brown Cove Base Southwest ‘Lab’ Room, Base of Metal Cabinets Good Nonfriable Grout associated w/ 6” x 12” Pale Green w/ Black Specks Ceramic Tile Throughout, Walls Good Nonfriable Mortar associated w/ 6” x 12” Pale Green w/ Black Specks Ceramic Tile Throughout, Walls Good Nonfriable Grout associated w/ 6” x 12” Light Brown Ceramic Tile East Mech Room, Walls Good Nonfriable Mortar associated w/ 6” x 12” Light Brown Ceramic Tile East Mech Room, Walls Good Nonfriable Mortar associated w/ 2” x 8” Tan Brick East Mech Room, Walls Good Nonfriable Mortar associated w/ 6” x 6” Glass Block Windows Exterior Walls of Building Good Nonfriable Brown Mastic associated w/ 12” x 12” Stripe Textured Fiberboard Ceiling Tiles South Entry, Southwest Room, Southeast ‘Lab’, Ceiling Good Nonfriable 211 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 19 Mortar associated w/ 2” x 8” Light Brown Brick Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Brick Texture Good Nonfriable Window Caulk Interior/Exterior, Doors & Windows Good Nonfriable Window Glazing Exterior, Windows Good Nonfriable Built-Up roofing w/ Gravel Exterior, Roof Good Nonfriable White Firestop Basement, around Metal Pipes entering Concrete Walls Good Nonfriable Ceiling Panels Northern Portion of Building, Ceiling Good Nonfriable Building 7 Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Carpet Interior, Basement, Floor Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Carpet Interior, Ground Level, Floor Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ Laminate Wood Flooring Interior, Kitchen & Bathrooms, Floor Good Nonfriable Painted Plaster Interior, Walls and/or Ceilings Good Nonfriable Painted Drywall Interior, Walls and/or Ceilings Good Nonfriable Painted Stucco Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Trowel Applied Texture Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Window Glazing Exterior, Windows Good Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Roof Good Nonfriable Building 9 Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable 212 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 20 9” x 9” Brown Vinyl Floor Tile w/ Mastic Restroom, Floor Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ 4” Black Cove Base Restroom, Base of Walls Good Nonfriable Mastic associated w/ 6” Brown Cove Base Throughout, Base of Walls Good Nonfriable Painted Plaster Throughout, Walls & Ceiling Good Nonfriable Brush Texture Throughout, Walls/Ceilings Good Nonfriable Window Glazing Exterior, Windows Good Nonfriable Painted Stucco Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Trowel applied Texture Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Roof, Accent Siding Good Nonfriable Building 9 – Outbuilding (Building 6 per Larimer County GIS Website) Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Window Glazing Exterior, Windows Good Nonfriable Painted Stucco Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Trowel applied Texture Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Roof Good Nonfriable New Well Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Cover Good Nonfriable Old Well Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Cover Fair Nonfriable 213 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 21 Building 8 Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Mortar associated w/ Painted CMU Interior/Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable CMU coating/sealant Interior/Exterior, Walls Good Nonfriable Waste Shed Material Location Condition Friable/Nonfriable Composite Roofing Shingles Exterior, Roof Good Nonfriable At the time of the site reconnaissance, the interiors of Building 2 and Building 7 were inaccessible due to the dwellings being currently occupied. Materials located within Building 2 and Building 7 were based on responses by the site contact, Mr. Kasey McMorton. Limited visual observations for asbestos is not intended to serve as a comprehensive building asbestos inspection, comprehensive inspection, or comprehensive assessment for the presence of ACM in all or most of the building systems, nor will it serve to adequately assess the presence of ACM in a building or portions thereof for pre-demolition or pre-renovation purposes. Terracon recommends conducting a thorough asbestos survey prior to disturbance of suspect ACM during planned renovations or building demolition. 7.2 Visual Observations for Microbial Growth Indications of significant water infiltration were identified throughout Building ID 4: Telephone/Hatchery Building in the form of rusted bolts and pipes within the basement and within the basins in the northern half of the building, and rusted bolts used to secure ceiling panels to the wood ceiling joists. Indications of mold growth was observed above the ceiling panels in the northern portion of the building where a ceiling panel had been removed prior to the site reconnaissance. Terracon did not observe obvious indications of significant water infiltration or visible mold growth within the remaining on-site buildings at the time of the site reconnaissance. Additionally, Mr. McMorton was not aware of significant water infiltration or visible mold issues within Building 2 and Building 7. 7.3 Visual Observations of Suspect Lead-Based Paint Mr. McMorton indicated that prior sampling of lead-based paint had occurred, however, at the time of this report, prior sampling data nor Operations/Maintenance Plans for lead paint were provided by the client or site contact. At the time of the site reconnaissance, painted interior surfaces appeared to be in good or fair condition. Peeling exterior paint was observed along the exterior walls of the onsite buildings. Since the on-site buildings were constructed before 1978, 214 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 22 it is likely that lead-based paint is present in these materials; however, the presence of lead can only be confirmed through bulk sampling and laboratory analysis. 7.4 Wetland Records Review The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Terracon conducted a limited desktop review of the site to identify areas mapped by the resources below as potentially exhibiting characteristics of wetlands and/or other waterbodies that may be subject to regulation under the USACE. This review may not identify state/locally- designated wetlands. This desktop review is not a thorough review of wetlands and may not identify all resources present. Terracon reviewed the following resources to identify areas mapped as indicating the potential presence of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the site: n Topographic Map The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map of the subject site was reviewed to identify drainages or other potential waters of the U.S. within the project site. A portion of the 1977 Estes Park, Colorado Quadrangle can be seen as Exhibit 1 in Appendix A. Based on the USGS map, water bodies are not depicted to occur on the site. n National Wetland Inventory Map National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data for the project site was reviewed to identify potential wetland areas. NWI data for the project site was published by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service and depicts possible wetland areas based on stereoscopic analysis of high-altitude aerial photographs. The review of the NWI data does not indicate potential wetland areas located within the project site. The NWI map data for the project area can be seen as Exhibit 3 in Appendix A. Terracon’s review of the above resources indicated several mapped wetlands or other potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on the site. Please note this Limited Wetland Review does not constitute a formal determination and/or delineation of a potentially jurisdictional wetland, which is based on three criteria, wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils, as set forth in 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and further supported by the applicable Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. To obtain a formal determination from the USACE regarding jurisdictional status, a wetland/waters of the U.S. delineation could be conducted by a wetland scientist and submitted to the USACE (or in certain geographies the participating state agency) for a jurisdictional determination. Note that the USACE is not required to respond to determination requests within a particular timeframe unless the submittal also includes a permit application. 215 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 23 7.5 Threatened/Endangered Species Records Review Literature and agency file searches were conducted to review the potential occurrence of federally- and state-listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species located in the site vicinity. The search included information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. The following is a list of federally- and state-listed T&E species potentially located in Larimer County, Colorado. Threatened & Endangered Species SPECIES STATUS*HABITAT BIRDS Eastern Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis)FT Marshes, wetlands, and wet meadows with stable shallow water (NatureServe 2022). Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida)FT, ST Older-growth temperate forest and mixed- conifer forests. Range extends from the southern Rocky Mountains in Colorado and the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah southward through Arizona and New Mexico and discontinuously through the Sierra Madre Occidental and Oriental to the mountains at the southern end of the Mexican Plateau Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) FT Wide, flat, open, sandy beaches with very little grass or other vegetation. Nesting territories often include small creeks or wetlands Whooping Crane (Grus Americana) FE Shallow, grassy wetlands interspersed with grasslands or scattered evergreens. During migration, they stop over on wide shallow river flats. Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)SE Sandy or pebbly beaches around lakes, reservoirs, or river channels. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) ST Dry, open areas with short grasses and no trees. They nest and live in underground burrows created by prairie dogs, ground squirrels and badgers (CPW 2022). Lesser Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus)ST Sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) communities. In Colorado the species is known to occur in the southeastern plains. Plains Sharp-Tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii)SE The species is found almost exclusively in Conservation Reserve Program grasslands in Colorado (CPW 2022). 216 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 24 FISH Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus Lucius)FE Found in the Colorado, Green, and San Juan river subasins, and in some of the larger tributaries of these rivers. Greenback Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias)FT Waters of the South Platte River basin and Arkansas River basin Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)FE Lower reaches of Platte River. The species historical range included Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen )FE Throughout the Colorado River Basin Rio Grande Sucker (Catostomus plebeius)SE Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma cragini) ST Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Brassy Minnow (Hybognathus )ST Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Common shiner (Luxilus cornutus)ST Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Lake Chub (Couesius plumbeus)SE Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Plains Minnow (Hybognathus placitus)SE Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Suckermouth Minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis)SE Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Northern Redbelly Dace (Phoxinus eos)SE Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. Southern Redbelly Dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster)SE Freshwater riverine and/or lake habitats. MAMMALS Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) FE Highly associated with prairie dog colonies Canda Lynx (Lynx canadensis)FT Dense forest and rocky areas; northern and mixed boreal forests. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)FE Lone, dispersing gray wolves may be present throughout the state of Colorado. If project activity includes a predator management program, the gray wolf should be considered in the environmental review (USFWS 2022). Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei)FT Upland habitats of Colorado and Wyoming; riparian areas and adjacent wet meadows; dense shrub, grass and forb ground cover along creeks, rivers and associated waterbodies. Wolverine (Gulo gulo)SE Tundra, taiga, boreal and alpine habitat. River Otter (Lontra canadensis)ST Beaver ponds, stream channels and warm water sloughs (CPW 2022) 217 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 25 Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis)SE In Colorado this species occurs in semi-desert shrub lands extending from Montrose to Grand Junction (CPW 2022). PLANTS North Park Phacelia (Phacelia )FE Limited to eroded soil outcrops composed of barren exposures of the Coalmont Formation. Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)FT Near the base of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in southeastern Wyoming and adjacent Nebraska and north central and central Colorado. Usually associated with moist environments including alkaline wetlands, moist meadows, floodplains, flooded river terraces, sub irrigated or spring-fed abandoned stream channels and valleys, lakeshores, irrigation canals, berms, levees, or irrigated meadows. Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara)FT Central Lowlands (swales) and the eastern Great Plains of the U.S; located in areas of higher moisture content. INSECTS Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)FC Patches of milkweed species (Asclepias spp.) (USFWS 2022). AMPHIBIANS Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas)SE Mountain lakes, ponds, meadows, and wetlands in subalpine forest. *Status Codes: FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FC = Federal Candidate SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SC = State Special Concern (not a statutory category) Based on the project site consisting of forested areas surrounded by vacant land with some developed land, the site is likely to support T&E species. This review is limited and does not constitute an evaluation of habitat suitability or presence/absence survey for a particular species by a qualified biologist. The absence of listed species or known sightings in the databases does not necessarily indicate the site is clear and no listed species are present, it could be an indication that the site has not been previously surveyed. In addition, this review is not aimed at compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 7.6 Historic Properties/Archaeological Resources Review On behalf of Fish Hatchery Development Partners LLC, Terracon conducted a desktop cultural resources records review of the proposed development area. The proposed development (project area) consists of an approximate 85-acre area along Fish Hatchery Road, south of 218 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 26 Highway 34, approximately 4 miles west of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Fall River flows generally west to east through the project area. Terracon reviewed the restricted Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) online cultural resource database (Compass), and publicly available information from the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) online database, topographic maps, and historical aerial photographs. This review relied solely on online databases and information; a field visit was not performed. According to Compass, the Stanley Power Plant / Fall River Hydroelectric Plant (5LR.2164) is located within the project area. According to Compass records, the Stanley Power Plant is a contributing element to the Stanley Hotel Historic District (5LR.478; Expanded Boundary). The Stanley Hotel District was listed in the NRHP in 1977 (NPS 2022), and the Stanley Power Plant Boundary Increase was added to the District in 1988 (NRHP Property No. 98000321). The exact location for the Stanley Power Plant Boundary Increase is not provided in Compass or the NRHP website, but the project area is assumed to overlap this district. According to the NRHP database, the MacGregor Ranch Historic District is located approximately 1-mile east of the project area, and the NRHP-listed Trail Ridge Road is located approximately 0.5-miles to the west of the project area (NPS 2022). According to the 1957 Estes Park, CO 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, the Stanley Power Plant and State Fish Hatchery are depicted within the project area, consisting of several structures each (USGS 1957). The earliest historical aerial imagery for this area is 1985, and the photograph depicts the power plant and fish hatchery generally in its current configuration (NETR 2022). According to Compass, the project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. A prior cultural resources survey was conducted in 2005 along Highway 34 (Hand 2005), along the northern boundary of the project area. A large area to the west and south of the project area was surveyed for cultural resources in 2003 (Hansen (2003), and another large archaeological survey was conducted to the southwest of the project area in 1978 (Lincoln 1978), both associated with Rocky Mountain National Park. Numerous archaeological sites were documented during these surveys. Based on the results of our desktop cultural resources records review, known historic properties are within the project area, and the project area likely overlaps a NRHP-listed historic district. The proposed project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Based on previous cultural resource surveys in the vicinity, the project area has the potential for undocumented prehistoric and historical-period archaeological sites. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) applies to projects with a federal nexus. If future purchase or development of the project area initiates a federal nexus, such as the purchase or transfer of federal land, or use of federal funds or permits, Section 106 regulations may apply. If a federal nexus is identified, the completion of a cultural resources 219 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado September 22, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 27 survey and consultation with the OAHP would be a potential requirement for meeting Section 106 obligations, as well as to comply with state or local regulations. References Hand, O. D. 2005 An Intensive Archaeological Resource Inventory Along US Highway 34 From Estes Park to the Entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer County Colorado (STA 0341- 064). For the Colorado Department of Transportation Hanson, Lisa S. 2003 Cultural Resource Survey of the Deer Mountain Wildland-Urban Interface Fuels Management Project, Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer County, Colorado (ROMO C-03-08). For Rock Mountain National Park, National Park Service. Lincoln, Thomas R. 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance, Rocky Mountain National Park. Midwest Archaeological Center, for the National Park Service. National Park Service (NPS) 2022 National Register of Historic Places Spatial Data Search. Available from: https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466, accessed August 2022. Netronline (NETR) 2022 Historic Aerials. Online Resource, Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. (NETR). Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed August 2022. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1957 Estes Park, Colorado [map]. 1:24,000 topographic quadrangle. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. Electronic map, available from the USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer, http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/, accessed August 2022. 220 221 APPENDIX A EXHIBIT 1 – TOPOGRAPHIC MAP EXHIBIT 2 – SITE DIAGRAM EXHIBIT 3 – WETLANDS MAP 222 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: ESTES PARK, CO (1977). TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Fish Hatchery Estes Park 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, CO 1901 Sharp Point Dr Ste C Fort Collins, CO 80525-4429 20227095 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: VLV JCG JCG CLR 20227095 9/15/2022 1 Exhibit 1”=2,000’Scale: APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY 223 SITE DIAGRAM 1901 Sharp Point Dr Ste C Fort Collins, CO 80525-4429 20227095AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS Fish Hatchery Estes Park 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park, CODIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: VLV JCG Scale: Project No. File Name: Date: AS SHOWN 2 Exhibit APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY Fall River Visitors Center Vacant Land 3355 Fall River Road Residential 2864 Fall River Road Residential 1600 Fish Hatchery Road Vacant Land Associated with Site Parcel Estes Valley Memorial Garden 1672 Fish Hatchery Road Fish Hatchery Building Power Plant & Museum Staff Housing/ O’Connor Picnic Pavilion Staff Housing 224 Estes Park Fish Hatchery - Exhibit 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine August 17, 2022 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.075 km 1:6,019 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 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. 225 APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 226 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado Photos Taken: August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 1. View of fish hatchery building located on the northeastern portion of the site facing north 2. View of pond previously used for the fish hatchery located on the northeastern portion of the site facing northeast. 3. View of residential building located on the northeastern portion of the site facing northwest. 4. View of former water treatment center located near the northwestern portion of the site facing southwest 5. View of power plant museum located on the southern portion of the site facing southwest 6. View of Fall River followed by the O’Connor picnic pavilion located in the southern portion of the site facing south 227 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Fish Hatchery Estes Park ■ Estes Park, Colorado Photos Taken: August 25, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 20227095 7. View inside fish hatchery building with floor drain. 8. View of former machinery inside power station museum 9. View of north adjoining Fall River Visitor Center facing south 10. View of north adjoining Fall River Road followed by vacant land facing north 11. View of east adjoining residential properties facing southeast 12. View of southern adjoining Estes Valley Memorial Garden facing south 228 APPENDIX C HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER QUESTIONNAIRE 229 ASTM E1527-21 User Questionnaire Proposal/Project No. 20227095 Date Completed: Person Completing Questionnaire Name: Company: Phone: Email: Site Name Site Address Point of Contact for Access Name: Company: Phone: Email: Access Restrictions or Special Site Requirements? ___No ___Yes (If yes, please explain) Confidentiality Requirements? ___No ___Yes (If yes, please explain) Current Site Owner Name: Company: Phone: Email: Current Site Operator Name: Company: Phone: Email: Reasons for ESA (e.g., financing, acquisition, lease, etc.) Anticipated Future Site Use Relevant Documents?Please provide Terracon copies of prior Phase I or II ESAs, Asbestos Surveys, Environmental Permits or Audit documents, Underground Storage Tank documents, Geotechnical Investigations, Site Surveys, Diagrams or Maps, or other relevant reports or documents. ASTM User Questionnaire To qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the “Brownfields Amendments”), the user must respond to the following inquiries required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 312.25, 312.28, 312.29, 312.30, and 312.31. These inquiries must also be conducted by EPA Brownfield Assessment and Characterization grantees. The user should provide the following information to the environmental professional. Failure to conduct these inquiries could result in a determination that “all appropriate inquiries” is not complete. 1) Did a search of land title records (or judicial records where appropriate) identify any environmental liens filed or recorded against the site under federal, tribal, state, or local law (40 CFR 312.25)? ___No ___Yes (If yes, explain below and send Terracon a copy of the title records or judicial records reviewed.) 2) Did a search of land title records (or judicial records where appropriate) identify any activity and use limitations (AULs), such as engineering controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls that are in place at the site and/or have been filed or recorded against the site under federal, tribal, state, or local law (40 CFR 312.26)? ___No ___Yes (If yes, explain below and send Terracon a copy of the title records or judicial records reviewed.) 3) Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the site or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the site or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business (40 CFR 312-28)? ___No ___Yes (If yes, explain below) 4) Does the purchase price being paid for this site reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the site? ___No ___Yes ___Not applicable (If yes or Not applicable, explain below) 5) Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the site that would help the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases (40 CFR 312.30)? For example, (a.) Do you know the past uses of the site? (b.) Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or once were present at the site? (c.) Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the site? (d.) Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the site? ___No ___Yes (If yes, explain below) 6) Based on your knowledge and experience related to the site, are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of releases at the site (40 CFR 312.31)? ___No ___Yes (If yes, explain below) Comments or explanations: 230 Project Property: Project No: Requested By: Order No: Date Completed: Fish Hatchery Estes Park 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park CO 80517 20227095 Terracon 22081800396 August 19, 2022 231 Topographic Map Symbology for the maps may be available in the following documents: Pre-1947 1947-2009 2009-present Topographic Maps included in this report are produced by the USGS and are to be used for research purposes including a phase I report. Maps are not to be resold as commercial property. No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS: The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc.(in the US) and ERIS Information Limited Partnership (in Canada), both doing business as 'ERIS', using Topographic Maps produced by the USGS. This maps contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein. Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report. Page 223 of 1918 Topographic Instructions Page 130 of 1928 Topographic Instructions Topographic Map Symbols US Topo Map Symbols We have searched USGS collections of current topographic maps and historical topographic maps for the project property. Below is a list of maps found for the project property and adjacent area. Maps are from 7.5 and 15 minute topographic map series, if available. Year Map Series 1957 7.5 1961 7.5 1977 7.5 2013 7.5 2016 7.5 2019 7.5 232 QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: Estes Park, CO(1-1957), Longs Peak, CO(2-1957), (7.5 Min Series, 1957). TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY Project Manager: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Project No: Scale: File Name: Date: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1957) SITE 233 QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: Estes Park, CO(2-1961), Longs Peak, CO(1-1961), (7.5 Min Series, 1961). TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY Project Manager: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Project No: Scale: File Name: Date: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1961) SITE 234 QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: Estes Park, CO(2-1977), Longs Peak, CO(1-1961), (7.5 Min Series, 1977). TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY Project Manager: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Project No: Scale: File Name: Date: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1977) SITE 235 QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: Estes Park, CO, Longs Peak, CO, (7.5 Min Series, 2013). TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY Project Manager: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Project No: Scale: File Name: Date: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (2013) SITE 236 QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: Estes Park, CO, Longs Peak, CO, (7.5 Min Series, 2016). TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY Project Manager: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Project No: Scale: File Name: Date: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (2016) SITE 237 QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: Estes Park, CO, Longs Peak, CO, (7.5 Min Series, 2019). TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY Project Manager: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Project No: Scale: File Name: Date: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (2019) SITE 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE INFORMATION 255 Project Property:Fish Hatchery Estes Park 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park CO 80517 Project No:20227095 Report Type:Database Report Order No: 22081800396 Requested by:Terracon Consultants, Inc. Date Completed: August 19, 2022 256 2 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Table of Contents Notice:IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS and YOUR LIABILITY Reliance on information in Report:This report DOES NOT replace a full Phase I Environmental Site Assessment but is solely intended to be used as database review of environmental records. License for use of information in Report:No page of this report can be used without this cover page, this notice and the project property identifier. The information in Report(s) may not be modified or re-sold. Your Liability for misuse:Using this Service and/or its reports in a manner contrary to this Notice or your agreement will be in breach of copyright and contract and ERIS may obtain damages for such mis-use, including damages caused to third parties, and gives ERIS the right to terminate your account, rescind your license to any previous reports and to bar you from future use of the Service. No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS:The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc. ("ERIS") using various sources of information, including information provided by Federal and State government departments. The report applies only to the address and up to the date specified on the cover of this report, and any alterations or deviation from this description will require a new report. This report and the data contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein and does not constitute a legal opinion nor medical advice. Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report. Trademark and Copyright:You may not use the ERIS trademarks or attribute any work to ERIS other than as outlined above. This Service and Report (s) are protected by copyright owned by ERIS Information Inc. Copyright in data used in the Service or Report(s) (the "Data") is owned by ERIS or its licensors. The Service, Report(s) and Data may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in any substantial part without prior written consent of ERIS. Table of Contents Table of Contents...........................................................................................2 Executive Summary........................................................................................3 Executive Summary: Report Summary.......................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Project Property...................................................................................8 Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Surrounding Properties........................................................................9 Executive Summary: Summary by Data Source.......................................................................................................10 Map...............................................................................................................11 Aerial.............................................................................................................14 Topographic Map..........................................................................................15 Detail Report.................................................................................................16 Unplottable Summary...................................................................................17 Unplottable Report........................................................................................18 Appendix: Database Descriptions.................................................................21 Definitions.....................................................................................................34 257 3 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Executive Summary Property Information: Project Property:Fish Hatchery Estes Park 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Estes Park CO 80517 Project No:20227095 Coordinates: Latitude:40.40011227 Longitude:-105.58367767 UTM Northing:4,472,330.82 UTM Easting:450,469.32 UTM Zone:UTM Zone 13T Elevation:8,041 FT Order Information: Order No:22081800396 Date Requested:August 18, 2022 Requested by:Terracon Consultants, Inc. Report Type:Database Report Historicals/Products: Aerial Photographs Historical Aerials (with Project Boundaries) City Directory Search CD - 2 Street Search ERIS Xplorer ERIS Xplorer Excel Add-On Excel Add-On Fire Insurance Maps US Fire Insurance Maps Physical Setting Report (PSR) Physical Setting Report (PSR) Topographic Map Topographic Maps terraDOCS Report terraDOCS (Terracon) Executive Summary 258 4 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Executive Summary: Report Summary Database Searched Search Radius Project Property Within 0.12mi 0.125mi to 0.25mi 0.25mi to 0.50mi 0.50mi to 1.00mi Total Standard Environmental Records Federal rr-DOE FUSRAP-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-NPL-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-PROPOSED NPL-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-DELETED NPL-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-SEMS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-ODI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-SEMS ARCHIVE-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-CERCLIS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-IODI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-CERCLIS NFRAP-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-CERCLIS LIENS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-RCRA CORRACTS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-RCRA TSD-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-RCRA LQG-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-RCRA SQG-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-RCRA VSQG-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-RCRA NON GEN-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-RCRA CONTROLS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-FED ENG-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-FED INST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-LUCIS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-NPL IC-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-ERNS 1982 TO 1986-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-ERNS 1987 TO 1989-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-ERNS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-FED BROWNFIELDS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-FEMA UST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 DOE FUSRAP NPL PROPOSED NPL DELETED NPL SEMS ODI SEMS ARCHIVE CERCLIS IODI CERCLIS NFRAP CERCLIS LIENS RCRA CORRACTS RCRA TSD RCRA LQG RCRA SQG RCRA VSQG RCRA NON GEN RCRA CONTROLS FED ENG FED INST LUCIS NPL IC ERNS 1982 TO 1986 ERNS 1987 TO 1989 ERNS FED BROWNFIELDS FEMA UST Executive Summary: Report Summary 259 5 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Database Searched Search Radius Project Property Within 0.12mi 0.125mi to 0.25mi 0.25mi to 0.50mi 0.50mi to 1.00mi Total rr-FRP-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-DELISTED FRP-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-HIST GAS STATIONS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-REFN-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-BULK TERMINAL-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-SEMS LIEN-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-SUPERFUND ROD-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 State rr-LANDFILL METHANE-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-COVENANTS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-SUPERFUND NRD-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-SHWS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-DELISTED SHWS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-SWF/LF-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-HIST LF-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-HIST LANDFILLS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-RECYCLING-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-LST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-LUST TRUST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-DELISTED LST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-UST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-AST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-TANKS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-DTNK-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-AUL-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-VCP-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-BROWNFIELDS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 Tribal rr-INDIAN LUST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-INDIAN UST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-DELISTED ILST-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-DELISTED IUST-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 County No County databases were selected to be included in the search. FRP DELISTED FRP HIST GAS STATIONS REFN BULK TERMINAL SEMS LIEN SUPERFUND ROD LANDFILL METHANE COVENANTS SUPERFUND NRD SHWS DELISTED SHWS SWF/LF HIST LF HIST LANDFILLS RECYCLING LST LUST TRUST DELISTED LST UST AST TANKS DTNK AUL VCP BROWNFIELDS INDIAN LUST INDIAN UST DELISTED ILST DELISTED IUST 260 6 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Database Searched Search Radius Project Property Within 0.12mi 0.125mi to 0.25mi 0.25mi to 0.50mi 0.50mi to 1.00mi Total Additional Environmental Records Federal rr-FINDS/FRS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-TRIS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-PFAS TRI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-PFAS NPL-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-PFAS WATER-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-PFAS SSEHRI-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-ERNS PFAS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-HMIRS-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-NCDL-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-TSCA-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-HIST TSCA-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-FTTS ADMIN-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-FTTS INSP-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-PRP-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-SCRD DRYCLEANER-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-ICIS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-FED DRYCLEANERS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-DELISTED FED DRY-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-FUDS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-FORMER NIKE-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-PIPELINE INCIDENT-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-MLTS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-HIST MLTS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-MINES-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-SMCRA-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-MRDS-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-URANIUM-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-ALT FUELS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-CONSENT DECREES-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-AFS-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-SSTS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-PCBT-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-PCB-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 FINDS/FRS TRIS PFAS TRI PFAS NPL PFAS WATER PFAS SSEHRI ERNS PFAS HMIRS NCDL TSCA HIST TSCA FTTS ADMIN FTTS INSP PRP SCRD DRYCLEANER ICIS FED DRYCLEANERS DELISTED FED DRY FUDS FORMER NIKE PIPELINE INCIDENT MLTS HIST MLTS MINES SMCRA MRDS URANIUM ALT FUELS CONSENT DECREES AFS SSTS PCBT PCB 261 7 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Database Searched Search Radius Project Property Within 0.12mi 0.125mi to 0.25mi 0.25mi to 0.50mi 0.50mi to 1.00mi Total State rr-SPILLS-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-OG SPILLS-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-DRYCLEANERS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-DELISTED DRYCLEANERS-aa Y 0.25 0 0 0 -- 0 rr-AIR PERMITS-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-PFAS-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-ASBESTOS-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-HAZ GEN-aa Y 0.125 0 0 --- 0 rr-PDES-aa Y PO 0 ---- 0 rr-HAZ TSD-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 rr-HAZ CORRACT-aa Y 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 rr-UMTRA-aa Y 0.5 0 0 0 0 - 0 Tribal No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State. County No County additional environmental databases were selected to be included in the search. Total:0 0 0 0 0 0 * PO – Property Only * 'Property and adjoining properties' database search radii are set at 0.25 miles. SPILLS OG SPILLS DRYCLEANERS DELISTED DRYCLEANERS AIR PERMITS PFAS ASBESTOS HAZ GEN PDES HAZ TSD HAZ CORRACT UMTRA 262 8 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Project Property Map Key DB Company/Site Name Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Elev Diff (ft) Page Number No records found in the selected databases for the project property. Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Project Property 263 9 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Surrounding Properties Map Key DB Company/Site Name Address Direction Distance (mi/ft) Elev Diff (ft) Page Number No records found in the selected databases for the surrounding properties. Executive Summary: Site Report Summary - Surrounding Properties 264 10 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Executive Summary: Summary by Data Source No records found in the selected databases for the project property or surrounding properties. Executive Summary: Summary by Data Source 265 Es t e s P a r k Es t e s P a r k US-34 FallRiverRd FallRiverRd Fall RiverRd US-36 Rocky Mountain Nat'l ParkRocky Mountain Nat'l Park DavidDr CR-20C HomesteadLn ClarkeLnE £¤36 £¤34 £¤34 £¤34 US-34 US-34 105°33'30"W105°34'W105°34'30"W105°35'W105°35'30"W105°36'W105°36'30"W 40 ° 2 5 ' N 40 ° 2 5 ' N 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 3 ' N 40 ° 2 3 ' N 0.35 0 0.350.175 Miles Order Number: 22081800396Map: 1.0 Mile Radius 1:22900 Address: 1754 Fish Hatchery Road, Estes Park, CO Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium © ERIS Information Inc. Project Property Buffer Outline #*Eris Sites with Higher Elevation ")Eris Sites with Same Elevation #*Eris Sites with Lower Elevation (Eris Sites with Unknown Elevation Eris Areas with Higher Elevation Eris Areas with Same Elevation Eris Areas with Lower Elevation Eris Areas with Unknown Elevation National Wetland Indian Reserve Land 100 Year Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Zone FWS Special Designation AreasFreeways; Highways Traffic Circle; Ramp Major & Minor Arterial Traffic Circle; Ramp Local Road Rail Country State Plume 266 Es t e s P a r k Es t e s P a r k US-34 Fall River Rd Rocky Mountain Nat'l ParkRocky Mountain Nat'l Park CR-20C ClarkeLnE Fish HatcheryRd Fish Hat c heryRd Fish Hatc h eryRd Fish H a t c h e r y R d £¤34 £¤34 US-34 105°34'30"W105°35'W105°35'30"W105°36'W 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 0.2 0 0.20.1 Miles Order Number: 22081800396Map: 0.5 Mile Radius 1:13800 Address: 1754 Fish Hatchery Road, Estes Park, CO Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium © ERIS Information Inc. Project Property Buffer Outline #*Eris Sites with Higher Elevation ")Eris Sites with Same Elevation #*Eris Sites with Lower Elevation (Eris Sites with Unknown Elevation Eris Areas with Higher Elevation Eris Areas with Same Elevation Eris Areas with Lower Elevation Eris Areas with Unknown Elevation National Wetland Indian Reserve Land 100 Year Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Zone FWS Special Designation AreasFreeways; Highways Traffic Circle; Ramp Major & Minor Arterial Traffic Circle; Ramp Local Road Rail Country State Plume 267 Fall River Rd US-34 Rocky Mountain Nat'l ParkRocky Mountain Nat'l Park C R -2 0C ClarkeLnE Fish Hatchery Rd Ziola CtCR-20C Fish Hatch e ry Rd Fish Ha tcheryRd £¤34 £¤34 US-34 105°34'30"W105°35'W105°35'30"W 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 0.1 0 0.10.05 Miles Order Number: 22081800396Map: 0.25 Mile Radius 1:9200 Address: 1754 Fish Hatchery Road, Estes Park, CO Source: © 2021 ESRI StreetMap Premium © ERIS Information Inc. Project Property Buffer Outline #*Eris Sites with Higher Elevation ")Eris Sites with Same Elevation #*Eris Sites with Lower Elevation (Eris Sites with Unknown Elevation Eris Areas with Higher Elevation Eris Areas with Same Elevation Eris Areas with Lower Elevation Eris Areas with Unknown Elevation National Wetland Indian Reserve Land 100 Year Flood Zone 500 Year Flood Zone FWS Special Designation AreasFreeways; Highways Traffic Circle; Ramp Major & Minor Arterial Traffic Circle; Ramp Local Road Rail Country State Plume 268 105°34'30"W105°35'W105°35'30"W 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS UserCommunity0.1 0 0.10.05 Miles Order Number: 22081800396Aerial 1:10000 Address: 1754 Fish Hatchery Road, Estes Park, CO © ERIS Information Inc. Source: ESRI World Imagery Year: 2020 269 105°33'30"W105°34'W105°34'30"W105°35'W105°35'30"W105°36'W105°36'30"W 40 ° 2 5 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 5 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 5 ' N 40 ° 2 5 ' N 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 4 ' N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 3 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 3 ' N 40 ° 2 3 ' N 40 ° 2 2 ' 3 0 " N 40 ° 2 2 ' 3 0 " N 0.35 0 0.350.175 Miles Order Number: 22081800396Topographic Map 1:24000 Address: 1754 Fish Hatchery Road, CO © ERIS Information Inc. Source: USGS Topographic Map Quadrangle(s): Trail Ridge, CO; Estes Park, CO; Longs Peak, CO Year: 2016 270 16 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Detail Report Map Key Number of Records Direction Distance (mi/ft) Elev/Diff (ft) Site DB No records found in the selected databases for the project property or surrounding properties. Detail Report 271 17 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Unplottable Summary Total: 5 Unplottable sites DB Company Name/Site Name Address City Zip ERIS ID uu-ASBESTOS-887311905-aa SEMA CONSTRUCTION INC. U.S. 34 MILE MARKER 66.3 ESTES PARK CO 887311905 uu-ASBESTOS-887298479-aa SEMA CONSTRUCTION INC. U.S. 34 MILE MARKER 65.4 ESTES PARK CO 887298479 uu-SPILLS-820855268-aa HWY 34 ESTES PARK CO 820855268 Case No: 2000-187 uu-SPILLS-870562198-aa HWY 34, MM 69 ESTES PARK CO 870562198 Case No: 2018-0339 uu-SPILLS-820846264-aa HWY 34 CO 820846264 Case No: 2001-422 ASBESTOS ASBESTOS SPILLS SPILLS SPILLS Unplottable Summary 272 18 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Unplottable Report Site:SEMA CONSTRUCTION INC. U.S. 34 MILE MARKER 66.3 ESTES PARK CO uu-ASBESTOS-887311905-bb Permit: 09LR3724D Source Lat: Permit Beg: 03/08/10 Source Lon: Begin Date: Source County: End Date: Elevation: Project: DEMOLITION PROJECT Linear Feet: Projec Len: 4 Sq Feet: Owner Name: Drums: Location: Site:SEMA CONSTRUCTION INC. U.S. 34 MILE MARKER 65.4 ESTES PARK CO uu-ASBESTOS-887298479-bb Permit: 09LR3723D Source Lat: Permit Beg: 02/15/10 Source Lon: Begin Date: Source County: End Date: Elevation: Project: DEMOLITION PROJECT Linear Feet: Projec Len: 4 Sq Feet: Owner Name: Drums: Location: Site: HWY 34 ESTES PARK CO uu-SPILLS-820855268-bb Case No: 2000-187 H2O Unit Measure 2:U Main ID: Quantity 3: NRC No: 531199 Unit Measure 3: Dt of Spl or Rel: 6/6/2000 H2O quantity 3: Event Time: 10:50:00 AM H2O Unit Measure 3: 1st Rep Event Dt: 6/6/2000 Cause:T Date Reported: 6/6/2000 Death: Time Reported: 11:28:00 AM Injury: Date Entered: 6/6/2000 Evacuation: Time Entered: 2:24:58 PM Evacuation No: Land: FALSE PRP City: Air: FALSE PRP County: Surface Water: TRUE PRP State:CO Ground Water: FALSE PRP Zip: Material Type: OIL PRP Phone: Quantity 1: PRP Extension: Unit Measure 1: U Mile Marker: H2O Quantity 1: Who Took Report:NRC REPORT H2O Unit Measure 1: U Fixed Facility:FALSE Material 2: MOTOR OIL Event County:LARIMER Quantity 2: Latitude:0 Unit Measure 2: U Longitude:0 H2O Quantity 2: Source Desc: Source:H Source Type:AUTOMOBILE Medium:WATER Waterway:BIG THOMPSON RIVER Material 1:GASOLINE:AUTOMOTIVE Material 3: PRP:UNKNOWN PRP Contact: PRP Street: ASBESTOS ASBESTOS SPILLS Unplottable Report 273 19 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 PRP Fax: Responder 1: Responder 2: Responder 3: Response Comments: Notified Name:VICTOR SAINZ, WQCD; PAT MARTINEK, HMWMD **Note: Many records provided by the department have a truncated [Notified Name] field. Additional Comments: Comments:A PASSENGER CAR ENDED UP IN THE RIVER DUE TO A MULT-VEHICLE ACCIDENT. Cause Info:MULTI - VEHICLE ACCIDENT **Note: Many records provided by the department have a truncated [Cause Info] field. Action:THE CAR IS BEING PULLED FROM THE WATER.   Site: HWY 34, MM 69 ESTES PARK CO uu-SPILLS-870562198-bb Case No: 2018-0339 H2O Unit Measure 2: Main ID: Quantity 3: NRC No: Unit Measure 3: Dt of Spl or Rel: 7/11/2018 H2O quantity 3: Event Time: 12:30:00 AM H2O Unit Measure 3: 1st Rep Event Dt: 7/11/2018 Cause:TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT Date Reported: 7/11/2018 Death: Time Reported: 6:30:00 PM Injury: Date Entered: 7/12/2018 Evacuation: Time Entered: 8:34:58 AM Evacuation No: Land: TRUE PRP City:LOVELAND Air: FALSE PRP County: Surface Water: FALSE PRP State:CO Ground Water: FALSE PRP Zip:80538 Material Type: OIL PRP Phone:970-667-2178 Quantity 1: 130 PRP Extension: Unit Measure 1: GALLONS Mile Marker:69 H2O Quantity 1: Who Took Report:GARRY/ ANN NEDROW H2O Unit Measure 1: Fixed Facility:FALSE Material 2: Event County:LARIMER Quantity 2: Latitude: Unit Measure 2: Longitude: H2O Quantity 2: Source Desc: Source:H Source Type:MOTOR VEHICLE Medium:LAND Waterway: Material 1:DIESEL Material 3: PRP:COLSON EXCAVATING (SUBCONTRACTOR) PRP Contact:KEN COLSON/ BILL SCHRADER PRP Street:3609 MADISON AVE. PRP Fax:megan.wood@kiewit.com Responder 1:KIEWIT IINFRASTRUCTURE Responder 2: Responder 3: Response Comments: Notified Name:HMWMD: Rob Beierle, Richard Mruz, Ed Smith, Caren Johannes, Susan Newton, Kathryn Stewart, David Foster; CSP: Tim Maestas, Luke Armstrong, Jeffrey Lytle; CDOT: Tim Hagert, Theresa Santangelo, Tripp Minges, Brian Reiser, Jeremiah Unger, Matthew Malick, Paul Heffernan; CPW: Mindi May, Jeff Spohn, Kyle Battige, Ben Swigle, Ty Petersburg, Kristin Cannon **Note: Many records provided by the department have a truncated [Notified Name] field. Additional Comments: Comments:LARIMER COUNTY EH Cause Info:Head on collision resulted in release of diesel fuel from the saddle tanks of both trucks to the roadway and rocky shoulder of the road. Action:Kiewit provided immediate excavation of the impacted shoulder with "trenching" and "overexcavation" to remove the impacted material and place it at the construction staging area. They will cover it with plastic. They are waiting for their contact from Front Range Landfill in Erie to approve disposal there. Trooper Chris Tafoya was on scene and oversaw the clean up actions.   SPILLS 274 20 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Site: HWY 34 CO uu-SPILLS-820846264-bb Case No: 2001-422 H2O Unit Measure 2: Main ID: Quantity 3: NRC No: Unit Measure 3: Dt of Spl or Rel: 10/5/2001 H2O quantity 3: Event Time: 4:30:00 AM H2O Unit Measure 3: 1st Rep Event Dt: 10/5/2001 Cause:T Date Reported: 10/5/2001 Death:0 Time Reported: 9:35:00 AM Injury:1 Date Entered: 10/5/2001 Evacuation:N Time Entered: 9:48:00 AM Evacuation No:0 Land: FALSE PRP City: Air: FALSE PRP County: Surface Water: TRUE PRP State:CO Ground Water: FALSE PRP Zip: Material Type: OIL PRP Phone: Quantity 1: 5 PRP Extension: Unit Measure 1: G Mile Marker:82 H2O Quantity 1: 32 Who Took Report:OTTMER H2O Unit Measure 1: G Fixed Facility:FALSE Material 2: Event County:LARIMER Quantity 2: Latitude:0 Unit Measure 2: Longitude:0 H2O Quantity 2: Source Desc: Source:H Source Type:CAR ACCIDENT Medium:WATER Waterway:BIG THOMPSON Material 1:TRANSMISSION FLUID Material 3: PRP:PRIVATE CITIZEN IN HOSPITAL PRP Contact: PRP Street: PRP Fax: Responder 1:LOVELAND FD Responder 2:CSP Responder 3: Response Comments:ABSORBANTS APPLIED ON HIGHWAY AND REMOVED. CALLER HAS BEEN ONSITE AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. DRIVER TAKEN TO HOSPITAL. Notified Name:MARTINEK AND SAINZ **Note: Many records provided by the department have a truncated [Notified Name] field. Additional Comments: Comments:NO LOSS OF GASOLINE OF ANTI FREEZE FROM VEHICLE. Cause Info:SINGLE PRIVATE CAR (JEEP CHEROKEE) ACCIDENT RESULTING IN A LOSS OF TRANSMISSION FLUID TO ROADSIDE AND OVER CLIFF TO BIG THOMPSON RIVER. Action:LOVELAND FD AND CSP RESPONDED. ABSORBANTS TO ROADWAY. THERE WAS SOME RUNOFF LOST OVER A VERTICAL CLIFF INTO THE RIVER.   SPILLS 275 21 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Appendix: Database Descriptions Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) can search the following databases. The extent of historical information varies with each database and current information is determined by what is publicly available to ERIS at the time of update. ERIS updates databases as set out in ASTM Standard E1527-13 and E1527-21, Section 8.1.8 Sources of Standard Source Information: "Government information from nongovernmental sources may be considered current if the source updates the information at least every 90 days, or, for information that is updated less frequently than quarterly by the government agency, within 90 days of the date the government agency makes the information available to the public." Standard Environmental Record Sources Federal Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program:rr-DOE FUSRAP-bb The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where radioactive contamination remained from the Manhattan Project and early U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations. The DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) established long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS&M) requirements for remediated FUSRAP sites. DOE evaluates the final site conditions of a remediated site on the basis of risk for different future uses. DOE then confirms that LTS&M requirements will maintain protectiveness. Government Publication Date: Mar 4, 2017 National Priority List:rr-NPL-bb Sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program. The NPL, which EPA is required to update at least once a year, is based primarily on the score a site receives from EPA's Hazard Ranking System. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the Superfund Trust Fund for remedial action. Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all of the Operable Units and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point. Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 National Priority List - Proposed:rr-PROPOSED NPL-bb Sites proposed - by the EPA, the state agency, or concerned citizens - for addition to the NPL due to contamination by hazardous waste and identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment. Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all of the Operable Units and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point. Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 Deleted NPL:rr-DELETED NPL-bb Sites deleted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Sites are represented by boundaries where available in the EPA Superfund Site Boundaries maintained by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). Site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all of the Operable Units and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point. Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 DOE FUSRAP NPL PROPOSED NPL DELETED NPL Appendix: Database Descriptions 276 22 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 SEMS List 8R Active Site Inventory:rr-SEMS-bb The Superfund Program has deployed the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), which integrates multiple legacy systems into a comprehensive tracking and reporting tool. This inventory contains active sites evaluated by the Superfund program that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites. An active site is one at which site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, cost recovery, or oversight activities are being planned or conducted. Government Publication Date: Apr 27, 2022 Inventory of Open Dumps, June 1985:rr-ODI-bb The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides for publication of an inventory of open dumps. The Act defines "open dumps" as facilities which do not comply with EPA's "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR 257). Government Publication Date: Jun 1985 SEMS List 8R Archive Sites:rr-SEMS ARCHIVE-bb The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archived Site Inventory displays site and location information at sites archived from SEMS. An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. Government Publication Date: Apr 27, 2022 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System - CERCLIS: rr-CERCLIS-bb Superfund is a program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites at which the EPA Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with individual states and tribal governments; this database is made available by the EPA. Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013 EPA Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands:rr-IODI-bb Public Law 103-399, The Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994, enacted October 22, 1994, identified congressional concerns that solid waste open dump sites located on American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) lands threaten the health and safety of residents of those lands and contiguous areas. The purpose of the Act is to identify the location of open dumps on Indian lands, assess the relative health and environment hazards posed by those sites, and provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribal governments to close such dumps in compliance with Federal standards and regulations or standards promulgated by Indian Tribal governments or Alaska Native entities. Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1998 CERCLIS - No Further Remedial Action Planned:rr-CERCLIS NFRAP-bb An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. The Archive designation means that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013 CERCLIS Liens:rr-CERCLIS LIENS-bb A Federal Superfund lien exists at any property where EPA has incurred Superfund costs to address contamination ("Superfund site") and has provided notice of liability to the property owner. A Federal CERCLA ("Superfund") lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent Superfund monies. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This database was provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Refer to SEMS LIEN as the current data source for Superfund Liens. Government Publication Date: Jan 30, 2014 RCRA CORRACTS-Corrective Action:rr-RCRA CORRACTS-bb RCRA Info is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. At these sites, the Corrective Action Program ensures that cleanups occur. EPA and state regulators work with facilities and communities to design remedies based on the contamination, geology, and anticipated use unique to each site. Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2022 SEMS ODI SEMS ARCHIVE CERCLIS IODI CERCLIS NFRAP CERCLIS LIENS RCRA CORRACTS 277 23 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities:rr-RCRA TSD-bb RCRA Info is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. This database includes Non-Corrective Action sites listed as treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2022 RCRA Generator List:rr-RCRA LQG-bb RCRA Info is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2022 RCRA Small Quantity Generators List:rr-RCRA SQG-bb RCRA Info is the EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) generate more than 100 kilograms, but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous waste per month. Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2022 RCRA Very Small Quantity Generators List:rr-RCRA VSQG-bb RCRA Info is the EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG) generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste, or one kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste. Additionally, VSQG may not accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time. Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2022 RCRA Non-Generators:rr-RCRA NON GEN-bb RCRA Info is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2022 RCRA Sites with Controls:rr-RCRA CONTROLS-bb List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities with institutional controls in place. RCRA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2022 Federal Engineering Controls-ECs:rr-FED ENG-bb Engineering controls (ECs) encompass a variety of engineered and constructed physical barriers (e.g., soil capping, sub-surface venting systems, mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent exposure to contamination on a property. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 Federal Institutional Controls- ICs:rr-FED INST-bb Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Although it is EPA's (United States Environmental Protection Agency ) expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 RCRA TSD RCRA LQG RCRA SQG RCRA VSQG RCRA NON GEN RCRA CONTROLS FED ENG FED INST 278 24 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Land Use Control Information System:rr-LUCIS-bb The LUCIS database is maintained by the U.S. Department of the Navy and contains information for former Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) properties across the United States. Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2006 Institutional Control Boundaries at NPL sites:rr-NPL IC-bb Boundaries of Institutional Control areas at sites on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List, or Proposed or Deleted, made available by the EPA's Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program. Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 Emergency Response Notification System:rr-ERNS 1982 TO 1986-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories. Government Publication Date: 1982-1986 Emergency Response Notification System:rr-ERNS 1987 TO 1989-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories. Government Publication Date: 1987-1989 Emergency Response Notification System:rr-ERNS-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports made available by the United States Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC). The NRC fields initial reports for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response. These data contain initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency. Government Publication Date: Jun 5, 2022 The Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) Brownfield Database:rr-FED BROWNFIELDS-bb Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off greenspaces and working lands. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Government Publication Date: Aug 20, 2021 FEMA Underground Storage Tank Listing:rr-FEMA UST-bb The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security maintains a list of FEMA owned underground storage tanks. Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017 Facility Response Plan:rr-FRP-bb List of facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRP) to EPA. Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments. Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2021 Delisted Facility Response Plans:rr-DELISTED FRP-bb Facilities that once appeared in - and have since been removed from - the list of facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRP) to EPA. Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments. Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2021 LUCIS NPL IC ERNS 1982 TO 1986 ERNS 1987 TO 1989 ERNS FED BROWNFIELDS FEMA UST FRP DELISTED FRP 279 25 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Historical Gas Stations:rr-HIST GAS STATIONS-bb This historic directory of service stations is provided by the Cities Service Company. The directory includes Cities Service filling stations that were located throughout the United States in 1930. Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1930 Petroleum Refineries:rr-REFN-bb List of petroleum refineries from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Refinery Capacity Report. Includes operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year located in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. Survey locations adjusted using public data. Government Publication Date: Feb 4, 2022 Petroleum Product and Crude Oil Rail Terminals:rr-BULK TERMINAL-bb List of petroleum product and crude oil rail terminals made available by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Includes operable bulk petroleum product terminals located in the 50 States and the District of Columbia with a total bulk shell storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more, and/or the ability to receive volumes from tanker, barge, or pipeline; also rail terminals handling the loading and unloading of crude oil that were active between 2017 and 2018. Petroleum product terminals comes from the EIA-815 Bulk Terminal and Blender Report, which includes working, shell in operation, and shell idle for several major product groupings. Survey locations adjusted using public data. Government Publication Date: Feb 4, 2022 LIEN on Property:rr-SEMS LIEN-bb The EPA Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) provides LIEN information on properties under the EPA Superfund Program. Government Publication Date: Apr 27, 2022 Superfund Decision Documents:rr-SUPERFUND ROD-bb This database contains a listing of decision documents for Superfund sites. Decision documents serve to provide the reasoning for the choice of (or) changes to a Superfund Site cleanup plan. The decision documents include Records of Decision (ROD), ROD Amendments, Explanations of Significant Differences (ESD), along with other associated memos and files. This information is maintained and made available by the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 State Methane Gas Study Sites:rr-LANDFILL METHANE-bb This Investigation of Methane Gas Hazards report was prepared by the Denver Office of Emergency Preparedness in 1981. The purpose of this study was to assess the actual and potential generation, migration, explosive and related problems associated with specified landfills, and to identify existing and potential problems, suggested strategies to prevent, abate, and control such problems and recommend investigative and monitoring functions as may be deemed necessary. The Colorado Department of Health selected eight landfills as priorities due to population density and potential hazards to population and property. Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 1981 Environmental Covenants and Use Restrictions:rr-COVENANTS-bb Boundaries of environmental covenant/environmental use restriction sites made available by the Colorado Deparment of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE). CPDHE has the authority to approve requests to restrict the future use of a property using an enforceable agreement called an environmental covenant. Land use restrictions may be used to ensure the cleanup remedy adequately protects human health and the environment when a contaminated site isn't cleaned up completely. Government Publication Date: Feb 10, 2022 Superfund National Priorities List and Natural Resource Damages sites:rr-SUPERFUND NRD-bb Boundaries of Superfund National Priorities List sites and Natural Resource Damages sites in Colorado made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Government Publication Date: Jun 16, 2021 Superfund Sites:rr-SHWS-bb A list of Superfund sites in Colorado made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). In Colorado, the cleanup of Superfund sites is overseen by the CDPHE or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This list includes active Superfund sites, deleted sites, proposed sites, and natural resource damage sites. Government Publication Date: Jun 29, 2022 HIST GAS STATIONS REFN BULK TERMINAL SEMS LIEN SUPERFUND ROD LANDFILL METHANE COVENANTS SUPERFUND NRD SHWS 280 26 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Delisted Superfund Sites:rr-DELISTED SHWS-bb Sites which once appeared on - but have since been removed from - the list of Superfund sites in Colorado made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). In Colorado, the cleanup of Superfund sites is overseen by the CDPHE or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Government Publication Date: Jun 29, 2022 Solid Waste Facilities and Landfills:rr-SWF/LF-bb The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) regulates the management and disposal of solid waste and landfill facilities. This data is provided by the CDPHE's Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division's Solid Waste Report and the Environmental Sites Search Map Application. Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 Historical Solid Waste (Closed or Abandoned Landfills):rr-HIST LF-bb In the early 1980s the Hazardous Materials Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) conducted a survey of staff members and local agencies. The information gathered was compiled in 1984 for sites that were known or thought to have waste issues. The information is not complete and generally not very definitive or verifiable. This data became the Solid Waste Historical Data. The data is not maintained and has not been since the late 1980s. Government Publication Date: 1984 Tri-County Historic Landfills:rr-HIST LANDFILLS-bb A list of historical landfills made available by the Tri-County Health Department (TCHD). The TCHD serves Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas Counties. Government Publication Date: Jun 1, 2022 Registered Recycling Facilities:rr-RECYCLING-bb This list of registered recycling facilities in Colorado is maintained by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE). This list includes primarily processing facilities for recyclable materials, such as material recovery facilities, industrial recycling operations, and recyclable material end user sites. Collection centers/drop-off locations are not included unless the site is also processing recyclable materials (separating, sorting, dismantling, grinding, baling, etc.). Government Publication Date: Mar 11, 2022 Leaking Storage Tanks:rr-LST-bb A list of leaking storage tank locations from the Colorado Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS) database, including those which have applied for reimbursement from the Petroleum Storage Tank Fund. This list has been made available by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE). Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 LUST Trust Sites:rr-LUST TRUST-bb The Division of Oil and Public Safety of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) manages a Petroleum Storage Tank Fund (The Fund) that receives and processes applications to the Fund for reimbursement of costs related to assessment and cleanup of petroleum contaminated sites. Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 Delisted Leaking Storage Tanks:rr-DELISTED LST-bb This database contains a list of leaking storage tank sites and their Funds for reimbursement of costs related to assessment and cleanup that were removed from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) database. Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 Underground Storage Tanks:rr-UST-bb A list of underground storage tanks from the Colorado Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS) database. This database is made available by the Division of Oil and Public Safety of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE). Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 Aboveground Storage Tanks:rr-AST-bb A list of aboveground storage tanks from the Colorado Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS) database. This list is made available by the Division of Oil and Public Safety of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE). Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 DELISTED SHWS SWF/LF HIST LF HIST LANDFILLS RECYCLING LST LUST TRUST DELISTED LST UST AST 281 27 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS):rr-TANKS-bb The Department of Labor and Employment/Division of Oil and Public Safety manages the Colorado Storage Tank Information System (COSTIS) database that stores information on facilities with storage tanks. This database contains facilities with liquified petroleum gas, liquefied natual gas, and compressed natural gas tanks which are not classified as either USTs or ASTs. Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 Delisted Storage Tanks:rr-DTNK-bb This database contains a list of closed storage tank sites that were removed from the Division of Oil and Public Safety of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) Tank Information System. Government Publication Date: May 3, 2022 Environmental Covenants and Environmental Use Restrictions List:rr-AUL-bb The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) maintains a list of sites that have environmental covenants and use restrictions in place. Land use restrictions may be used to ensure the cleanup remedy adequately protects human health and the environment when a contaminated site is not cleaned up completely. Government Publication Date: Apr 11, 2022 The Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Program:rr-VCP-bb The Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment program of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) was created in 1994 with the objective to facilitate the redevelopment and transfer of contaminated properties. Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 2022 Brownfield Sites:rr-BROWNFIELDS-bb Brownfields Program sites found in the Colorado Environmental Records Search Interactive Map made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Sites which go untouched because of their real or perceived contamination can be rehabilitated using the CDPHE Brownfields Program. Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) on Indian Lands:rr-INDIAN LUST-bb This list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8, which includes Colorado, is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2022 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) on Indian Lands:rr-INDIAN UST-bb This list of underground storage tanks (USTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 8, which includes Colorado, is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2022 Delisted Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks:rr-DELISTED ILST-bb Leaking Underground Storage Tank facilities which have been removed from the Regional Tribal LUST lists made available by the EPA. Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2022 Delisted Tribal Underground Storage Tanks:rr-DELISTED IUST-bb Underground Storage Tank facilities which have been removed from the Regional Tribal UST lists made available by the EPA. Government Publication Date: Apr 20, 2022 County No County databases were selected to be included in the search. Additional Environmental Record Sources TANKS DTNK AUL VCP BROWNFIELDS INDIAN LUST INDIAN UST DELISTED ILST DELISTED IUST 282 28 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Federal Facility Registry Service/Facility Index:rr-FINDS/FRS-bb The Facility Registry Service (FRS) is a centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management procedures that incorporate information from program national systems, state master facility records, and data collected from EPA's Central Data Exchange registrations and data management personnel. This list is made available by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Government Publication Date: Nov 2, 2020 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program:rr-TRIS-bb The EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database containing data on disposal or other releases of over 650 toxic chemicals from thousands of U. S. facilities and information about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. One of TRI's primary purposes is to inform communities about toxic chemical releases to the environment. Government Publication Date: Aug 24, 2021 Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Releases:rr-PFAS TRI-bb List of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities at which the reported chemical is a Per- or polyfluorinated alkyl substance (PFAS) included in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s consolidated PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances. The EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database containing data on disposal or other releases of over 650 toxic chemicals from thousands of U.S. facilities and information about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. Government Publication Date: Aug 24, 2021 PFOA/PFOS Contaminated Sites:rr-PFAS NPL-bb List of National Priorities List (NPL) and related Superfund Alternative Agreement (SAA) sites where PFOA or PFOS contaminants have been found in water and/or soil. The site listing is provided by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Government Publication Date: Jul 18, 2022 Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Water Quality:rr-PFAS WATER-bb The Water Quality Portal (WQP) is a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC). This listing includes records from the Water Quality Portal where the characteristic (environmental measurement) is in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s consolidated PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances. Government Publication Date: Jul 20, 2020 SSEHRI PFAS Contamination Sites:rr-PFAS SSEHRI-bb This PFAS Contamination Site Tracker database is compiled by the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University. According to the SSEHRI, the database records qualitative and quantitative data from each known site of PFAS contamination, including timeline of discovery, sources, levels, health impacts, community response, and government response. The goal of this database is to compile information and support public understanding of the rapidly unfolding issue of PFAS contamination. All data presented was extracted from government websites, news articles, or publicly available documents, and this is cited in the tracker. Disclaimer: The source conveys this database undergoes regular updates as new information becomes available, some sites may be missing and/or contain information that is incorrect or outdated, as well as their information represents all contamination sites SSEHRI is aware of, not all possible contamination sites. This data is not intended to be used for legal purposes. Limited location details are available with this data. Access the following for the most current informations https://pfasproject.com/pfas- contamination-site-tr acker/ Government Publication Date: Dec 12, 2019 National Response Center PFAS Spills:rr-ERNS PFAS-bb National Response Center (NRC) calls from 1990 to the most recent complete calendar year where there is indication of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) usage. NRC calls may reference AFFF usage in the "Material Involved" or "Incident Description" fields. Data made available by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Disclaimer: dataset may include initial or misidentified incident data not yet validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency.  Government Publication Date: Feb 23, 2022 Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System:rr-HMIRS-bb US DOT - Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Incidents Reports Database taken from Hazmat Intelligence Portal, U.S. Department of Transportation. Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2020 FINDS/FRS TRIS PFAS TRI PFAS NPL PFAS WATER PFAS SSEHRI ERNS PFAS HMIRS 283 29 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 National Clandestine Drug Labs:rr-NCDL-bb The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this data as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Government Publication Date: Apr 30, 2022 Toxic Substances Control Act:rr-TSCA-bb The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The CDR enables EPA to collect and publish information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of commercial chemical substances and mixtures (referred to hereafter as chemical substances) on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). This includes current information on chemical substance production volumes, manufacturing sites, and how the chemical substances are used. This information helps the Agency determine whether people or the environment are potentially exposed to reported chemical substances. EPA publishes submitted CDR data that is not Confidential Business Information (CBI). Government Publication Date: Apr 11, 2019 Hist TSCA:rr-HIST TSCA-bb The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The 2006 IUR data summary report includes information about chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or more at a single site during calendar year 2005. In addition to the basic manufacturing information collected in previous reporting cycles, the 2006 cycle is the first time EPA collected information to characterize exposure during manufacturing, processing and use of organic chemicals. The 2006 cycle also is the first time manufacturers of inorganic chemicals were required to report basic manufacturing information. Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2006 FTTS Administrative Case Listing:rr-FTTS ADMIN-bb An administrative case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS and NCDB was shut down in 2006. Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007 FTTS Inspection Case Listing:rr-FTTS INSP-bb An inspection case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS and NCDB was shut down in 2006. Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007 Potentially Responsible Parties List:rr-PRP-bb Early in the cleanup process, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts a search to find the potentially responsible parties (PRPs). EPA looks for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site. Government Publication Date: May 25, 2022 State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing:rr-SCRD DRYCLEANER-bb The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Coalition members are states with mandated programs and funding for drycleaner site remediation. Current members are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Since 2017, the SCRD no longer maintains this data, refer to applicable state source data where available. Government Publication Date: Nov 08, 2017 Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS):rr-ICIS-bb The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) is a system that provides information for the Federal Enforcement and Compliance (FE&C) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs. The FE&C component supports the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Civil Enforcement and Compliance program activities. These activities include Compliance Assistance, Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement. The NPDES program supports tracking of NPDES permits, limits, discharge monitoring data and other program reports. Government Publication Date: Apr 30, 2022 Drycleaner Facilities:rr-FED DRYCLEANERS-bb A list of drycleaner facilities from Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) online search. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracks facilities that possess NAIC and SIC codes that classify businesses as drycleaner establishments. NCDL TSCA HIST TSCA FTTS ADMIN FTTS INSP PRP SCRD DRYCLEANER ICIS FED DRYCLEANERS 284 30 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Government Publication Date: May 5, 2021 Delisted Drycleaner Facilities:rr-DELISTED FED DRY-bb List of sites removed from the list of Drycleaner Facilities (sites in the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with NAIC or SIC codes identifying the business as a drycleaner establishment). Government Publication Date: May 5, 2021 Formerly Used Defense Sites:rr-FUDS-bb Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are properties that were formerly owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense prior to October 1986, where the Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible for an environmental restoration. This list is published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Government Publication Date: May 26, 2021 Former Military Nike Missile Sites:rr-FORMER NIKE-bb This information was taken from report DRXTH-AS-IA-83A016 (Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, 12/1984) which was performed by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Assessment Division. The Nike system was deployed between 1954 and the mid-1970's. Among the substances used or stored on Nike sites were liquid missile fuel (JP-4); starter fluids (UDKH, aniline, and furfuryl alcohol); oxidizer (IRFNA); hydrocarbons (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, gasoline, heating oil); solvents (carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, stoddard solvent); and battery electrolyte. The quantities of material a disposed of and procedures for disposal are not documented in published reports. Virtually all information concerning the potential for contamination at Nike sites is confined to personnel who were assigned to Nike sites. During deactivation most hardware was shipped to depot-level supply points. There were reportedly instances where excess materials were disposed of on or near the site itself at closure. There was reportedly no routine site decontamination. Government Publication Date: Dec 2, 1984 PHMSA Pipeline Safety Flagged Incidents:rr-PIPELINE INCIDENT-bb A list of flagged pipeline incidents made available by the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA regulations require incident and accident reports for five different pipeline system types. Government Publication Date: Jul 7, 2020 Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS):rr-MLTS-bb A list of sites that store radioactive material subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements. This list is maintained by the NRC. As of September 2016, the NRC no longer releases location information for sites. Site locations were last received in July 2016. Government Publication Date: May 11, 2021 Historic Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) sites:rr-HIST MLTS-bb A historic list of sites that have inactive licenses and/or removed from the Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS). In some cases, a site is removed from the MLTS when the state becomes an "Agreement State". An Agreement State is a State that has signed an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State. Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2010 Mines Master Index File:rr-MINES-bb The Master Index File (MIF) contains mine identification numbers issued by the Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for mines active or opened since 1971. Note that addresses may or may not correspond with the physical location of the mine itself. Government Publication Date: Feb 1, 2022 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sites:rr-SMCRA-bb An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) to provide information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The inventory contains information on the location, type, and extent of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) impacts, as well as information on the cost associated with the reclamation of those problems. The inventory is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed. Government Publication Date: Feb 22, 2022 Mineral Resource Data System:rr-MRDS-bb DELISTED FED DRY FUDS FORMER NIKE PIPELINE INCIDENT MLTS HIST MLTS MINES SMCRA MRDS 285 31 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 The Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) is a collection of reports describing metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources throughout the world. Included are deposit name, location, commodity, deposit description, geologic characteristics, production, reserves, resources, and references. This database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS. The USGS has ceased systematic updates of the MRDS database with their focus more recently on deposits of critical minerals while providing a well-documented baseline of historical mine locations from USGS topographic maps. Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2016 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Sites:rr-URANIUM-bb The Legacy Management Office of the Department of Energy (DOE) manages radioactive and chemical waste, environmental contamination, and hazardous material at over 100 sites across the U.S. The L.M. Office manages this database of sites registered under the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act (UMTRCA). Government Publication Date: Mar 4, 2017 Alternative Fueling Stations:rr-ALT FUELS-bb List of alternative fueling stations made available by the US Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Includes Biodiesel stations, Ethanol (E85) stations, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Propane) stations, Ethanol (E85) stations, Natural Gas stations, Hydrogen stations, and Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) obtains information about new stations from trade media, Clean Cities coordinators, a Submit New Station form on the Station Locator website, and through collaborating with infrastructure equipment and fuel providers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and industry groups. Government Publication Date: Aug 1, 2022 Superfunds Consent Decrees:rr-CONSENT DECREES-bb A list of Superfund consent decrees made available by the Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD). Government Publication Date: May 18, 2022 Air Facility System:rr-AFS-bb This EPA retired Air Facility System (AFS) dataset contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on stationary sources of air pollution. Regulated sources cover a wide spectrum; from large industrial facilities to relatively small operations such as dry cleaners. AFS does not contain data on facilities that are solely asbestos demolition and/or renovation contractors, or landfills. ECHO Clean Air Act data from AFS are frozen and reflect data as of October 17, 2014; the EPA retired this system for Clean Air Act stationary sources and transitioned to ICIS-Air. Government Publication Date: Oct 17, 2014 Registered Pesticide Establishments:rr-SSTS-bb List of active EPA-registered foreign and domestic pesticide-producing and device-producing establishments based on data from the Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7 requires that facilities producing pesticides, active ingredients, or devices be registered. The list of establishments is made available by the EPA. Government Publication Date: Mar 30, 2022 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Transformers:rr-PCBT-bb Locations of Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. PCB transformer owners must register their transformer(s) with EPA. Although not required, PCB transformer owners who have removed and properly disposed of a registered PCB transformer may notify EPA to have their PCB transformer de-registered. Data made available by EPA. Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2019 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Notifiers:rr-PCB-bb Facilities included in the national list of facilities that have notified the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) activities. Any company or person storing, transporting or disposing of PCBs or conducting PCB research and development must notify the EPA and receive an identification number. Government Publication Date: Jul 28, 2022 State Spills:rr-SPILLS-bb A list of hazardous material spills and releases (including Meth Labs) that were reported to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Government Publication Date: Apr 8, 2022 URANIUM ALT FUELS CONSENT DECREES AFS SSTS PCBT PCB SPILLS 286 32 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Spills:rr-OG SPILLS-bb A list of spills made available by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). Government Publication Date: Jun 22, 2022 Dry Cleaning Facilities:rr-DRYCLEANERS-bb A list of drycleaning facilities in Colorado that have submitted an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN). This list was provided by the Department of Public Health & Environment. Government Publication Date: Jun 21, 2022 Delisted Dry Cleaning Facilities:rr-DELISTED DRYCLEANERS-bb List of sites removed from the drycleaners database made available by the Department of Public Health & Environment. Government Publication Date: Jun 21, 2022 Air Pollution Control Division Permitted Facilities:rr-AIR PERMITS-bb This list of Air Pollution Control Division Permitted Facilities is maintained by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The Stationary Sources Program evaluates and develops air permits for stationary sources in Colorado. The program inspects sources to determine compliance with air regulations and permit conditions and maintains an inventory of air pollution emissions throughout the state. Government Publication Date: Jul 12, 2022 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS):rr-PFAS-bb A list of facilities that reported storing or using AFFF or Class B firefighting foam, other PFAS chemicals, have reported PFAS passthrough, or have detectable limits of PFAS in their discharge. Government Publication Date: Dec 8, 2020 Asbestos Abatement and Demolition Projects:rr-ASBESTOS-bb A list of Asbestos Abatement and Demolition Projects made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division. Government Publication Date: Dec 28, 2017 Hazardous Waste Sites- Generator:rr-HAZ GEN-bb A list of hazardous waste generators.This list is made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Government Publication Date: Jun 30, 2003 Permitted Facilities Listing:rr-PDES-bb A list of permitted facilities tracked by the Water Quality Control Division of the Department of Public Health & Environment (DPHE). This list is the state version of the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System). Government Publication Date: Mar 1, 2022 Hazardous Waste Sites- Treatment, Storage & Disposal:rr-HAZ TSD-bb A list of facilities that treat, store, dispose, or recycle hazardous waste on-site. This list is made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Government Publication Date: Jun 30, 2003 Hazardous Waste Sites- Corrective Action:rr-HAZ CORRACT-bb A list of hazardous waste generators with corrective actions. This list is made available by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Government Publication Date: Jun 30, 2003 Uranium Mill Tailings Sites:rr-UMTRA-bb There were nine uranium mill tailings sites in Colorado designated for cleanup under the Federal Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRA). These nine sites, know commonly as UMTRA sites, were remediated jointly by the State of Colorado and the U.S. Department of Energy during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Mill tailings were removed from 8 of the mill sites and relocated in engineered disposal cells. A disposal cell is designed to encapsulate the material, reduce radon emanation, and prevent the movement of water through the material. At one site, Maybell, CO, the tailings were stabilized in-place at the mill site. After remediation of the tailings was completed, the State and DOE began to investigate the residual impacts to groundwater at the mill sites. The groundwater phase of the UMTRA program is on-going. This database was provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in 2008. OG SPILLS DRYCLEANERS DELISTED DRYCLEANERS AIR PERMITS PFAS ASBESTOS HAZ GEN PDES HAZ TSD HAZ CORRACT UMTRA 287 33 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 Government Publication Date: Apr 24, 2020 Tribal No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State. County No County additional environmental databases were selected to be included in the search. 288 34 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 22081800396 h-Definitions Database Descriptions:This section provides a detailed explanation for each database including: source, information available, time coverage, and acronyms used. They are listed in alphabetic order. Detail Report:This is the section of the report which provides the most detail for each individual record. Records are summarized by location, starting with the project property followed by records in closest proximity. Distance:The distance value is the distance between plotted points, not necessarily the distance between the sites' boundaries. All values are an approximation. Direction: The direction value is the compass direction of the site in respect to the project property and/or center point of the report. Elevation:The elevation value is taken from the location at which the records for the site address have been plotted. All values are an approximation. Source: Google Elevation API. Executive Summary:This portion of the report is divided into 3 sections: 'Report Summary'- Displays a chart indicating how many records fall on the project property and, within the report search radii. 'Site Report Summary'-Project Property'- This section lists all the records which fall on the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section. 'Site Report Summary-Surrounding Properties'- This section summarizes all records on adjacent properties, listing them in order of proximity from the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section. Map Key:The map key number is assigned according to closest proximity from the project property. Map Key numbers always start at #1. The project property will always have a map key of '1' if records are available. If there is a number in brackets beside the main number, this will indicate the number of records on that specific property. If there is no number in brackets, there is only one record for that property. The symbol and colour used indicates 'elevation': the red inverted triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Lower Elevation', the yellow triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Higher Elevation' and the orange square will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Same Elevation.' Unplottables:These are records that could not be mapped due to various reasons, including limited geographic information. These records may or may not be in your study area, and are included as reference. Definitions 289 APPENDIX E CREDENTIALS 290 John C. Graves, P.G. Regional Manager / Senior Principal PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Graves has over 20 years of experience performing environmental, geotechnical, and materials engineering services. Mr. Graves is responsible for the management of Terracon’s offices in Fort Collins, Greeley, and Longmont Colorado; and Cheyenne, Wyoming. His responsibilities include business development, resource allocation, and client services throughout Northern Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota. As an Environmental Geologist, Mr. Graves provides senior project management, technical review, and quality assurance for an array of environmental compliance services as well as assisting with the project management and completion of geotechnical and materials engineering projects. Safety is one of Terracon’s core values, Mr. Graves adheres to Terracon’s Incident and Injury Free (IIF) core safety rules and practices and communicates the importance of safety to all personnel. Mr. Graves’ primary experience includes the management of leaking underground storage tank remedial sites, developing groundwater sampling programs, preparation of Phase I and II environmental site assessments, geotechnical investigations, construction materials testing oversight, managing subsurface soil and groundwater investigations, performing environmental risk assessments, environmental compliance services, geologic and hydrogeologic site characterization, and mineral assessments for potential conservation easements. Mr. Graves also has experience in solid waste engineering experience including, regulatory compliance, siting, permitting, site characterization, and environmental monitoring. His experience includes lined cells; lateral expansions; and cell closure. Mr. Graves has also performed and managed numerous geotechnical subsurface exploration projects and has managed materials testing services for a variety of project types including airports, compressor stations, natural gas processing facilities, school facilities, hotels, multi-family housing and many other types of projects. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Site Characterization and Remediation Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Wyoming Managed the environmental field work and project oversight and reporting for numerous active site remediation systems. Remediation systems included groundwater extraction, enhanced bioremediation, ozone sparging, air sparging, soil vapor extraction and dual phase vapor extraction. In addition, Mr. Graves managed and/or provided oversight for Voluntary Cleanup programs in Colorado and Wyoming. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Environmental Geology, 1997, Purdue University REGISTRATIONS Professional Geologist: Wyoming, No. 3521 CERTIFICATIONS 40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waster Operations Training Nuclear Density Gauge Safety Training American Red Cross First Aid and CPR AFFILIATIONS ASFE/The Geoprofessional Business Association Northern Colorado Geologists Association Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Wyoming Solid Waste and Recycling Association Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists WORK HISTORY Terracon – Regional Manager May 2016 to Present Northern Colorado and Wyoming Terracon – Office Manager August 2009 to May 2016 Fort Collins/Greeley, Colorado 291 John C. Graves, P.G.(continued) Previous projects include remediation work being performed for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, and the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. School Facilities Colorado & Wyoming Mr. Graves has been the project manager for numerous environmental investigations, geotechnical explorations and has managed materials testing services at various school facilities. Examples include geotechnical investigations for a new parking lot and new classrooms at Front Range Community College in Fort Collins, Colorado; geotechnical investigations for student housing and expansion of the student center at Western Wyoming Community College in Rock Springs, Wyoming; environmental compliance services provided during construction for Moby Arena and the Behavioral Sciences Building at Colorado State University in Fort Collins; geotechnical investigations for new classrooms at Morgan Community College in Fort Morgan, Colorado; and environmental site assessments performed during the site selection stage for a new elementary school in Cheyenne, Wyoming for Laramie County School District Number One. Municipalities Mr. Graves has been the project manager and performed project oversight on numerous environmental and geotechnical projects being performed for local municipalities. Example projects include environmental assessment services for a new park for the Berthoud Regional Recreation District in Berthoud, Colorado; environmental assessment services for the acquisition of numerous properties by Larimer County, Colorado; numerous environmental and geotechnical investigations for the City of Loveland, Colorado; environmental assessment and compliance services for the procurement of new property for the Estes Park Sanitation District, and environmental compliance services for Larimer County Fleet Management. Housing Complexes Mr. Graves has been the project manager and performed project oversight on numerous geotechnical, environmental and materials testing projects being performed for new housing complexes, including multiple geotechnical investigations for off-campus student housing at Colorado State University and another environmental and geotechnical investigation for off-campus student housing at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. Another notable project is the Legacy Senior Residences apartments in Fort Collins, Colorado. This project was proposed at a site within a known historic landfill utilized in the early 1900s by the original military fort. Mr. Graves coordinated a combined environmental and geotechnical field investigations for the property and assisted the owner with enrolling the site in the Colorado Voluntary Cleanup Program. To reduce the potential for environmental issues during construction, a helical pier foundation system was recommended and installed with Terracon oversight. In addition, Terracon designed a vapor mitigation system for the proposed structure, as well as the preparation and implementation of a soils management plan to deal with asbestos-contaminated soil uncovered during construction. WORK HISTORY (continued) Terracon – Office Manager, March 2005 to August 2009 Rock Springs, Wyoming Terracon – Environmental Department Manager April 2004 to March 2005 Environmental Professional February 2001 to April 2004 Cheyenne, Wyoming Creek Run Environmental Engineering L.L.C., Project Geologist, 2000-2001 Schlumberger – Geco-Prakla Division, Acquisition Engineer, 1997 – 2000 292 Christina (Tina) L. Ruble Project Geologist PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Tina has more than 15 years of experience in the management and implementation of environmental due diligence, site investigation, permitting, and compliance. Her primary responsibilities include project management, proposal, and cost estimating of due diligence investigations and site remediation projects. Safety is one of Terracon’s core values and Tina adheres to Terracon’s Incident and Injury Free (IIF) core safety rules and practices and communicates the importance of safety to all personnel. Tina’s experience includes working with chlorinated solvent sites, petroleum sites, voluntary cleanup program projects, vapor intrusion studies, and site remediation as well as management, mentoring of junior employees, work plan and sampling plan development, and report preparation. She also has experience with individual and community on-site wastewater system testing, design, and permitting, as well as the preparation of municipal wastewater planning documents. Tina has performed and managed numerous due diligence projects including Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) for a variety of project types including commercial office and retail buildings, industrial and manufacturing facilities, institutional facilities, multi-family housing, and large tracts of land and agricultural properties, among others. Tina has conducted several hydrogeologic studies and aquifer testing for public water supply wells, fate and transport analysis, and conceptual site models. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) Industrial and Manufacturing Facilities Tina has conducted and managed Phase I ESAs following ASTM E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process at various industrial and manufacturing facilities throughout Colorado and Wyoming. Representative projects include a 65,000-square-foot metal processing facility in Windsor, Colorado, multiple grain elevator facilities throughout Northern Colorado and Wyoming, and a gravel pit in Greeley, Colorado. Site features of potential environmental concern included numerous processing machines, storage tanks, railroad spurs, mechanical workshops, and active oil and gas facilities. The properties were evaluated for the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECS) as part of real estate transactions or financing. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Susquehanna University, 2004 CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 40-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Training OSHA 8-Hour Refresher Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Training AFFILIATIONS ASFE/The Geoprofessional Business Association CREW Northern Colorado Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce WORK HISTORY Terracon Consultants, 2021 – Present Ebert Engineering, Inc., 2017 – 2021 Brickhouse Environmental 2005 – 2017 Aqua Wastewater, Inc., 2004 – 2005 PRESENTATIONS/ PUBLISHED ARTICLES The effect of changes in land use on nitrate concentration in water supply wells in southern Chester County, Pennsylvania, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, March 6, 2012. 293 Christina (Tina) L. Ruble (continued) Commercial Retail, Office Buildings, and Institutional Facilities Tina conducted Phase I ESAs at numerous commercial retail and office buildings throughout Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming. Representative properties have included an 80,000 square foot commercial retail shopping center in Cheyenne, Wyoming; a four-story hotel with 121 guestrooms in Longmont Colorado; an approximately 7,500 square foot automotive repair facility in Longmont, Colorado; an approximately 5,000 square foot office building in Greeley, Colorado; and an approximately 150,000 square foot hospital and medical office building in Fort Morgan, Colorado. For each Phase I ESA, the site history was evaluated to identify past uses and potential RECs associated with the site and adjoining properties. Regulatory databases and local agency files were reviewed, as well as interviews with key site managers and site observations during a site reconnaissance. The Phase I ESAs provided the potential buyers with the necessary due diligence for site acquisition. Rural and Forested Land Tina has conducted Phase I ESAs on multi-acre sites ranging from an approximately 300-acre horse ranch to an approximately 10,000-acre tract of agricultural and vacant land throughout Northern Colorado and Wyoming. The Phase I ESAs were conducted following ASTM E2247-16,Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forested Land or Rural Property. As part of the ESAs, the site history was compiled through interviews, historical aerial photographs, and historical topographic maps to identify past property uses and areas of potential concern to be evaluated during the targeted site reconnaissance. The Phase I ESAs were conducted as part of the necessary due diligence process for site acquisition, land leases, or conservation measures. Phase II ESAs Tina has conducted numerous Phase II ESAs to evaluate site impacts as a result of RECs identified during the Phase I ESA process. She has been responsible for preparing the scope of work, cost estimates, and proposals, as well as conducting and managing the field work, data evaluation, and report preparation. Representative projects include direct push Geoprobe soil borings and temporary well points for sample collection, soil gas and sub-slab soil gas sampling, installation and sampling of permanent groundwater monitoring wells, and collection of samples from surface waters and near surface soils. Site Characterization and Remediation Tina has conducted site characterization and remediation activities as well as underground storage tank (UST) closures for a variety of project types. She has also conducted and managed several projects under the State Voluntary Cleanup Program related to home heating oil spills, retail fueling stations, chlorinated solvent releases from dry cleaners, and unregulated landfill facilities. Tina has also overseen UST closures at residential properties, multi-family housing, and retail fueling stations. Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Tina has overseen the installation of test wells for new public water supplies including logging of boreholes, aquifer testing, and groundwater sampling. Additionally, she has conducted soil test pit evaluations and percolation testing for individual and community on-lot wastewater disposal systems. Tina has also conducted percolation testing for future stormwater management facilities as well as conducted industrial stormwater sampling for existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharges. 294 Jon Brown Field Engineer - Environmental PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Jon is a field engineer for the environmental group at Terracon’s Cheyenne, Wyoming office. He has more than ten years in the construction industry between working as a carpentry laborer and working with the Wyoming Air National Guard as an engineering assistant. His primary responsibilities include performing site reconnaissance and preparing reports for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments as well as assisting with collecting samples for asbestos, lead, and groundwater sampling and occasionally assisting with system checks for remediation systems. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Jon has conducted multiple Phase I ESAs and contamination assessments for commercial, industrial, and residential entities across the State of Wyoming and along the northern part of the State of Colorado. Jon is familiar with the current ASTM standard procedures for conducting Phase I ESAs. Deluxe Cleaners Orphan Site – Remedial Injections – Cheyenne Wyoming Jon assisted Wyoming Department of Environmental Equality (WDEQ) with monitoring during remedial injections of BOS-100® performed by Alpine Remediation for remediation of soils and groundwater at the site. The site consisted of 88 injection points across three treatment areas totaling approximately 6,000 square feet along two parking areas adjacent to the subject site. He was responsible for documenting injection activities and any field adjustments to the injection point layout based on on-site obstacles and limitations, as well as repairing and/or replacing monitoring well caps to ensure proper access and prevent surface damage to onsite groundwater monitoring wells. Martin Marietta Granite Canyon Quarry – Groundwater Sampling Jon has assisted with quarterly groundwater sampling at the Martin Marietta Granite Canyon Quarry as a part of a groundwater monitoring plan to monitor the groundwater quality and levels to assess present and future impacts to the groundwater flow system near the quarry operations. Sampling events consist of collecting groundwater samples from 10 monitoring wells and depth to water measurements from three piezometric wells around the quarry. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 2021 REGISTRATIONS Wyoming State Board of Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors, E.I. – Engineer Intern No. 6715 CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER), 2022 MSHA Part 46 Surface Mining Training, 2022 AHERA-Accredited Asbestos Inspector, 2022 Colorado-Certified Asbestos Inspector, No. 27977 WORK HISTORY Terracon Consultants Inc. Environmental Field Engineer December 2021-Present Wyoming Air National Guard Engineering Assistant June 2012-Present 295 Jon, Brown, Credentials (continued) Warren Air Force Base Fire Alarm – Cheyenne, Wyoming Jon acted as the scribe to assist with an asbestos and lead inspection at four facilities located on F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB). Facilities maintenance personnel at Warren AFB were planning to update the fire alarm system in several facilities on base and the inspection was to determine if there were any asbestos containing building materials and/or lead-based paints within any of the facilities. Rawlins Elementary K-1 Gym Flooring – Rawlins, Wyoming Jon collected samples of polymeric rubberized flooring material in the school gymnasium for analysis to determine if mercury was present in the flooring material that was expected to be impacted by flooring replacement. After laboratory analysis found the flooring material to contain mercury, Jon assisted with observing and documenting abatement practices as well as mercury vapor monitoring during abatement work. Preston Building and Line Shack Building RBM Survey – Cheyenne Regional Airport, Wyoming Jon assisted with performing a Pre-Demolition Regulated Building Materials (RBM) survey of the Preston Building consisting of a two-story office/classroom building, a one-story maintenance building with two small aircraft hangars, and a hangar building totaling approximately 58,421 square feet, and the approximately 2,400 square foot, two-story Line Shack Building located at the Cheyenne Regional Airport. The RBM survey consisted of collecting samples for asbestos testing and lead paint testing and conducting a Hazardous Materials Inventory. Valley Motor Honda – Sheridan, Wyoming Jon assisted with performing a Regulated Building Materials (RBM) survey at the approximately 3,876 square foot sales building and the approximately 15,600 square foot main service building for potential future renovation or demolition. The RBM survey consisted of a limited asbestos survey, collecting samples for lead paint/coatings testing, and conducting a Hazardous Building Materials Inventory. Ellsworth AFB Building 88240 – Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota Jon assisted with performing a Regulated Building Materials (RBM) survey at the approximately 70,000 square foot building for a planned renovation. The RBM included a renovation-specific asbestos survey of areas anticipated to be affected by the renovation, collecting samples for lead paint/coatings testing, and conducted a Hazardous Materials Inventory. 296 Victoria Vollert Field Scientist PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Victoria is a field scientist in Terracon’s Fort Collins, Colorado office. Her primary responsibilities include Phase I site investigations, soil and groundwater sampling/monitoring reports, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of remediation systems, and documentation of field activities. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Fort Morgan, Colorado Victoria visited an approximately 8,000-acre tract of agricultural land near Fort Morgan, Colorado to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, assist in wet land mapping and prepared the report for our client. This Phase I ESA was conducted consistent with procedures included in ASTM E1527- 13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Craig, Colorado Victoria visited an approximately 5,000-acre tract of agricultural land near Craig, Colorado to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and prepared the report for our client. This Phase I ESA was conducted consistent with procedures included in ASTM E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Ground Water Sampling – Cheyenne, Wyoming Victoria completed periodic groundwater sampling at installed monitoring wells, data entry, preparation of annual reports, performing site reconnaissance for subsurface sampling, operation and maintenance of operating remedial systems, and documentation of field activities including chain-of-custody documentation for samples. Ground Water Sampling – Longmont, Colorado Victoria completed periodic groundwater sampling at installed monitoring wells, data entry, preparation of annual reports, performing site reconnaissance for subsurface sampling, and documentation of field activities including chain-of-custody documentation for samples. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Fort Collins, Colorado Victoria conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on an approximately 2-acre parcel with an associated four-story living facility near Fort Collins, Colorado. This ESA consisted of reviewing historical topographic maps, Sanborn fire insurance maps, aerial photographs, city directories, interviews and a site reconnaissance. This Phase I ESA was conducted consistent with procedures included in ASTM E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Sustainability Studies, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 2021 PROFESSIONAL TRAINING OSHA 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) 297 APPENDIX F DESCRIPTION OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 298 Description of Selected General Terms and Acronyms Term/Acronym Description ACM Asbestos Containing Material. Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, three varieties of which (chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite) have been commonly used as fireproofing or binding agents in construction materials. Exposure to asbestos, as well as ACM, has been documented to cause lung diseases including asbestosis (scarring of the lung), lung cancer and mesothelioma (a cancer of the lung lining). Regulatory agencies have generally defined ACM as a material containing greater that one (1) percent asbestos, however some states (e.g. California) define ACM as materials having 0.1% asbestos. In order to define a homogenous material as non-ACM, a minimum number of samples must be collected from the material dependent upon its type and quantity. Homogenous materials defined as non-ACM must either have 1) no asbestos identified in all of its samples or 2) an identified asbestos concentration below the appropriate regulatory threshold. Asbestos concentrations are generally determined using polarized light microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. Point counting is an analytical method to statistically quantify the percentage of asbestos in a sample. The asbestos component of ACM may either be friable or non-friable. Friable materials, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure and have a higher potential for a fiber release than non-friable ACM. Non-friable ACM are materials that are firmly bound in a matrix by plastic, cement, etc. and, if handled carefully, will not become friable. Federal and state regulations require that either all suspect building materials be presumed ACM or that an asbestos survey be performed prior to renovation, dismantling, demolition, or other activities that may disturb potential ACM. Notifications are required prior to demolition and/or renovation activities that may impact the condition of ACM in a building. ACM removal may be required if the ACM is likely to be disturbed or damaged during the demolition or renovation. Abatement of friable or potentially friable ACM must be performed by a licensed abatement contractor in accordance with state rules and NESHAP. Additionally, OSHA regulations for work classification, worker training and worker protection will apply. AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act AST Aboveground Storage Tanks. ASTs are generally described as storage tanks less than 10% of which are below ground (i.e., buried). Tanks located in a basement, but not buried, are also considered ASTs. Whether, and the extent to which, an AST is regulated, is determined on a case-by-case basis and depends upon tank size, its contents and the jurisdiction of its location. BGS Below Ground Surface Brownfields State and/or tribal listing of Brownfield properties addressed by Cooperative Agreement Recipients or Targeted Brownfields Assessments. BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes. BTEX are VOC components found in gasoline and commonly used as analytical indicators of a petroleum hydrocarbon release. CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (a.k.a. Superfund). CERCLA is the federal act that regulates abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under this Act, joint and several liability may be imposed on potentially responsible parties for cleanup-related costs. CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System. An EPA compilation of sites having suspected or actual releases of hazardous substances to the environment. CERCLIS also contains information on site inspections, preliminary assessments and remediation of hazardous waste sites. These sites are typically reported to EPA by states and municipalities or by third parties pursuant to CERCLA Section 103. CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators CFR Code of Federal Regulations 299 Description of Selected General Terms and Acronyms Term/Acronym Description CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition is defined in ASTM E1527-21 as “a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority) , with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). A condition considered by the environmental professional to be a controlled recognized environmental condition shall be listed in the findings section of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, and as a recognized environmental condition in the conclusions section of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report.” DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System. An EPA-maintained federal database which stores information on notifications of oil discharges and hazardous substance releases in quantities greater than the applicable reportable quantity under CERCLA. ERNS is a cooperative data- sharing effort between EPA, DOT, and the National Response Center. ESA Environmental Site Assessment FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Hazardous Substance As defined under CERCLA, this is (A) any substance designated pursuant to section 1321(b)(2)(A) of Title 33, (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 9602 of this title; (C) any hazardous waste having characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (with some exclusions); (D) any toxic pollutant listed under section 1317(a) of Title 33; (E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act; and (F) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the EPA Administrator has taken action under section 2606 of Title 15. This term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise listed as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) above, and the term include natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). Hazardous Waste This is defined as having characteristics identified or listed under section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (with some exceptions). RCRA, as amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980, defines this term as a “solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.” HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition is defined in ASTM E1527-21 as “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted residential use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release a historical recognized environmental condition, the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is a recognized environmental condition at the time of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is conducted (for example, if there has been a change in the regulatory criteria). If the EP considers the past release to be a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as a recognized environmental condition.” 300 Description of Selected General Terms and Acronyms Term/Acronym Description IC/EC A listing of sites with institutional and/or engineering controls in place. IC include administrative measures, such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls. EC include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. ILP Innocent Landowner/Operator Program LQG Large Quantity Generators LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank. This is a federal term set forth under RCRA for leaking USTs. Some states also utilize this term. MCL Maximum Contaminant Level. This Safe Drinking Water concept (and also used by many states as a ground water cleanup criteria) refers to the limit on drinking water contamination that determines whether a supplier can deliver water from a specific source without treatment. MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets. Written/printed forms prepared by chemical manufacturers, importers and employers which identify the physical and chemical traits of hazardous chemicals under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Federal Clean Air Act). This part of the Clean Air Act regulates emissions of hazardous air pollutants. NFRAP Facilities where there is “No Further Remedial Action Planned,” as more particularly described under the Records Review section of this report. NOV Notice of Violation. A notice of violation or similar citation issued to an entity, company or individual by a state or federal regulatory body indicating a violation of applicable rule or regulations has been identified. NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Clean Water Act). The federal permit system for discharges of polluted water. NPL The NPL is the EPA’s database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste facilities that have been listed for priority remedial actions under the Superfund Program. OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration or Occupational Safety and Health Act PACM Presumed Asbestos-Containing Material. A material that is suspected of containing or presumed to contain asbestos but which has not been analyzed to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos. PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl. A halogenated organic compound commonly in the form of a viscous liquid or resin, a flowing yellow oil, or a waxy solid. This compound was historically used as dielectric fluid in electrical equipment (such as electrical transformers and capacitors, electrical ballasts, hydraulic and heat transfer fluids), and for numerous heat and fire sensitive applications. PCB was preferred due to its durability, stability (even at high temperatures), good chemical resistance, low volatility, flammability, and conductivity. PCBs, however, do not break down in the environment and are classified by the EPA as a suspected carcinogen. 1978 regulations, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, prohibit manufacturing of PCB-containing equipment; however, some of this equipment may still be in use today. pCi/L picoCuries per Liter of Air. Unit of measurement for Radon and similar radioactive materials. PLM Polarized Light Microscopy (see ACM section of the report, if included in the scope of services) PST Petroleum Storage Tank. An AST or UST that contains a petroleum product. 301 Description of Selected General Terms and Acronyms Term/Acronym Description Radon A radioactive gas resulting from radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radioactive materials in rocks and soils containing uranium, granite, shale, phosphate, and pitchblende. Radon concentrations are measured in picoCuries per Liter of Air. Exposure to elevated levels of radon creates a risk of lung cancer; this risk generally increases as the level of radon and the duration of exposure increases. Outdoors, radon is diluted to such low concentrations that it usually does not present a health concern. However, radon can accumulate in building basements or similar enclosed spaces to levels that can pose a risk to human health. Indoor radon concentrations depend primarily upon the building's construction, design and the concentration of radon in the underlying soil and ground water. The EPA recommended annual average indoor “action level” concentration for residential structures is 4.0 pCi/l. RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Federal act regulating solid and hazardous wastes from point of generation to time of disposal (‘cradle to grave”). 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. RCRA Generators The RCRA Generators database, maintained by the EPA, lists facilities that generate hazardous waste as part of their normal business practices. Generators are listed as either large (LQG), small (SQG), or conditionally exempt (CESQG). LQG produce at least 1000 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste or 1 kg/month of acutely hazardous waste. SQG produce 100-1000 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste. CESQG are those that generate less than 100 kg/month of non-acutely hazardous waste. RCRA CORRACTS/TS Ds The USEPA maintains a database of RCRA facilities associated with treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of hazardous materials which are undergoing “corrective action”. A “corrective action” order is issued when there is a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. RCRA Non- CORRACTS/TS Ds The RCRA Non-CORRACTS/TSD Database is a compilation by the USEPA of facilities which report storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. Unlike the RCRA CORRACTS/TSD database, the RCRA Non-CORRACTS/TSD database does not include RCRA facilities where corrective action is required. RCRA Violators List RAATS. RCRA Administrative Actions Taken. RAATS information is now contained in the RCRIS database and includes records of administrative enforcement actions against facilities for noncompliance. RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System, as defined in the Records Review section of this report. REC Recognized Environmental Conditions are defined by ASTM E1527-21 as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to any release to the environment; 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” SCL State “CERCLIS” List (see SPL /State Priority List, below). SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures. SPCC plans are required under federal law (Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act) for any facility storing petroleum in tanks and/or containers of 55-gallons or more that when taken in aggregate exceed 1,320 gallons. SPCC plans are also required for facilities with underground petroleum storage tanks with capacities of over 42,000 gallons. Many states have similar spill prevention programs, which may have additional requirements. SPL State Priority List. State list of confirmed sites having contamination in which the state is actively involved in clean up activities or is actively pursuing potentially responsible parties for clean up. Sometimes referred to as a State “CERCLIS” List. SQG Small Quantity Generator SWF/LF State and/or Tribal database of Solid Waste/Landfill facilities. The database information may include the facility name, class, operation type, area, estimated operational life, and owner. TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRI Toxic Release Inventory. Routine EPA report on releases of toxic chemicals to the environment based upon information submitted by entities subject to reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. 302 Description of Selected General Terms and Acronyms Term/Acronym Description TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act. A federal law regulating manufacture, import, processing and distribution of chemical substances not specifically regulated by other federal laws (such as asbestos, PCBs, lead-based paint and radon). 15 U.S.C 2601 et seq. USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USGS United States Geological Survey USNRCS United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service UST Underground Storage Tank. Most federal and state regulations, as well as ASTM E1527-21, define this as any tank, incl., underground piping connected to the tank, that is or has been used to contain hazardous substances or petroleum products and the volume of which is 10% or more beneath the surface of the ground (i.e., buried). VCP State and/or Tribal facilities included as Voluntary Cleanup Program sites. VOC Volatile Organic Compound Wetlands Areas that are typically saturated with surface or ground water that creates an environment supportive of wetland vegetation (i.e., swamps, marshes, bogs). The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) defines wetlands as areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. For an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland, it must meet the following criteria: more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species must be categorized as Obligate, Facultative Wetland, or Facultative on lists of plant species that occur in wetlands; the soil must be hydric; and, wetland hydrology must be present. The federal Clean Water Act which regulates “waters of the US,” also regulates wetlands, a program jointly administered by the USACE and the EPA. Waters of the U.S. are defined as: (1) waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides; (2) all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, etc., which the use, degradation, or destruction could affect interstate/ foreign commerce; (4) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U. S., (5) tributaries of waters identified in 1 through 4 above; (6) the territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters identified in 1 through 6 above. Only the USACE has the authority to make a final wetlands jurisdictional determination. 303 January 2026 Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 1 37 WILDFIRE MITIGATION REPORT FISH HATCHERY WORKFORCE & AFFORDABLE HOUSING January 2026 Legal Description: N 1/2 SW 1/4 16-5-73; EP, EX RD AS PER 839-575; LESS 87000339, 89003857, 91004492, 92080005, 94099702, 96086646 304 Prepared by: White River Fire Consulting 2015 Breckenridge Drive, Berthoud CO Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 2 37 305 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Purpose Location ——————————————————————————————————————— WILDFIRE MITIGATION Wildfire Mitigation Objective Current Risk Situation Fire History Fire Behavior Analysis GS1 (121) GS2 (122) TL5 (185) TL8(188) Physical Characteristics Fire Behavior Interpretation and Limitations ——————————————————————————————————————— WILDFIRE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Defensible Space Fuel treatments Public Education Ignition Resistant Building Requirements Final Justification ——————————————————————————————————————— APPENDIX B: REFERENCE GUIDE Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 3 37 Table of Contents 6 7 7 7 9 9 9 10 11 13 14 17 18 21 24 26 26 30 33 34 36 37 306 FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP FISH HATCHERY NEAR ESTES PARK, COLORADO FIGURE 2. LARGE FIRE PERIMETERS MAP FIGURE 3. FISH HATCHERY FUEL MODELS FIGURE 4. FIRE BEHAVIOR OUTPUTS FIGURE 5. SURFACE FIRE FLAME LENGTH 121/122 FIGURE 6. FLAME FIRE RATE OF SPREAD 121/122 FIGURE 7. FLAME LENGTH UNDER VARIABLE WIND SPEEDS 185/188 FIGURE 8. RATE OF SPREAD UNDER VARIABLE WIND SPEEDS 185/188 FIGURE 9. PERCENT SLOPE FIGURE 10. ASPECT FIGURE 11. REFERENCED WEATHER RAWS FIGURE 12. DEFENSIBLE SPACE FIGURE13. COMPLEX-WIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE FIGURE 14. DEFENSIBLE SPACE ZONE EXAMPLE FIGURE 15. FUELS TREATMENTS FIGURE 16. RIPARIAN RESTORATION FIGURE 17. ROADSIDE THINNING Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 4 37 Table of Figures ………. 8 ………………………………………………..10 ………………………………………………..12 ………………………………………………………12 ………………………………………15 ………………………………………..16 ……………….19 ………………20 …………………………………………………………………..21 ……………………………………………………………………………22 ……………………………………………….23 ……………………………………………………………..26 ………………………………………..27 …………………………………29 ……………………………………………………………30 ………………………………………………………31 …………………………………………………………..32 307 Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 5 37 308 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Estes Park Housing Authority’s Fish Hatchery Workforce & Affordable Housing project Wildfire Mitigation Report has been created to meet initial and long-range development planning goals for the built environment and open space, to ensure ecosystem and community sustainability and to integrate directives with social goals. Specific project goals are to: •Comply with the procedures and standards set forth in Section 7.7 of the Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Areas. •Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire impacts to the development. •Provide development options for the mitigation of wildfire. •Develop an integrated management approach that encompasses all natural communities represented at the Fish Hatchery location. •Provide a tool to help residents of the area understand the complexity of the ecosystem and more effectively protect their property and lives from wildfires. Vegetation management is typically needed throughout the montane zone of the front range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains to return forests and rangelands to an ecologically sustainable condition and to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire and insect epidemics. Vegetative conditions at the property are somewhat divergent from their historic norm. Project-wide vegetation restoration treatments include the maintenance of meadows, enhancing riparian areas and establishing strategic fuel management areas to reduce vegetation density. This will be done primarily through selective cutting to remove undesirable species and with the retention of mature healthy plants and less dominant, but desirable species such as Aspen. Other recommended actions include. •Utilization of ignition resistant construction for all structures built in the development. •Development-wide defensible space. •Fuel reduction mitigation along roads. •Other Infrastructure recommendations to meet adopted code compliance. The overall intent of this plan is to holistically evaluate the built and natural environments to create a sustainable development that is in concert with sound ecological principles while becoming fire adapted. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 6 37 Executive Summary 309 INTRODUCTION Statement of Needs The Fish Hatchery Wildfire Mitigation Report was created to meet medium and long- range development planning goals, to mitigate the risk of wildfire, ensure that management activities are ecologically sustainable, and to integrate these directives with social and development preferences. This plan provides specific management directions to ensure the sustainability of the development and serves as a management guide for open space. Purpose: The three main objectives of the Fish Hatchery Wildfire Mitigation Report are to: 1)Provide a Wildfire Mitigation Report for development review and approval. 2)Help ensure the support of the Fire Protection District. 3)Provide a tool for current and future residents of Fish Hatchery to understand the complexity of wildfire issues so that they can more effectively manage their property and live in relation to this fire dependent ecosystem. Location The proposed Fish Hatchery development is located at the intersection of Fall River Road and Fish Hatchery Road called “Fish Hatchery” since 1945. The west end of the property borders Rocky Mountain National Park and the Aspenglen Campground. This 75-acre parcel of land has multiple structures including the hydrology plant museum, picnic shelter and restrooms, several storage buildings, and houses. These houses are currently used for transitional and long-term housing opportunities for Town employees. The property is split by Fish Hatchery Road and Fall River Road. The 55 acres on the westernmost portion of the site remain zoned A-1 Accommodations and are not included in the development of the Fish Hatchery Housing Project. This additional parcel of land is on the other side of the road and river to the rezoned portion. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 7 37 Introduction 310 Figure 1. Location Map Fish Hatchery near Estes Park, Colorado Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 8 37 311 WILDFIRE MITIGATION Wildfire Mitigation Objectives 1)Mitigate the risk of severe, uncontrollable wildfires by managing surface fuels and enhancing open meadow areas. 2)Promote responsible development through Fire Adapted Communities Concepts. •www.fireadapted.org 3)Develop a holistic fire management package which includes: •Fuels Reduction •Construction Techniques •Defensible Space •Access / Egress •Water supply 4)Minimize impacts to soils, riparian areas and the environment throughout the mitigation process. Current Risk Situation For the purposes of this report, the following definitions apply: Risk is considered to be the probability of an ignition occurrence. This is primarily determined by the fire history and vegetation in the area. Hazard is the predicted fire behavior, specifically the fireline intensity and rate of spread determined through the input variables of fuels, weather and topography. The majority of the study area is at low to moderate burn probability or risk for wildland fires. This assessment is based on an analysis of the following factors: •The Fish Hatchery area is defined by mostly low and moderate wildfire risk •It is assessed to have moderate to high Fire Intensity or Hazard. o Colorado State Forest Atlas: o Wildfire Risk Assessment Public Viewer (coloradoforestatlas.org) Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 9 37 Wildfire Mitigation 312 Fire History The Estes Park area, particularly within Rocky Mountain National Park, has a history of wildfires, with notable events like the East Troublesome Fire in 2020, which prompted evacuations and burned a significant area, and the Cameron Peak Fire also in 2020, which was the largest wildfire in Colorado's history. •East Troublesome Fire (2020): This fire, the second-largest in Colorado's history, burned 193,812 acres and prompted evacuations from Estes Park due to its rapid spread and spot fires across the Continental Divide. •Cameron Peak Fire (2020): This fire, the largest in Colorado's history, burned 208,913 acres, starting outside the park and impacting areas within. Other Notable Fires: The Ouzel Fire in 1978, a Rocky Mountain National Park fire, is one of the earliest examples of wildland fire use in the park. The Fern Lake Fire in 2012, which covered 3,330 acres. The Cow Creek Fire in 2010, which burned 1000 acres. While some of this data cannot be directly extrapolated to the Fish Hatchery development, enough of the same conditions exist to make a reasonable assumption of risk. Figure 2. Large Fire Perimeters Map Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 10 37 313 Fire Behavior Analysis Fuel models are a set of numbers that describe fuels (vegetation) in terms that a fire behavior model can use. There are seven characteristics that are used to categorize fuel models: •Fuel Loading •Size and Shape •Compactness •Horizontal Continuity •Vertical Arrangement •Moisture Content •Chemical Content The study area is represented primarily by 4 fuel models GS1(FM 121), GS2 (FM 122), TL5 (FM 185) and TL8 (FM188). Each of the major fuel types present in the study area are described below in terms of the characteristics that coincide with that fuel model. Fuel model descriptions are taken from Scott and Burgan’s Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models (FBFM40): A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model, a national standard guide to fuel modeling. Vegetation for the project area may or may not be specifically listed in the description. Plant species are only an aid to help visualize the characteristics of the model. The photos are taken from the project area and show where the local vegetation fits in. Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 11 37 314 Figure 3. Fish Hatchery Fuel Models Fire behavior simulations were run for the most common fuels in and around the project area. A standard set of Fuel moisture conditions were used to calculate Flame length (FL) in feet and Rate of Spread (ROS) in chains per hour. A chain is equal to 66ft and 80 chains equal 1mile. Crown fire and spotting were not calculated but are interpreted by the outputs. A range of windspeeds was used to show various possibilities. The outputs do not account for suppression and should only be used for comparison purposes. Figure 4. 90th% Fuel moisture inputs Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 12 37 315 GS1 (121) Low Load, Dry Climate Grass-Shrub (Dynamic) Characteristics Open shrub lands that cover one-third to two-thirds of the area may generally fit this model; such stands may include clumps of fuels that generate higher intensities that may produce firebrands or embers. Common Types/Species Shrub species include common and Rocky Mountain juniper, buckbrush, sage, bitter brush, and mountain mahogany. Mountain grasses are included in this model. Fire Behavior Fire spread is primarily through the fine herbaceous fuels, either curing or dead. These are surface fires where the herbaceous material, in addition to leaf litter and dead-down stem wood from the open shrub or timber overstory, contribute to the intensity of the fire. Description: The primary carrier of fire in GS1 is grass and shrubs combined. Shrubs are about 1 foot high, grass load is low. Spread rate is moderate, flame length low. Moisture of extinction is low. GS1 along with GS2 make up the majority of the fuel found on the property. Much of these fuel types will be modified by the defensible space prescriptions and fuel reduction areas. Mitigation in GS1 is typically achieved by annual mowing. In GS2, some shrubs may need to be removed to move the vegetation closer to GS1 conditions, thus minimizing fire behavior. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 13 37 316 GS2 (122) Moderate Load, Dry Climate Grass-Shrub (Dynamic) Description: The primary carrier of fire in GS2 is grass and shrubs combined. Shrubs are 1 to 3 feet high; grass load is moderate. Spread rate is high, flame length moderate. Moisture of extinction is low. These areas are of the most concern during the spring and fall when the grass is dormant. The shrubs don’t burn very well but could contribute to spotting from dead branches and leaves. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 14 37 317 Figure 5. Surface Fire Flame Length Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 15 37 318 Figure 6. Surface Fire Rate or Spread Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 16 37 319 TL5 (185) High Load Conifer Litter Characteristics This model is represented by dense stands of over-mature Ponderosa pine, Lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and continuous stands of Douglas-fir. In all stand types, heavy down material is present. There is also a large amount of dead, down woody fuels. Reproduction may be present, acting as ladder fuels. This model includes stands of budworm killed Douglas-fir, closed stands of Ponderosa pine with large amounts of ladder and surface fuels and stands of Lodgepole pine with heavy loadings of downed trees. This model can occur from the foothills through the sub- alpine zone. Common Types/Species Many types of vegetation can occur in this model, but primary species are, Douglas-fir, Ponderosa pine, and Lodgepole pine. Description: The primary carrier of fire in TL5 is high load conifer litter or needles; light slash or mortality fuel. Spread rate is low; flame length low. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 17 37 320 TL8 (188) Long-Needle Litter Description: The primary carrier of fire in TL8 is moderate load long-needle pine litter, may include a small amount of herbaceous load. Spread rate is moderate; flame length low. Fuel model 185 represents the ponderosa pine woodlands that have been thinned and limbed up. There is more spacing between trees and grass may grow underneath. They are less likely to transition to crown fire or generate embers. Fuel Model 188 represents the denser stands of ponderosa pine that have not been treated and are very dense. The limbs have not been pruned and become ladder fuels, which allows fire to climb up the tree and initiate a Crown fire. This generates ember showers that will land ahead of the main fire and potentially on structures. Defensible space and forest management practices will strive to convert FM 188 to FM 185 to help lessen fire behavior. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 18 37 321 Figure 7. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 19 37 322 Figure 8. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 20 37 323 Physical Characteristics Fire behavior is dependent upon aspect, slope, elevation, canopy cover and fuel type. Figure 9. Percent Slope Slopes are shown here as percent (rise/run x100). Steeper slopes intensify fire behavior and thus will contribute to a high wildfire hazard rating. Spread rate of a fire for a slope of 30% are typically double those of flat terrain when all other influences are equal. For these and other fire behavior rationales, many of the fuels reduction projects targeted steeper slopes on the property. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 21 37 324 Figure 10. Aspect Aspects are shown as degrees from North ranging from 0 to 360 according to their orientation. Aspects are influential in the type and quantity of vegetative fuels. Fuels on south facing slopes tend to be drier and more lightly loaded than fuels on north facing slopes when all other influences are equal. Aspect also has an influence on species dominance. The predominantly southern aspect of the property receives a lot of sun and tends to dry out faster after receiving moisture. Southern slopes typically produce more sparce vegetation in comparison to north facing slopes that retain moisture better and help support denser vegetation. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 22 37 Latitude (dd mm ss)40° 22' 00" Longitude (dd mm ss)105° 33' 00" Elevation (ft.)7820 325 Elevations within the study area vary from approximately 8030 feet on the south side to 8130 feet on the north side of the development. Beyond the property, as elevation increases, fuel loading and species change. Above tree line, fuels become sparse, and the natural burn interval is measured in centuries. Referenced weather information for the area was created by using regional weather as well as data collected at the Estes Park Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS). It was determined that this RAWS site provided the best option for weather data for the project area. Figure 11. Reference Weather using RAWS Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 23 37 326 Fire Behavior Interpretation and Limitations The majority of the study area is dominated by shrubs and grass. The most significant factor in fire behavior for this type of fuel is wind. Under extreme conditions, all the fuel models burn with high intensity and great speed. In order for fire to move through the area, it needs continuous fuels. In years with good moisture a higher fuel load of grass can be expected and as grasses cure, they can become a problem later in the season. In dry years, or during drought conditions, the grass will be very sparse and there will be mostly bare ground between the shrubs. Shrubs can appear green and still burn well due to volatile oils in the leaves and bark. Shrubs will also have dead wood that may not be seen due to the leaf canopy. Because most of the shrubs lose their leaves in the fall, the threat for late fall and winter fires is lower. If there is good moisture in the spring, the shrubs will not burn until much later in the summer. Many of GS1(FM121) and GS2 (FM122) stands are located around and above planned structure sites, making proper defensible space and ignition resistant home construction of critical importance. The rate of spread under moderate conditions is quite fast for GS2, reaching two MPH in some areas. Planned mitigation from GS2 to GS1 will help reduce rate of spread and allow more time for fire suppression and evacuation. The shrubs in the project area vary in burning intensity by the age and structure of the plants. Areas that are actively browsed by elk and deer will typically be very low growing, have new growth and burn less intensely. As the plant gets older and/or not browsed, it will become decadent with much of the plant dying off and contributing to more intense burning. It is expected that with this new development there will be less elk and deer browsing. For this reason, mitigation conducted at the onset of the development must be continued in perpetuity to maintain fewer volatile shrubs and grasses. Stands of mixed conifers. TL5 (FM 185) and TL8 (FM 188) occur in stringers and patches primarily around the development site and are limited within the development site. They do, however, create an exposure to the site through embering. Under extreme conditions this fuel model can produce large flame lengths and dangerously rapid fire spread through spotting. Torching and crown fire runs are possible. Direct attack in this fuel model may not be possible even in moderate burning conditions and will certainly not be possible in extreme conditions. Although this fuel model does not exist as a continuous fuel bed in the study area, conforming defensible space and ignition resistant construction is prescribed for all structures with an emphasis on ember hardening. Aspen stands do not pose much threat from wildfire. They would most likely be a barrier to fire due to the typically wet conditions existing where dominant and the generally high live fuel moistures in the plants. Even in dry years, aspen will probably not contain enough fuel to carry the fire. A few small stands of Aspen exist on the property and will be targeted for enhancement Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 24 37 327 through forest health practices including cleaning up diseased and fallen trees in the aspen stands which if left undisturbed could create heavy fuel loads of dead and down material. This evaluation is a prediction of likely fire behavior given a standardized set of conditions and a single point source ignition at every point. It does not consider cumulative impacts of increased fire intensity over time and space. The model does not calculate the probability that wildfire will occur. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 25 37 328 •EXCEPTION: Five feet of non-combustible landscaping material or natural ground cover is not required if the lowest 4 feet of siding is non-combustible in accordance with Section 3603 Figure 12. Defensible Space The Home Ignition Zone Typically, a minimum of 30 feet of defensible space is recommended around a structure. Zone 3 or the transition zone to unmodified vegetation should extend 100 feet or more depending on slope. On steeper slopes, the defensible space needs to be increased, particularly on the downhill side. The steeper slopes within the development are mostly uphill of planned structures. Extended defensible space will still be required on the up hill or north portions of the development (see figure 13). All homes and common buildings within the development will be required to develop and maintain compliant defensible space. The Master HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of the Defensible Space. Prescribed defensible space for the development will exceed standards and be designed for 100’ around all structures (see figure 13). Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 26 37 Wildfire Mitigation Recommendation In response to the comprehensive fire behavior analysis described above, the following elements for creating a Fire Adapted Community are required. Defensible Space 3604 Defensible Space design will be in compliance with the current Colorado State Forest Service guidelines and shall be required on all new and existing construction within the development. The Master HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of the Defensible Space. Any landscaping materials or natural ground cover within 5 feet of the exterior walls of the building and under all decks and projections shall be non-combustible. For additions equal to or greater than 50% of the total square footage of the original structure, or changes in the occupancy or use of existing buildings that would place the building under the scope of Section 3601.1, defensible space shall be provided around the entire building. 329 Figure 13. Complex-wide Defensible Space Traditionally, defensible space is defined and distances calculated on the individual structure level. Due to the clustering of this development an inclusive defensible space within and around the entire zone of development makes the most sense. Within and in between buildings, flammable fuels will be replaced with green lawn, gardens, certain individually spaced green, ornamental shrubs, individually spaced and pruned trees, decorative stone or other non- flammable or flame-resistant materials creating an interior, fire resistant zone. The exterior areas will utilize the same zonal approach applying thinning standards as well as replacement with species listed on the Colorado State Forest Service Fire Wise Plat list. https://csfs.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CSFS_CSU-Ext_Fact- Sheets_LFLP_FINAL_web.pdf ●Defensible space layout and design will be created in concert with the builder’s design aesthetic to create both a pleasing look and fire resistant landscape. ●The minimum space between individual trees is 10 feet and the amount of space should increase with increase slope, larger clumps and/or larger trees. o Crown separation is to be measured from the furthest branch of one tree to the nearest branch on the next tree. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 27 37 330 ●A clump of two to five trees will have more space between clumps than the space between individual trees. ●Pruning will be done to remove dead branches or branches that are touching/growing towards the ground. ●Flammable vegetation and materials located wholly or partially within the treatment area s shall be treated as follows: o At ground level- remove flammable materials, including but not limited to, ground litter, duff and dead or desiccated vegetation that will propagate fire. o All limbs and foliage of living trees shall be removed up to a height of 10 feet or 1/3 the height of the tree or shrub whichever is less. Remove all ladder fuels from under the remaining trees. All lots will have a defined Defensible Space Zone. Figure 14 is an example of the layout for a defensible space zone. Figure 13 represents the full extent of the required zone delineation. This area will be covenant restricted to any dumping or disposal of combustible materials or yard waste. Conforming defensible space shall be installed around all homes and common buildings in the development. This fuel reduction can be done post construction, however over-lot thinning beyond the building envelope can be done during the vegetation removal for the building envelope. This “first pass” of fuels reduction is much easier before construction. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 28 37 331 Figure 14. Defensible Space Zones example Annual Mowing – Any grasses allowed within the Defensible Space Zone will be required to be maintained. The overall intent of this area is to maintain the grasses to a height of <3” and/or maintain greenness. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 29 37 332 Fuel Treatments ●Fire Management Units (FMUs) Three types of fuels reduction treatments will be provided for the development (see Figure 15,16 and 17). The intent is to reduce the intensity and rate-of-spread of a fire. These areas should be delineated as Fuels Reduction Zones on the final plat map and in the development’s covenants. Open space areas with irrigated and cut lawns can be excluded from these zones but is an essential peace of the fuels reduction plan. On-site evaluation will determine what form of treatment is most appropriate. These fuel reduction areas will be maintained in addition to each individual defensible space around structures. The fuel treatments leverage off the roads, community trails and or riparian enhancement areas to create a landscape mosaic of fuels reduction. The layout and orientation of the fuel reduction considered prevailing winds, likely ignition sources and the fire behavior output maps described above and in the Fire Behavior Section of this report. Figure 15. Fuels Treatments Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 30 37 333 ●Riparian Restoration Riparian restoration can play a significant role in wildfire mitigation by reducing the fuel load and providing a natural firebreak. Healthy riparian areas can increase moisture content and potentially slow the spread of flames. This approach helps to mitigate the severity of wildfires and protect the adjacent community. Riparian areas, with their dense vegetation, tend to retain more moisture than surrounding drier areas, making them less susceptible to ignition and potentially slowing fire spread. By promoting healthy, native riparian vegetation, which often includes less flammable species, the overall fuel load in the area can be reduced. By implementing riparian restoration techniques, the community can improve its resilience to wildfires and protect both human populations and valuable natural resources. The riparian restoration zone within the property boundary can be seen in figure 16. Restoration will start with generalized clean up and disposal of all dead and downed materials. Any invasive plant species can be removed to help enhance native species. From a pure fuels reduction perspective, the removal of ladder fuels as well as removal of dead surface fuels will reduce the overall fuel loading. If restoration of the ecosystem is desirable, beyond the fuels reduction requirements, a restoration plan will be required to facilitate implementation over time. This zone is oriented on the slope below the development and will provide a reduction in fuel and create a fire resistant feature, in combination with the road side thinning (Figure 17) in a critical area. Figure 16. Riparian Restoration Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 31 37 334 ●Roadside Thinning There are not a lot of perimeter roads within the control of the development. Roads provide a means of access and egress as well as providing areas of fuels reduction. For the areas shown below in orange, road side thinning of fuels will be required. There are areas where the fuels are sparse and simply low limbing tress may be the extent of the mitigation. The southern areas may require more extensive tree removal. Along this area, all dead and down fuels will be removed, grasses will be mowed on an annual basis and shrubs and trees will be removed or separated to defensible space standards. This mitigation work will provide yet another form of fuel break as well as help protect the egress and access route. Since fuelbreaks can have an undesirable effect on the esthetics of the area, crown separation should be emphasized over stand density levels. That is to say that isolating groupings rather than cutting for precise stem spacing will help to mitigate the visual impact of the fuelbreak. Irregular cutting patterns that reduce canopy and leave behind islands with wide openings are effective in shrub models. Another issue in mechanical thinning is the removal of cut materials. It is important to note that in Colorado’s dry climate slash decomposes very slowly. One consequence of failing to remove slash is to add to the surface fuel loading, perhaps making the area more hazardous than before treatment. It is imperative that all materials be disposed of by piling and burning, chipping, physical removal from the area, or lopping and scattering. Of all these methods lopping and scattering is the cheapest, but also the least effective since it adds to the surface fuel load. It is also important to note that fuelbreaks must be maintained to be effective. Thinning usually accelerates the process of regenerative growth. The effectiveness of the fuelbreak may be lost in as little as three to four years if ladder fuels and regeneration are not controlled. Fuelbreaks will require a maintenance plan. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 32 37 Figure 17. Roadside Thinning 335 Public Education There is likely to be a varied understanding among property owners of the intrinsic hazards associated with living in this area. An approach to wildfire education that emphasizes safety and hazard mitigation on an individual property level should be continued, in addition to community and emergency services efforts at risk reduction. Combining community values such as quality of life, property values, ecosystem protection and wildlife habitat preservation with the hazard reduction message will increase the receptiveness of the public. Recommended Public Education Materials ●Use these web sites for a list of public education materials, and for general homeowner education: o https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pms051.pdf o http://www.firewise.org o https://csfs.colostate.edu/wildfire-mitigation/protect-your-home-property-from- wildfire/ ●Provide new homeowners and or renters with the findings of this study including: o Levels of risk and hazard. o Values of fuels reduction programs. o Consequences and results of inaction for planned and unplanned ignitions within the community. ●Utilize Community Wildfire Practitioners, who are the “spark plugs” in a community who are working with their neighbors, fire departments and others to prepare their community for the eventuality of wildfire. Too often government agency advice can be construed as self- serving. Consequently, there is poor internalization of information by the citizens. A local ambassador should be used to: o Bring the concerns of the residents on any on-going mitigation actions. o Select demonstration sites. o Assist with grant applications and awards. o California has a publication for community practitioners Community Wildfire Practitioners - California Fire Safe Council Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 33 37 336 Ignition Resistant Building Requirements All construction within the development will be required to comply with the: Estes park municipal code - 14.12.070 local code amendments – residential R331 wildfire hazard mitigation requirements. FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION. FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION ON ALL NEW STRUCTURES SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES: 1.ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTIVE SHELL PROVIDING NOT LESS THAN ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS, EXCLUDING OPENINGS AND DECKS. 2.EXTERIOR SIDING MATERIALS WITH A FLAME-SPREAD CLASSIFICATION OF CLASS C OR BETTER. EXTERIOR SIDING SHALL BE COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS FOR A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET (1.2 M) ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. EXCEPTION: NON-COMBUSTIBLE SIDING FOR THE LOWEST 4 FEET (1.2 M) IS NOT REQUIRED IF 5 FEET (1.5 M) OR MORE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE LANDSCAPING MATERIAL OR NATURAL GROUND COVER IS PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 331.6. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 34 37 SECTION 505 CLASS 2 IGNITION-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT CRITERIA ROOF ASSEMBLY ROOFS SHALL HAVE A ROOF ASSEMBLY THAT COMPLIES WITH NOT LESS THAN A CLASS A RATING. FOR ROOF ASSEMBLIES WHERE THE PROFILE ALLOWS A SPACE BETWEEN THE ROOF COVERING AND ROOF DECK, THE SPACE AT THE EAVE ENDS SHALL BE FIRESTOPPED TO PRECLUDE ENTRY OF FLAMES OR EMBERS, OR HAVE ONE LAYER OF CAP SHEET INSTALLED OVER THE COMBUSTIBLE ROOF DECK. ROOF VALLEYS WHERE PROVIDED, VALLEY FLASHINGS SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 0.019-INCH CORROSION- RESISTANT METAL INSTALLED OVER A MINIMUM 36-INCH-WIDE UNDERLAYMENT CONSISTING OF ONE LAYER OF 72-POUND MINERAL-SURFACED, NONPERFORATED CAP SHEET RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE VALLEY. EAVE PROTECTION COMBUSTIBLE EAVES, FASCIAS AND SOFFITS SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITH SOLID MATERIALS WITH A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 3/4 INCH. EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS CONSTRUCTED OF HEAVY TIMBER MATERIALS. GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER. EXTERIOR WALLS EXTERIOR WALLS OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 1) NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE; 2) APPROVED NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS; 3) HEAVY TIMBER OR LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION; 4) FIRE-RETARDANT-TREATED WOOD ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE; 5) IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIALS ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE. SUCH MATERIAL SHALL EXTEND FROM THE TOP OF THE FOUNDATION TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF SHEATHING. UNDERFLOOR ENCLOSURE BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE UNDERFLOOR AREAS ENCLOSED TO THE GROUND, WITH EXTERIOR WALLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ABOVE. EXCEPTION: COMPLETE ENCLOSURE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED WHERE THE UNDERSIDE OF EXPOSED FLOORS AND EXPOSED STRUCTURAL COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SUPPORTING WALLS ARE PROTECTED AS REQUIRED FOR EXTERIOR 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION OR HEAVY TIMBER CONSTRUCTION OR FIRE-RETARDANT-TREATED WOOD. 337 Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 35 37 SECTION 505 CLASS 2 IGNITION-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT CRITERIA APPENDAGES AND PROJECTIONS UNENCLOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ATTACHED TO BUILDINGS WITH HABITABLE SPACES AND PROJECTIONS, SUCH AS DECKS, SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION, HEAVY TIMBER CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTED OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1) APPROVED NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS; 2) FIRE-RETARDANT-TREATED WOOD; 3) IGNITION-RESISTANT BUILDING MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 503.2. EXCEPTION:COATED MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE USED AS THE WALKING SURFACE OF DECKS. EXTERIOR GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS AND GLAZED DOORS, WINDOWS WITHIN EXTERIOR DOORS, AND SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS, MULTILAYERED GLAZED PANELS, GLASS BLOCK OR HAVE A FIRE PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES. EXTERIOR DOORS EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE APPROVED NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SOLID CORE WOOD NOT LESS THAN 1-3/4 INCHES THICK, OR HAVE A FIRE PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES. WINDOWS WITHIN DOORS AND GLAZED DOORS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 505.8 VENTS VENTILATION OPENINGS SHALL BE FULLY COVERED WITH LISTED VENTS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1) THERE SHALL BE NO FLAMING IGNITION OF THE COTTON MATERIAL DURING THE EMBER INTRUSION TEST, 2) THERE SHALL BE NO FLAMING IGNITION DURING THE INTEGRITY TEST PORTION OF THE FLAME INTRUSION TEST, 3) THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF THE UNEXPOSED SIDE OF THE VENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 662°F. VENT LOCATIONS ATTIC VENTILATION OPENINGS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN SOFFITS, IN EAVE OVERHANGS, BETWEEN RAFTERS AT EAVES OR IN OTHER OVERHANG AREAS. GABLE-END AND DORMER VENTS SHALL BE LOCATED NOT LESS THAN 10 FEET FROM LOT LINES. UNDERFLOOR VENTILATION OPENINGS SHALL BE LOCATED AS CLOSE TO GRADE AS PRACTICAL. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LOCATED LESS THAN 50 FEET FROM A BUILDING CONTAINING HABITABLE SPACE SHALL HAVE EXTERIOR WALLS CONSTRUCTED WITH MATERIALS APPROVED FOR NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION, HEAVY TIMBER, LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION, OR CONSTRUCTED WITH APPROVED NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS OR FIRE-RETARDANT-TREATED WOOD ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE 338 Final Justification It is the recommendation of this report that the Wildfire Mitigation Recommendation elements described above be selected by the authority having jurisdiction as the best approach for new development in this area. These recommendations provide the best balance between the critical elements of access, fuels reduction and ignition resistant construction. To mitigate the potential for a structure fire extending beyond the building into the wildland and creating a significant event, residential 13D sprinkler systems with the appropriate volume and fire flow for each specific structure are required. If a 13-D system should be disabled or fail and a breach of the structure should occur, defensible space as a fuels reduction technique, to limit fire spread from the structure to the surrounding vegetation, will be installed. Defensible Space Zones will be established to ensure that the proper defensible space distances are met even beyond individual properly lines. Class “A” roof coverings will be required. This provides protection, for the most vulnerable area of the house, from ember generation in the event of a wildland fire. The restrictions on the use of combustible siding will help protect all structures from surface fire ignition. From a wildfire perspective, spectrums of solutions for the development are offered. Including geographic fuel breaks adjacent to neighborhoods and structures to reduce the rate of spread and intensity of an encroaching wildfire. Fuel breaks in combination with defensible space are the best solution to keep direct radiant heat and flame contact from igniting structures. The water supply configuration is sufficient for structure protection and wildfire suppression. In most jurisdictions throughout the United States, it is taught and recommended that engines do not hook up to water sources other than to fill their tanks. Mobility is the key to fire suppression in the wildland urban interface. Ample fill sites (pressurized hydrants) will be available. Access standards will adhere to applicable codes and be protected through road side thinning and extended defensible space. Local standards are sufficient for fire department access and egress while balancing the need for responsible land development. For these reasons, this report recommends the above stated elements be utilized to provide the most efficient and effective approach for responsible development for the Fish Hatchery Project. Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 36 37 339 The combination of construction techniques, along with fuels reduction on both the landscape and home-site level, should create a condition where the developed property would have a low- to-moderate impact from a moderate intensity wildfire. Additionally, other improvements could be made to further ensure protection from fire. Some of these elements are detailed in these publications from the Colorado State Forest Service: o Home Ignition Zone Guide - Home Ignition Zone Guide o Fire-Resistant Landscaping o FireWise Plant Materials - 6.305 - Extension o Grass Seed Mixes to Reduce Wildfire Hazards o Wildfire and Insurance o Protect Your Home & Property from Wildfire | Colorado State Forest Service | Colorado State University o Acronyms for wildfire Estes Park Housing Authority Wildfire Mitigation Report January 2026 of 37 37 Appendix B: Reference Guide 340 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. Rod Morten Rodneymorten@gmail.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. 341 File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. IMG_6261.jpeg 3.22MB IMG_6262.jpeg 3.66MB IMG_6263.jpeg 3.3MB IMG_6264.jpeg 3.21MB 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Hoping this research from CPW will help with opposing this variance. If possible would like on record with town board as well. Thank you-rod 342 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Mary Banken mary.banken@gmail.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. The buffer requirement for designated wetlands areas exists to protect valuable natural resources. Sacrificing those buffer areas in order to develop new roadways this contrary to the intents and purposes of wetlands protections. These protections have been fully in place for the entire time that the fish hatchery project has been under consideration, thus any perceived hardship from these restrictions must be viewed as self- imposed. An alternative development plan is needed. 3/2/2026 343 March 2, 2026 Subject: Opposition to Wetland Setback Variance – 1754 Fish Hatchery Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment, I respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the requested variance from EPDC Section 7.6.F.1 to allow disturbance within the 50-foot wetland setback at 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. While workforce housing is an important community goal, the standards for granting a variance are clear and must be applied consistently. In this case, the applicant has not demonstrated that the request satisfies the required criteria. First, the conditions cited as “special circumstances” — including wetlands, steep slopes, and bifurcated ownership — are site characteristics that were known or reasonably foreseeable. These conditions do not constitute an extraordinary hardship unique to this property. Rather, they are environmental constraints that the Development Code is specifically designed to address. Practical di Aiculty resulting from a chosen development intensity does not justify relief from environmental protections. Second, the requested variance is substantial. Reducing a required 50-foot wetland setback to as little as 8.7 feet represents a dramatic deviation from the Code. Such a reduction cannot reasonably be characterized as minor. When combined with a requested 10% margin of error and additional minor modifications elsewhere on the site, the cumulative encroachment meaningfully weakens the protective purpose of the bu Aer. Third, the intent of the wetland setback requirement would be impaired by allowing road construction, grading, and earthwork within the buAer area. Wetland setbacks exist to protect water quality, prevent sedimentation, preserve habitat, and maintain ecological function. Roads are among the most impactful forms of development adjacent to wetlands, increasing runoA, pollutants, and long-term disturbance risk. While best management practices are proposed, mitigation measures do not eliminate risk, nor do they substitute for compliance with setback standards. Additionally, the National Park Service is actively engaged in managing moose populations within Rocky Mountain National Park due to documented impacts on wetlands. As Will Deacy, Large Mammal Ecologist for RMNP, stated in a December 17, 2025, article by Stephanie Butzer published by Denver7 ABC: “We’re starting this park-wide wetland restoration and moose management planning process with the goal of halting the loss 344 of wetlands where they still exist and restoring wetlands that have been degraded or lost.” This statement underscores the ecological value and vulnerability of wetlands in this region. If wildlife pressure alone is suAicient to warrant active management and restoration eAorts, that recognition speaks directly to the sensitivity of these system s. Moose impacts, while significant, are natural and fluctuate over time as part of ecosystem dynamics. In contrast, road construction, grading, and infrastructure within the required setback represent permanent, engineered disturbance. If even naturally occurring wildlife presence is considered a threat requiring intervention, it is diAicult to reconcile how intentional human encroachment into regulated wetland bu Aer areas would not pose equal or greater long-term risk. The standard of protection should not be lower for development than for wildlife. Rather, it should reflect the same commitment to preventing further wetland degradation. Fourth, alternatives appear available. The applicant acknowledges that the eastern portion of the site represents approximately 20% of the developable area. The inability to maximize development potential does not constitute a hardship under variance standards. Reducing the number of units, reconfiguring the site plan, or clustering development away from sensitive areas are reasonable alternatives that would avoid or reduce the need for encroachment. Finally, granting this variance would set a concerning precedent. If significant reductions in wetland setbacks are permitted to accommodate roadway placement and density objectives, future applicants may reasonably expect similar treatment. This would undermine the consistent application of the Development Code and weaken long-standing environmental protections. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board deny the requested variances and require a site design that complies with the 50-foot wetland setback requirement. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christy Jacobs Full Time Resident 345 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Kristine L. Poppitz kjpoppitz@msn.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. Dear Board of Adjustments: I am writing in opposition to the variance for 1754 Fish Hatchery Road. In reference to the Staff Report, even with the implementation of "best practices" and "protective measures", nothing can prevent direct impacts to the "waters of the United States" and/or to the land. Clearly demarcated boundaries can never guarantee impact on any waters. Disturbing wetlands buffer/setback areas and/or allowing for a 10% margin of error do/does not change the fact that any disturbance is a change. Denying this request for a wetlands setback does not cause any unnecessary hardship or difficulty on the Applicant. Thank you very much for denying this variance request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`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g  #  ij(`2)1)13H431(71\(10*;F)<42H*42*;73442F34)<\*1(4X6*021J<\20F02P(I*/21*1<*;F/23F2Y(4)21J8;7123;)*)BQF376'(;1(F(0S7*0Y2;+*4(*Q\20F02P(73442F34P34'33)(<F((4</(*4<*;F31I(4)H(72()Q42H*42*;/6PP(4)6HH3412;+(7303+27*0P6;7123;QP033FH0*2;[*FG*7(;1*4(*73;142/612;+13F4*2;*+(*;FP033F'212+*123;I(4(X624(F)(1/*7SP43'Z?P((113*HH43`2'*1(0JA]8lP((1;6002P2()1I(2;1(;13P1I(H431(712Y(/6I()(1/*7S2);31*4/214*4Jm21(`2)1)13H43Y2F('(*;2;+P60(7303+27*0H431(7123;*;F03;+[1(4'42)Y*42*;7(\360F'*1(42*00J2'H*241I(H64H3)(3P:(7123;_8@8 347                                       !            !"                                  !#$%&'()*&+,&-./0,1).2.-(*&3(454    78    9        "       :      ;      <=             6>:6?<@A< B  :                       <C         D     !                          <                !   E           E   <         GH   IHHJ<JJJ              !               <                    !.)2     9 : <             !       :6       !                      B         R   S !JD        8  V!W!               <       <             !            ! <     <   <         !     !    :YZJHPVJ\Q 348                                   !    "# $           "  #          %    "      #  #      % " %          " $ #  #        %        349 To the members of the Board of Adjustment I am writing as a concerned community member living along Fish Hatchery Road to formally express my opposition to the requested variance regarding the wetland setback areas for the Fish Hatchery Development. Having lived in this area for years, I have personally observed that the specific land currently under consideration for this variance serves as a critical habitat and nursery for local wildlife: •Elk Nursery: From late May through June, female elk utilize the south-side setback areas as a protected nursery for their young calves. I have frequently observed these females communal-parenting and protecting their young in this specific corridor. •Moose Foraging: During the same months, moose frequent this area to forage. Since the 2020 Troublesome Fire, these moose have become a consistent presence here, utilizing the wetlands in a manner nearly identical to the Endovalley area of RMNP. •Seasonal Refuge: After the females and calves depart in early July, male elk use this area as a cool resting spot to escape rising summer temperatures before moving to higher elevations. This ecosystem is one of the last remaining rich wildlife corridors within town limits. Once this delicate balance is destroyed by encroaching development, it cannot be replaced. I respectfully request that the Board deny the variance and instead require Estes Park Housing Authority to present alternative plans. Specifically, I ask that the following be evaluated: 1. Moving the proposed development further north to preserve the southern setbacks. 2. Downsizing the project to fit within the existing legal boundaries without requiring a variance. 3.A formal cost-analysis of these alternatives versus the ecological "cost" of losing this vital corridor. The long-term value of this wildlife area to the Estes Park community far outweighs the short- term convenience of this variance. Thank you for your time and for considering the protection of this unique ecosystem. Sincerely, Marty Miranda 2742 Ypsilon Court Estes Park, CO 80517 916-662-4798 2/25/26350 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Rod Morten Rodneymorten@gmail For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. A self-imposed hardship in the context of a wetlands variance refers to a situation where the difficulty in complying with environmental regulations stems from the property owner’s own actions, rather than from unique, inherent physical limitations of the land. When a landowner knowingly creates a situation that prevents compliance with wetland setbacks or restrictions—such as by building in a protected area or subdividing a lot in a way that creates a non-conforming parcel—they cannot later claim "hardship" to obtain a variance. I submitted a previous comment with my opposition based on a self imposed hardship. I have reviewed epha application and some of my questions are answered. To reiterate-the epha knew wetlands existed on property and should have been familiar with the code regarding wetlands which in includes the disturbances associated with the set back. Variance should not be granted as a result of them self imposing this hardship. Thank you for entertaining my comment-Rod 2/25/26 351 Estes Park Board of Adjustment Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Email * Radio Button The Board of Adjustment wants to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for public comment on any current agenda items. Agenda Item Title Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Adjustment:* Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. Rod Morten rodneymorten@gmail.com For Against Neutral 1754 Fish Hatchery Rd If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to planning@estes.org. If you have documents to include with your public comment they can be attached here. 25 MB limit. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. I am not an expert in wetland variance but my understanding is that a hardship must be created in order to get a wetlands variance. What is the Epha definition of hardship here? With that, it is my understanding that the applicant knew that wetlands existed on the property before they adopted a development plan, thus it seems that their actions now are creating the hardship. Is this not a self imposed hardship? Also, have there been any studies done reflecting any potential harm to the wetlands as a result of the approval of this variance? Such as increased flooding potential, water quality degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat. Have all the necessary permits been obtained-State, Federal, etc? 2/22/26 352 Planning commdev <planning@estes.org> hearing regarding 170 macgregor ave 1 message Richard Lillie <richard.lillie@janusintl.com>Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:56 PM To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org> I would like to know why we have designated this parcel of land…within 300 yards of the RMNP entrance…..it’s a major travel route for elk and mule deer….prime real estate that is going to be developed for workforce housing???? It’s going to be the “presentation” the “view” of everyone sitting in line to get into the park…I don’t understand…of all the available land and this is what we chose? RICHARD LILLIE Vice President of National Accounts "Tell Us How We're Doing" _____________________________ 135 Janus International Blvd. | Temple, GA 30179 C: 404-427-7025 JanusIntl.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any action in reliance on the information contained in this e-mail is prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments immediately. 353 Fish Hatchery Neighborhood Development WETLAND VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 7, 2026 Roles Roles ◦Scott Moulton –Executive Director Estes Park Housing Authority ◦Peter Levine –Director of Real Estate Development Estes Park Housing Authority ◦Rob Goss –Project Civil Engineering –Marcin Civil ◦Ronnie Pelusio –Project Land Planner & Architect –Pel-Ona Studio Pelusio Property Owners ◦Town of Estes Park ◦Rocky Mountain National Park Applicant ◦Estes Park Housing Authority ◦Entered into agreement with Town of Estes Park to Develop the Land Request ◦Variance to the wetland setback in 2 key areas ◦Current Wait List: ◦Total Households: 3,000 ◦Households that work/live within Estes: 650 ◦The Estes Park Housing Authority currently houses ~25% of the children in the Estes Valley ◦Median Sales Price Summer 2025 ◦Attached Housing: $530,000 in Estes Park ◦Detached Housing: $767,000 in Estes Park ◦Data from Root Policy Housing Needs Assessment ◦Over 35% of Estes Valley jobs are in accommodations and food service—one of the lowest paying sector in Larimer County ◦Homes Occupied Year-Round ~56% ◦People commuting for work ~33% ◦The number of households paying more than 30% of their income: ~58% for renters and ~19% for owners ◦AKA only 42% of renters live in what is considered affordable housing Housing Needs Why are Wetlands Important? Wetlands are important features in the landscape that provide numerous beneficial services for people and for fish and wildlife. Some of these services, or functions, include protecting and improving water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitats, storing floodwaters and maintaining surface water flow during dry periods. These valuable functions are the result of the unique natural characteristics of wetlands. Note that going into the setback does not impact the wetlands themselves “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized.” ◦All wetlands on site qualify as Waters of the United States Statement from 3rd Party Wetland Consultant Submitted 3rd Party Due Diligence Materials Wetlands ◦Wetland Delineation Report: 9/2024 ◦Wetland Variance Request: 12/2025 Wildlife◦Wildlife Report & Conservation Plan: 4/2025 ◦Colorado Parks & Wildlife: 10/2025 Fire◦Wildfire Mitigation Report: 1/2026 ◦Link to evacuation meeting: 2/2024 Misc Environmental ◦Phase I Environmental: 9/2022 ◦Class III Archeological, Architectural, and Cultural Review: 9/2025 Documents with Best Practices ◦Wildlife Report & Conservation Plan ◦Wetland Delineation Report ◦Wildfire Mitigation Report ◦Geotechnical Report Statement from 3rd Party Wetland Consultant “With the use of a clearly demarcated setback boundary at each wetland location boundary and a clearly demarcated work area for the proposed building envelopes, grading and earthwork, road construction, multi-use trail construction, tree lawn areas, a restoration area, and a soft-surface trail construction, project creep will be controlled and no direct impact to the Waters of the United States, including wetlands, open water, and riparian corridor, will be realized.” ◦All wetlands on site qualify as Waters of the United States Supplemental Slides Request A variance to the Development Code Section 7.6.F.1 to allow activities described herein within wetland setbacks per the table below, subject to a 10% margin of error: Purpose of Request – B & C ◦To allow construction of Fish Hatchery Road on the 60’ wide parcel that is owned by the National Park Service ◦The Owners on the variance application are ◦Rocky Mountain National Park ◦The Town of Estes Park ◦Agreements in Place ◦EPHA and The National Park Service have entered into a conditional agreement to construct a road in this location ◦The Town of Estes Park and the National Park Service have entered into a conditional agreement to maintain the road once constructed Purpose of Request – B & C ◦Q: Why do we need to build a road on the NPS Land? ◦Better utilization of the land to allow for low impact massing & building types ◦Q: Are there other solutions? ◦The parcel cannot be transferred to the Town of Estes Park without an action from Congress ◦No private property can be platted or constructed on the NPS land ◦The land bisects the site ◦Moving Fish Hatchery Road to the south allows for practical utilization of the site that will allow low massing workforce & attainable housing to be built ◦Conservation of land near Fall River ◦Furthers the goals outlined in the code & comprehensive plan Purpose of Request – H & I 1)To allow access to the eastern portion of the site ◦~21% of developable land is in this area ◦15 units exist in this location = ~14% of total units 2)To allow for restoration ◦Removal of an existing asphalt parking lot currently within wetland setback 3)To help facilitate evacuation and emergency service access ◦Provides additional emergency egress route to both existing neighbors to the east & future residents Decision Criteria 1) Special circumstances or conditions exist ◦60’ wide strip of Federal land bisects the site ◦Site was previously used as a Fish Hatchery with many man-made ponds ◦While many of the ponds were filled in & remediated, not all were 2) Practical Difficultly ◦A)Whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance ◦B) Whether the variance is substantial ◦C) Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance ◦D) Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of public services such as water and sewer ◦E) Whether the Applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirement ◦F) Whether the Applicant's predicament can be mitigated through some method other than a variance Project Details Project Goals ◦The Town of Estes Park has identified this parcel for workforce housing for ~20 years ◦EPHA Goal for site: To provide quality workforce housing for the workers of the Estes Community with rents & sales prices to best serve these community members while creating ‘missing-middle’ architectural designs to limit the impacts & footprints in this unique location Unavoidable Costs ◦Improvement of eastern Fish Hatchery & Fall River Road Intersection ◦Above threshold of improvement, even without this project ◦Water booster pump station ◦Road and utility infrastructure for subdivision ◦Not pursuing a Metro District ◦Utility extensions across Fall River to property Impact of Wetland Decision Potential Outcomes ◦Variance is approved ◦The project can proceed as envisioned ◦Variance is not approved ◦Lots are lost on both the eastern and southwest portion of the site ◦Less lots available to spread the cost of various improvements ◦Costs must be made up somewhere ◦Higher rent & sale prices ◦Requires keeping unit count the roughly same ◦Larger buildings in the middle ◦Taller buildings ◦Limiting attainable for-sale housing If the Variance is rejected, it create difficulties in driving affordability for the future residents of this development & a will likely end in development plan that neighbors dislike more than our current iteration Impact of Wetland Decision 2022 America West plan: 190 units Units allowed by Right: 352 units Our site plan: 109 units Attainable Housing Definition Workforce & Attainable housing are both explicitly defined in the Estes Park Development Code ◦Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units ◦Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size. ◦To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility expenses) must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum income for an imputed household size based on one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income ◦Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units ◦Housing units that are attainable to households earning one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below, adjusted for household size. ◦To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty percent (40%) of the one-hundred-fifty-percent Larimer County Area Median Income, adjusted for household size. Workforce Housing Definition ◦Workforce Housing.Housing units shall be eligible for the Maximum Permitted Density Bonus (Sec. 11.4.D) if at least one (1) resident in each housing unit annually submits an affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundary Map. Area Median Income & Affordable Housing Definitions Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined.The Larimer County Area Median Income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer County published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Affordable Housing: Not defined in Estes Park Development Code Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities. ◦Per HUD (US Department of Housing & Urban Development)