HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-21 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session I \
!/A@L 1'OVUN COUNC9L
EVENING M~~~~~G
TUESDAV, JANUARV 21, '@997
9:30 P.M. IN TOV COl1NCiL CHi4AABERS
AGENDA '
N01'E: Tumes of atems are appPOxamate, subject to change, anc9 cannot be reliecl upon 40
c9etePrnane at dvha$ tirvue CoaaaaciV will consicier an itern.
1 • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.)
2• Update by Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority. (15 mins.)
Jim Shrum
Mike Gallagher
3. Ordinance fVo. 3, Series of 1997, first reading of an ordinance repealing
Christine Anderson and reenacting the Investment Policy set forth in Chapter 3.52 of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. (5 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
IVo. 3, Series of 1997 on first reading.
BACKGROUiVD RATIONALE: The Government Finance Officer's
Association recently published a sample investment policy. We've
changed our policy to include the recommended language.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance iVo. 3, Series of 1997
on-first reading.
4• Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1997, an ordinance requesting to amend
Dominic Mauriello Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to
allow van storage/transportation related businesses in the Commercial
Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a
conditional use and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing
definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation business. (30
mins.)
ACTIOIV REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Deny/Modify Ordinance
No. 1, Series of 1997 on first reading.
BACKGROUIVD RATIONALE: The proposal would define and allow
transportation businesses, such as Colorado fVlountain Express and
similar shuttle services, and car rental establishments, to locate in the
Commercial Core 3(West Vail), Heavy Service (West Vail gas stations),
and Arterial Business (Cascade Crossing and Amoco) zone districts
subject to a conditional use permit with specific review criteria (see
proposed ordinance). Currently the code does not specifically address
these types of uses. The amendment also proposes to establish a
definition and review criteria for a vehicle storage yard which is currently
allowed in the Heavy Service zone district subject to a conditional use
permit.
The PEC, at its December 16, 1996 meeting, recommended approval
(unanimously) of the proposed amendments with minor modifications.
Please refer to the PEC memo for a complete explanation of the
proposal.
\
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to allow "transportation
businesses" as a conditional use in the CC3, ABD, and HS zone
districts.
5. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance
George Ruther amending Section 18.04, Definitions, fo add "Fractional Fee Club" and
"Fractional Fee Club UniY", amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional
Uses, allowing Fractional Fee Club as a Conditional Use in the Public
Accommodation Zone District, amending Section 18.60.060 (A)(7)
Conditional Use Permit Criteria-Findings. Gordon Pierce, representing
Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. (1 hr.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
No. 22, Series of 1996 on second reading.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996
on second reading as presented.
6. Town Manager's Report. (10 mins.)
7. Adjournment - 9:35 p.m.
iVOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIIIflES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I I
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUiVCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/28/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IiV TOV GOUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 214/97, BEGINNIING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETIPVG
W1LL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/4/97, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
IIIIIII
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
CViGENDA.TC
TO; Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: January 21, 19978
SUBJECT: Mountain Pine Beetie Infestation in the Vail Valley
Staff: Russ Forrest & Todd Oppenheimer
1. PURPOSIE:
The purpose of this worksession is to provide Council with an overview of the mountain
pine beetle infestation in the Vail Valley. U.S. Forrest Service experts on the pine
beetle will provide an update on the study underway to determine the magnitude of the
infestation and the steps Town staff and the U.S. Forest Service are taking together to
help address this issue in the Vail Valley.
2. BACKGFiOUND:
The Mountain Pine Beetle is a common problem in the Rocky Mountains. The pine beetle
bores into lodgepole pine trees carrying a fungus with it that spreads in the tree and
blocks the flow of water which eventually kills the tree. The mountain pine beetle is
common in mature lodgepole pine forests. Unfortunately, the forest around the Town of
Vail is predominantly mature lodgepole pine. This is partly due from the fact that wild
land fires have been suppressed in the Vail Valley making the trees relatively uniform in
age. Attached is a copy of a USFS pamphlet which provides additional detail on the
Mountain Pine Beetle.
Vail residents have increasingly become concern as Lodgepole pines on their property
and on USFS land around Town have begun to show signs of impacts from mountain
pine beetle. Recent studies indicate that the region is experiencing an increase in pine
beetle infestation (See graph on opposite side). Trees that are infected eventually turn a
rust color and die. The Town of Vail Public Works Department has taken steps over the
year to help minirnize the impact around Town by placing pheromone baits to attract the
pine beetles in an infested area to several trees which would then be removed in the
spring or summer. Vail Associates has also taken similar actions to try to reduce
impacts on Vail Mountain. Last summer, there appeared to be a significant increase in
discolored lodgepoles around Vail indicating the pine beetle infestation may be
spreading. The Town and the Forest Service began working together last Fall to
determine the magnitude of the problem and to develop a plan to address the infestation.
3. ACTIONS TO DATE: The Town and the USFS have taken infrared aerial photographs to determine exactly
where mountain pine beetles have infested trees in the Valley. These photographs
indicate numerous locations around the valley that have been impacted by the pine
beetle. USFS staff will present the results of the initial analysis of these photographs and
provide a time frame for completing the study of this problem which will include
recommendation to help reduce the impact of pine beetles in the Vail Valley.
Current Infiested Trees
by County
2500
ti,: .
,
~
.
2000 ` - _ - -
. _ ~ '
- - _ . . .
- ,
1:•''~ ;
,
1500 . .
, . - .
~ .
, - - . .
. L . . . . _ . - . _ . ~c']~ ,
:
Q~
_ . •
~
•
~ 1000
:
,
.
;
f~Y .
-
500 ' _ - _
~
r
tF I
. S,'~.. ,?~.;t y
, :
O ..f.~:~. _ ;i{:5: . .t~; ~ _ !i:lx
^t
~ ~ a. - • '..y( . : ~..rv
~ 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ~
Years
Summit Eagle Grand
_ . _ . 5
i ~ " " ' . . . ~ . . ~ . . . '
F~ .
~
MEflAORAhIDl1M
TO: Vaii Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: January 21, 1997
. SUBJECT: Public Input on Land Exchange
Staff: Russ Forrest
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this worksession is to review vuith Council the public input received from the
January 9th land exchange open house. At this meeting, residents were given an overviewr of
the exchange and the reasons why the two properties in UUest Vail are proposed to be added to
the exchange. This public input is intended to assist Council in making the final determination in
February of wrhat properties should be included in the exchange.
2. GENERAL OVERV8E11V OF THE MEETIIVG AIVD T9iE IIVPV.9T
Approximately 22 people participated in the public open house on January 9th. The majority of
the participants were from the West Vail neighborhood. In addition, three residents from
Rockledge and their attorney came with saecific questions on the survey for the Rockledge
property referred to in the exchange as Sb. Two presentations and question and answer periods
occurred between 5:00 and 7:00 (See Attachment A). Staff emphasized that future decisions on
the use of any parcel secured by the Town of Vail through the exchange would involve significant
and separate public processes. The major points raised by the participants can be summarized
as:
1) Concern over traffic and other impacts related to additional development on Garmish.
2) Most of the participants felt comfortable with the exchange if it included keeping the
Garmish and Town Manager properties as open space.
3) There was concern that residents purchased homes beside USFS lands and this action
will have a negative affect on their property values.
4) Some felt more comfortable with the Town owning these two properties rather than the
properties being under County jurisdiction.
3. SPEC@F9C C061~~ENTS
The language in quotations is what was written on butcher block paper at the meeting. Similar
comments are grouped together and under many of the comments there is an italicized
explanation of the discussion that occurred uvith a specific comment.
1
~
"Workinq on this for a long,time: time to finalize"
There were several comments by individuals that participated in the Open Space P/an or
were involved in the exchange and felt that the Town and USFS shou/d complete fhe
exchange as soon as possib/e.
"What keeps FS from exchanging Trapper's Run Qarcel to private ownership? - trail: easement on
stream: - deannexed"
&
"Trappers Run likely to be open space for a lona time due to encumbrance of trail & easemenY'
There was significant discussion on the risk of conveying Trappers Run to the Forest
Service. This comment reflects the opinion that the risk of the USFS using this /and for a
private exchange would be very low.
If vou building,more houses Town will rezone - this isn't fair - it is a P/S zonina
&
"Concern for puttina Multi-Family housing on two parcels - traffic/bottleneck"
&
"Too much traffic at West Vail Interchange"
&
"Traffic is already a problem on Garmish - 17 undeveloped lots"
If the Town acquires this property through the exchange, there was a concern about what
zoning would be placed on the property. Some thought the Town may place a higher
densiry zone district than the primary/secondary zoning on adjacent lots. Re/ated to the
concern over zoning was how potential development on the siie would increase traffic
and congestion along Arosa and Garmish.
"Already many undeveloped Iots"
This comment reflects the concern ihat there are still many undeveloped lots on Garmish
that, when developed, will have an impact on iratfic in the neighborhood.
"public purpose" means
There was a discussion of what the property could be used for if it was acquired by the
Town. Staff referred to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement and stated that the
land would have to be used for a"public purpose." Examples of which cou/d inc/ude
open space, affordable housing, parks, or other public facilities. There was also some
question of whether housrng was a"public purpose." -
"fear of sale of lands by TOV"
There was concern that if the Town acquired this land, could the Town then sefl the land
to make money.
2
a
"Park OK"
&
-OK to acquire some land if Council indemnifies its use as a park. No ptace for kids to play.
"Sugaest that 13 & 14 be open space„
There were several comments that residents in the Garmish and Arosa neighborhood
wou/d support the addition of these properties into the exchange if they wou/d stay as
open space or a park.
"West Vail needs a park or fire station" Several commented that the neighborhood needs a park and a fire station and that the
Town has made a commitment for ihese facilities in VVesf Vail.
"boug,ht because backed up to USFS"
&
"People buy homes to be near NF - there is a net gain of frontage of - 3 000' of NF frontage in
West Vail"
There was the comment that peop/e bought property to be /ocated beside Forest Service
property. Staff noted that this exchange wou/d actually increase Forest Service frontage
in West Vail because the properties the Town owns thaf wou/d be conveyed to the USFS
are afl in West Vail.
"More control under TOV ownership than at present or in Countv"
This comment reflects the opinion that the /and would be better controlled by the Towrn of
VaiL Vail residents would have a greater say about the future use of these properties
under TO Vjurisdiction and public processes than under USFS or private ownership in.
Eagle Counry jurisdiction.
"Parcels too steep to be develo e~d"
This comment re/ates to the two properties that the Torirn would be conveying to the
USFS ihat were purchased from Dave E/more (04 & 05). Specifically, this commenP is
saying that there is litile risk of the land the Town of Vail is conveying to the USFS of
being deve/oped.
"Snowplowing is aproblem- need cul de sac at end of Garmish"
Comment that it is currently difficult to plowr Garmish because there is no cul-de-sac on
Garmish.
"Transportation planning needed for West Vail"
This comment reflects a general concern about traffic congestion related to growrth in the
Vl/est Vail area.
3
~
"Concern about access to Lindholm's pro er thru Trapper's Run"
This comment reflects a concern that the Trappers Run property may be used for access
to the Lindholm property. (There is currently access through Trappers Run to the Upper
Dowd Communication site which borders land owned by Mr. Lindho/m)
"Look at Conrad Oberlohr's land for employee housina"
This was a request to talk with Mr Oberlohr about his property on St'Moritz Way and
Chamonix. Mr. Oberlohr expressed interest in talking to the Town about selling his lots.
"Town should purchase existina houses for use as affordable housina"
This comment reflects the opinion that the Town should buy up existing houses that are
underutilized by second home owners or that are simp/y on the market before buiiding on
undeveloped /and.
"Concerned water is not available for more housing"
This concern reflects the opinion that there is not enough water in Vail to support more
de velopment.
"Housing should go down vallev"
Housing for employees should be located down valley in /arge multifamily structures.
"Access to S-14 would have to go thru Arosa proper that was bought with real estate taxes for
open space (Town is looking at financinct)"
This comment reflects a concern that the Town purchased the four properties on Garmish
in 1991 with RETT dollars. The TOV Finance Department has investigated the financing
for these properties and can only confirm at this time that a portion of the down payment
for these properties was RETT funds.
"Any land that can be acquired for emplovee housina should be acquired and developed"
This was a supportive commeni that ihe Town should take every opportunity, including
the properties in the exchange, to create opportunities for housing.
"Vail Valley is dense enough - don't build anything more"
"Take 2 West Vail parcels out of land exchange"
"VA caused housing..problems - thgy should develop employee housina down vallev"
4
4. COMMENTS FROM ROCKLEDCE RESDEIV7'S
Three residents from Rocklege also came to the open house. The primary concern they had vuas
that S5 should be configured in a way that would preclude a housing site. Bill Wood, District
Ranger for the USFS, communicated that the Forest Service has an obligation to obtain the
maximum benefit for the U.S. public. He indicated that the regional office probably would not
accept reconfiguring S5 to eliminate the cul-de-sac area and thus eliminate the building potential
on the site because that would have a significant impact on the value of the property for
purposes of the exchange.
5. NE3tT~ STEPS
The next step in the exchange is to finalize an exchange agreement. This is a legally binding
. sales agreement that will specify what properties will be included in the exchange and the values
for the properties. The agreement wrill also identify any deed restrictions on the properties the
Town will receive and convey to the USFS. A Town Council worksession has been tentatively
schedufed for February 4th to discuss what properties will be included in the exchange.
Depending on the USFS schedule for preparing the exchange agreement, staff would like to
review a draft exchange agreemenY with Council on February 11, 1997. Then, at an evening
meeting tentatively scheduled for February 18, 1997 the Council will consider a resolution to
execute the exchange agreement.
f:\everyone\russ\westvail.not
5
. cJ .
USFS/TOV LAND 0W,NERSHi P ADsUSTMENTAGREEMENT.
Purpose of thols Open House
* Revoew goa~s9 need9 the exchange
~ Prov0~~ ~uNoc to comment on $he
additions to the exchange that have not yet been .
pub8acly reviewedo
~ Answer any questoons about the orogina0 ~~~~ertoes on
theexchangea
i
USFSITOV LAND OWNERSHIP ADJ USTMENT AGREEMENT
Issues that were catalysts for the proposed
Exchange
* USFS Iands within the Town of Vail created conflicts
over zoning and land use.
* Private exchanges around Vail generated community
concern.
,
* Private and public encroachments on USFS property
were identified in 1990 survey.
~
~
~ .
ca~'
USFS/TOV LAND OWNERSHiPA~~~~~~~~~ ~GREEMENT
Goals of Exchange
* Remove USFS lands from wothan f~~~ ~OV
* Reduce the rosk of pravate 0and exchanges
* ~dress pro~~~~ ~~croachments . .
* l~~~~~~ the number of USFS specoa~ use permits
* Create an open space buffer around the Town of Vael
~
}
. . ~
i
k
~
USFSITOV LAND OWNERSHIP ADJUSTIVIENT AGREEMENT
GIVENS
* Achieve a like valued exchange, i.ee Value of TOV lands
= Vaiue of IJSFS iands.
* No additional lands can be added to this exchange.
* Vai! Town Council will decide on what TOV properties
vvill be exchanged considering public input.
* USFS will make the ultimate decision on approving the
exchange since this is aFederal process.
.
p .
~JSFS/T V LAND OWNERSxgp ADJUSTMENTA~~~~~~NT
History/Background
* 1982 ~~nd ~~~~~ed unto the Town
* 1980s Provate L~~nd Excf~~~~~~ & dosputes over zonong
1990- Surveyed USFS boundary around Va08
* 1991 - Doscussaons occurred to address ossues
* 1991 Committee formed to odentify 9ands
1994 - Open Space Psan
* 1995 - Land Ow~ership Adjustment Agreement
* Fa88 1995 - 57 step exchaa~~~ process onetiated
Spring 1996 - Publsc Comment
Summer 1996 - TOV/USFS consoder addang parce6s on
est VaiB after draft appraisal
~
USFSITOV LAND OWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENT AGREEMENT
PROPOSED ACTION
* TOV conveys 4 properties totaling 77 acres to the IJSFS
* USFS conveys 14 properties totaiing 82 acres to the Town
of Vai 1.
q USFS/T V LAND OWNERSHip A~~~~~~~NTAGREEMENT
Ky te~s 'I'n the 57 tep Ex h nge .r c .
* Pubk ~nvolvernent on deveDopoa~~ ~nd Open
Space P8~~ (1994 & 1995)
'Survey (1996)
Draft & F0na0 ~~praa~~~ (Jan 1996 ~ ~~c 1996)
* Public Revaew of the Proposed Exchange (Spring 1996 &
January 1997)
Complete Natsona9 Environmenta0 Policy Act
Documentation (January 1997)
* Council and U5FS approve of Bands and values (Jan9 21
97) .
~ ign xchange agre ment (January/February, 1997)
'Convey the Land (March/April, 1997)
;
. ,
;
' f
;
USFS/TOV LAND OWNERS.H1P ADJUSTMENT AGREEMENT
WHY INCLUDE 1°HE TV!/O PROPERTIES IN WEST VAIL?
* Equalize the value of the exchange based on draft
appraisal. * Has d i rect access off TOV roads and cou Id be
candidates for a private exchange if left in IJSFS
ownership.
* Private encroachments on USFS property.
* Has potential for low density "attainable°' housing and/or
park - ~
~ USFS/T V LAND OWNERsxip A~~~~~~~N'T A~~~~~~~
~ IF TE T N ANTE T E EL P T EE
SI°~~~
1) ~o6fy Land Use Plan
2) Annex onto the Town of Vafl
3) Zone Property
4) Condetl'ona9 ~ermit from Manning and Envo Como
and/or
5) Design Revsew Board Revsew.
(Each step wesl anvolve signsfecant publsc anvolvement)
USFSITOV LAND OWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENT AGREEMENT
Summary
* Resolve private and public encroachments on USFS
iands.
* Open Space inventory increases by about 74 acres.
* Obtain 3 potentiai housing sites (6-5 acres)
* Exchange vvould remove USFS lands from within the TOV
* Reduce USFS Special Use Perri~its .
* I'rovide legal access for Rockledge and Ptarrnigane
* Construction of the new water tank in East iiail.
* West Vail: Increase private frontage on Forest System
Lands by 49374 feet and loose 1,243 feet of frontage. Net
increase of 3,131 (352%) linear feet of IJSFS frontage. .
. 4;
MEAAORAtdD9JAA
TO: Vail Touvn Council
FROM: DeparYment of Communify Development
DATE: January 21, 1997
SUBJECT: A request to review the proposed East Vail 1lVater Tank tocated S.E. of 5004
SnoWshoe Lane, more specifically located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 18,
Township 5 South, Range 79 of the 6th Principal Meridian.
Applicant: Eagle River VUater and Sanitation District
Planner: Russ Forrest
1. PURPOSE
The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District) is requesting that the Town of Vail
review their proposed plans to create a new one million gallon wrater tank directly south of the
existing 500,000 gallon water tank in East Vail (See Attachment A). The Town of Vail Fire
Department and the District have identified a significant need to provide an additional 500,000
gallons of water storage in the East Vail neighborhood to adequately fight fires and to simply
provide adequate pressure for day to day usage.
The property that the new Tank would be located on is owned by the U.S. Forest Service and is
located outside of the Town of Vail. This property is among those proposed in the Town of
Vail/USFS land exchange and is expected to come into Town of Vail ownership in the Spring of
1997. This parcel of land is referred to as S2 in the exchange. The only reason this land would
be included in the exchange is to provide land for the water tank. If the exchange is completed
and the land came into Town ownership, but is not immediately annexed to the Town, the tank
would be constructed under County jurisdiction.
The Town Council needs to determine if they would like to include this property in the exchange
and agree to provide a utility easement to the District. Staff recommends that the Town recover
the appraised value of S2 from the District to compensate for the land the Town would need to
convey to the Forest Service to obtain S2. This project was reviewed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission on December 16, 1996 to provide comments for the County permit
process and to provide a recommendation to the Town Council to help determine wrhether this
land should be included in the exchange. Staff recommended to Yhe PEC that this action be
reviewed utilizing the criteria for a conditional use permit for the General Use District since this is
how the Town would most likely review this action in the Town of Vail.
1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed action invotves the construction of a new one million gallon water storage tank
located approximately 172 feet uphill from the existing tank. This tank would be 88 feet in
diameter and 24 feet high. The action would also involve associated buried pipe and the
permanent relocation of a 360-foot long segment of an unnamed drainage that flows from the
steep slopes to the south and through the proposed tank site. The project also involves the
realignment of a dirt road that serves the existing tank and a cellular communication facility.
Significant regrading would also occur to completely bury the new tank.
III. REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff recommends using the review criteria for a conditional use permit in the General Use
District. The conditional use criteria are listed below:
A. The reiationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the
Town. -
Chapter II, section 6.1 of the Vail Land Use Plan states that a Town Goal is:
"Services should keep pace with increasing growth"
The purpose section of the General Use District of the zoning code, Section
18.36.010, states that:
"The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and
quasi-public uses and is intended to ensure that pubic buildings and
grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District
are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents
and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case
of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air open
spaces and other amenities appropriate with the permitted types of uses."
Staff believes that the development of a one million gallon water tank is
consistent with the goals of the above-mentioned Town goals. The tank is
necessary to meet the water needs of residents and visitors to Vail.
B. Effect of the use on light amd air, distribution of population transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities.
An environmental assessment was prepared for this proposed action (See
Attachment B). No long-term negative impacts are anticipated relating to the
above stated areas. There may be a short-term dust impact to air quaiity as the
result of the construction of the .tank and there may be short-term erosion impacts
on the site. These impacts can be mitigated with dust suppression methods and
an effective erosion control plan. Overall, there will be a positive public benefit in
providing a more reliable water service to East Vail.
2
C. Effec4 upoao tPaffic, wifh particular reference to conyestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flowr and control access
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and_parking area
The proposed project does involve realignment of an access road. However, this
vuill not affect transportation patterns in East Vail. It should be acknowledged that
there vuould be an increase in vehicular traffic up Snowshoe Ln. during
construction which will be a temporary impact to residents on that road. It has
been recommended that access to the site be blqcked for private use to prevent
vandalism and nighttime disturbances at the tank site.
D. Effect upon ghe character of the area in which fhe proposed use is qo be
located including the scale and bulk of the AToaosed use in relation to
surroundin uses.
The proposed use is an underground vuater storage tank and it should have little
or no effect of adjacent properties. However, ihe existing tank is above ground
and visible from most areas of East Vail.
E. Other factors recornmended for discussion with the PEC:
Reanoval of the otd storage tank:
The District is requesting that the old 500,000 gallon tank be teft in place. Once
the new tank is constructed, the District would like to determine the structural
integrity of the old tank to determine if the tank shoutd remain in use along with
the new tank. The old tank does stand out in East Vail and is exposed to potential
damage in the event of an avalanche on the site.
Haxarcls:
The site is in a designated High Severity Avalanche Hazard area. The new water
tank has been designed to withstand maximum anticipated loading conditions
associated vuith a 100-year avalanche event. The Environmental Assessment
states on page 21 that the project would not change the hazard down slope. This
indicates that if the old tank were left in place it would still be exposed to high
severity avalanche hazards.
Lartdscaping:
The proposed action would impact vegetation on 0.25 acres of land with the
extensive regrading that would be required. The Environmental Assessment calls
for reseeding with a natural seed mix. Staff would atso recommend the planting
of 10-15 aspens down slope of the tank_
3
liydrology:
The stream channel on the site, which has a length of 360 feet, will be replaced
with a new channel 420 feet in length. Wetland species will be planted in the new
channel. The new channel will be designed to better handle high water levels.
The PEC should be aware that the adjacent property owners use water running off
the site for water features. The Town Engineer is still reviewing the hydrology to
ensure that the proposed construction wilt not adversely affect the flooding hazard
on or off the site.
_ Wetland Impacts:
Approximately 0.05 acres of wetlands would be disturbed on this site along the
drainage that will be relocated. A 1:1 replacement (at least) will occur when the
new drainage corridor is put in place. There may be the opportunity to improve
the quality of the wetlands since the current value of the existing wetlands is low
as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Development Standards:
Development would be contained to a one million gallon water tank on the site.
However, the following standards are appropriate to discuss:
Tank Color: Obtain Design Review Board's input on the color of ihe tank.
Road: The road as proposed would be dirt, which technically would
require a paving variance. Since the property is not located within
the Town's municipal boundary, and given the natural
characteristics of the immediate area, staff feels that a gravel road
on the site is appropriate.
IV. FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before
granting a conditional use ermit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4
3. That the proposed use would comply writh each of the applicable provisions of.the -
conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
V. INPUT FE80M PEC :
The PEC reviewred this project on December 16, 1996. The primary issue related to this
proposed project is whether the existing 500,000 gallon water tank should be allowed to remain.
Staff recommended PEC support construction of the proposed tank with the condition that the old
tank be removed, unless a compelling health safety justification can be provided that 1.5 million
gallons of storage is needed (versus one million) and that the high avalanche hazard could be mitigated for the existing tank. The PEC supported the construction of the proposed nevu tank
and concluded that they felt comfortable with the existing tank remaining if it could be
demonstrated that it could writhstand an avalanche. The PEC concurred with staff that an
additional landscaping plan should be provided that would call for aspen and coniferous trees
around the existing tank if it stays in ptace. One member also felt that the tank needed to be
repainted using a color that would blend it into the background. The Commission also felt
comfortable with a gravel or non-paved surface. Replacing the wetland vegetation on the site
that would be disturbed was highly recommended. The PEC also requested that a gate at the
north end of the access road be installed that could be locked to prevent unauthorized vehicular
access onto the site.
Attachment A: Proposed site plan
A[tachment B: Environmental Assessment
f:\everyoneUussUnemo\tank.d 16
5
, ATTACH: tEVT A
UO-NAFtl
ENVll~ONMEN!~ ~~~~~SMENT
VaH Meac9owS Water Storage Tank
~
Proposed by:
The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
December 5, 1996
Prepared under the Direction of the
Holy Cross Ranger District
White River fVational Forest
IViinturn, Colorado
b
. YDROSPHERE
Resoanp~~ ~0 n a anIl8a n 4a
1002 Walnut - Suite 200 ^ Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 443-7839 • TeleFax (303) 442-0616
Table of Contents
I. PREFACE .................................................................................................1
' II. PURPOSE AND YVEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ................................2
III. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................3
A. Introduction .................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
B. Alternative A: No Action .........................................................................................................3
C. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadow Site .............................................................3
D. Alternative C: Vail Meadow Site - Lower Tank Position .....................................................4
E. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration ...........................................................4
1. Upper Tank Positions at Vail Meadows Site ...........................................................................4
2. On-Site Replacement of Existing Tank ...................................................................................4
3. Site Locations Within the Town of Vail ........................................:.........................................5
4. Other Locations on National Forest System Lands .................................................................5
IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................6
A. Physiography and Geology .......................................................................................................6
B. Natural Hazards ........................................................................................................................7
C. Soils ............................................................................................................................................9
D. Groundwater .............................................................................................................................9
E. Hydrotogy ................................................................................................................................10
F. Water Quality ..........................................................................................................................11
G. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................13
H. Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Floodplains ..........................................................................14
1. Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................15
J. Threatened and Endangered Species .............:.......................................................................17
K. Air Quality ......................................................................................:........................................18
L. Visual d2esources ......................................................................................................................19
M. C'ulturat ltesources .................................................................................................................I9
V. ENVIRONh~iilENTAL GOIVSEQIJENCES .............e....,.......ee.....................22
A. Physiography and Geology .....................................................................................................22
- 1: Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................22
~ 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ..........................................................22
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................22
4. Cumulative Effects ........................................:.......................................................................23
B. Natural Hazards ......................................................................................................................23
1. Altemative A: No Action .....................................................................................................23
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ..........................................................23
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................23
4. Currtulative Effects ................:.................................:.............................................................23
C. Soils ..........................................................................................................................................24
1. Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................24
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vai( Meadows Site )4
3. Altemative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................24
4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................24
D. Groundwater ....:.....................:................................................................................................24
1. Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................24
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vai( Meadows Site ..........................................................24
3. Altemative C: Vail Meadows Site -.Lower Tank Position ...................................................25
4. Cumulative Effects
25
E. Hydrology ................................................................................................................................25
1. Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................25
2. Altemative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site 25
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................26
4. Cumulative Effects ...................................................................:............................................26
F. Water Quality .................................................................................:.........:..............................26
1. Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................26
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ..........................................................26
3. Altemative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ............................................:......27
4. Cumulative Effects ...................................:............................................................................27
G. Vegetation
.................................27
1. Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................27
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site.......................................................... 27
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................27
4. Cumulative Effects ...:...................................................................:........................................27
H. Wetlands, Itiparian Areas and F'loodplains ..........................................................................28
1. Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................28
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ..........................................................28
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ..........:........................................28
4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................28
` I. Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................29
1. Altemative A: No Action .....................................................................................................29
2. Altemative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site .........................................................29
- 3. Altemative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................29
4. Cumutative Effects ...............................................................................................................29
J.'Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................29
1. Altemative A: No ,4ction .....................................................................................................29
2. Altemative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site .........................................................29
3. Altemative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................30
4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................30
~ K. Air Quality ...............................................................................................................................30
1. Altemative A: No Action ..............................................................................:......................30
2. Altemative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site .........................................................30
3. Altemative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................30
4. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................31
L. Visual Resources ......................................................................................................................31
1. Altemative A: No Action .....................................................................................................31
2. Altemative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ..........................................................31
3. Altemative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...:...............................................31
4. Cumulative Effects .....................................................:..........................................................31
M. Cu(tural Resources .................................................................................................................31
1. Altemative A: No Action .....................................................................................................31
2. Altemative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site ..........................................................32
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position ...................................................32
4. Cumulative Effects ...............................................................................................................32
N. Summary of Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Avoided ...........................................32
0. Specific Mitigation Measures .....................................................................:...........................33
VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................34
VII. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................34
VI1t. REFERENCES ..........................................................................:.........35
"PRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
VA8L MEADOWS WATER STO GE TANK
EagIe Ru~~r Water & Sanitation D°ostract
i. PR~FAcE .
An environmental assessment is not a decision document. It is a document disclosing the
environmental consequences of implementation of the Proposed Action. It is an
important document for Federal, state and local governments to use in arriving at their
individual decisions regarding the proposed action and alternatives to it.
The environmental consequences on lands, activities, and resources administered by the
other Federal, state, and local jurisdictions resulting from the Proposed Action have been
disclosed in this Environmental Assessment (EA). Throtigh consultation and
cooperation, other Federal, state and local jurisdictions have assisted in the disclosure of
environmental consequences and development of alternatives to the proposed action.
The Forest Service decision will relate only to lands administered by the Forest Service
and will be documented in a Decision Notice. Decisions by other jurisdictions to issue or
not issue approvals related to this proposal can be made by them based on the disclosure
of impacts available in this document.
Listed below are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this document and, to our
knowledge, the approvals needed by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the
District) which is the project proponent.
U.S. ]Forest Sea-vace, Wbite Rivea- National lForest - The proposed project would
be located on National Forest System Land and would require a Special
Use Permit.
Towaa of Vaill - The Town has jurisdiction over all construction activities within
the Vail boundaries and will require a building permit for construction of
appurtenant facilities.
U.S. Army Corps off Enganeers - Under the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500 as
amended) the applicant must comply with the requirements of Section 404
prior to the discharge of any dredged or fill, material into waters of the
United States.
IEag9e Coungy - Eagle County Land Use Regulations require a Special Use
Permit, a permit under applicable sections of the regulations concerning
Activities of State Interest (1041 -Permit), and a building permit.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 2
Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank -
il. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project involves the construction of the Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank.
This new tank will provide 1 million gallons (mg) of treated (potable) water storage and
will be located on National Forest System land within the White River National Forest
approximately 172 feet south and uphill from an existing 500,000 gallon tank located in
. east Vail.
Studies conducted by the Eagle Riyer Water and Sanitation District have determined that
1 mg of additional treated water storage is needed to meet surrounding domestic water
needs during peak demand periods while maintaining adequate equalization and
emergency storage levels. The specific emergericy storage volumes are to provide needed
fire flows and for potential water line leaks, pump failures, and power outages. (Merrick,
1994). The availability of water to meet current peak hour demands and fire flows will
be significantly improved by the addition of the new 1.0 mg tank, which will provide up
to 1.5 mg in total storage volume with the existing Vail meadows tank.
After completion of the proposed project, the existing Vail Meadows Storage Tanlc
(500,000 gallons) will be taken off-line for an engineering inspection to develop
rehabilitation alternatives and costs.
~
.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 3
" Vail_Meadows Water Storaee Tank
BII. ALYERNATB!!ES BNCLUDING THE PROPOSED AC1'BOR9
This section of the EA presents the altematives evaluated as a part of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process, including alternatives considered
but eliminated from detailed analysis. Alternatives were defined based on the criteria of
meeting the purpose and need for the proposed project. The alternatives considered in this
EA are those that are most feasible in terms of technical and engineering aspects, and.
which minimize environmental impacts. " Alternative locations for a new tank are limited by the elevation at which the storage tank
would have to be built. In order to meet minimum pressure requirements in the water
distribution system for fire flows, a new tank must have a minimum base elevation of .
8,767 feet MSL. In order not to exceed existing maximum pressures within the
distribution system, the high water elevation of the new tank cannot exceed 8,790 feet
MSL (RBD, Inc., 1991). Considering the minimum required base elevation, topographic
maps were use to identify potential alfernative sites for construction of the storage tank. '
The alternatives identified were then evaluated for potential fatal flaws and several
options were eliminated from detailed consideration in this EA due to engineering and/or
environmental problems. The alternatives considered are described below.
A. Alterna4ive A: No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would deny the Special Use Permit
Application for the Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank as submitted by the District.
B. AltePnatide B: Proposed Action -!lail IVleadow Site
The proposed project involves the construction of a new 1 mg storage tank south and •
uphill from the existing Vail Meadows Storage Tank. The facility would consist of a post
tensioned concrete tank 88 feet in diameter and 24 feet high, and associated piping and
pumping facilities. The tank would be entirely buried such that the top of the tank would
be covered with about 18 inches of soil and the uphill side of the tank would be about 18
inches below the elevation of the existing natural ground level. The location of the new,
tank would be within National Forest System boundaries on a parcel of land that could be
conveyed to the Town of Vail in conjunction with a proposed land exchange. The
location and site plan for the proposed project aze shown on Sheet 1 in Appendix A.
The proposed project involves positioning the new storage tank approximately 172 feet uphill from the existing tank. Construction of the new tank at this location would require
permanent relocation of a 360 feet long segment of the unnamed intermittent drainage
that flows from the steep slopes to the south and through the proposed tanlc site. The
project also includes realignment of the road and relocation of underground utilities
(electr ic anci communication) that currently serve a cellular communication facility
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 4
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
located to the south of the site. As proposed, the buried tank would be located within an
avalanche runout and has been designed to withstand the snow loading from a potential
100-year avalanche event.
After construction of the new 1 mg storage tank, the existing 500,000 gallon tank may .
eventually be removed depending upon its condition and future maintenance
requirements. Because of the possibility of future removal of the existing tank, the plans
for the new tanl: include design features and landscaping to restore the natural appearance -
of the site and mitigate visual impacts.
C. Alternative C: Vail Meadow Site - Lower Tank Position
Under this alternative the new storage tank would be positioned approximately 75 feet
south of the existing tank. The tank would be located on National Forest System land and
some of the earth work and grading for its construction would be on land owned by the
Town of Vail. A large retaining wall on the downhill side of the tank would be required
to support the tank foundation. Construction of the storage tank at this site would require
temporary relocation of the drainage channel during the construction process. Following
construction the drainage would be returned to its approximate current location. The
cellular communication facility access road would be realigned around the east side of the
new tank. Slope conditions would require the entire north side of the storage tank to be
above grade.
D. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration
1. Upper Tank Positions at Vail Meadows Site
There are four possible locations which could accommodate a new storage tank at the .
Vail Meadows site. These locations are shown in Appendix B, along with a decision
matrix used to evaluate tank positioning options. The two higher locations at the Vail
Meadows site were considered but found not to be feasible due to high avalanche hazard
esposure, safety, and engineering considerations. Both of these sites are within the direct
impact zone of the Vail Meadows avalanche. While the tank could probably be designed
to withstand the direct impact of a 100-year avalanche, the cost of such design features
would be substantial. In addition, because of the higher elevations of these sites,
substantial modifications to pumping and conveyance facilities for delivery of water into-
the tank would be required, and additional pressure reducing valves would be needed in
the distribution system. Due to these factors, the two upper tank positions were
eliminated from detailed consideration in the EA.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 5
Vail Meadows Water Stora¢e Tank
a. On-Si$e Replacement of Existing Tank
This alternative involves replacement of the existing tank with a new 1 mg tank at the
same site as the existing 500,000 gallon tank, located within the boundaries of the Town
of Vail. To meet minimum pressure requirements in the water distribution system for fire
flows, a new tank at this location would have to be raised to a base elevation of 8,767 feet
MSL. This alternative would require that the existing storage tank be taken out of service
during installation of the new tank. The temporary interruption of water supply would be -
an unacceptable risk. Furthermore, this alternative may.cause unacceptable visual
impacts associated with an elevated storage tanl:, and considerably higher costs would be
associated with protective measures against avalanche hazard because the tank would be
above ground instead of buried.
3. Sote Locations Within the Town of !lail
This alternative involves development of additional storage capacity elsewhere within the
Town of Vail. East of the existing site is an alternative area within the Town of Vail and
at the necessary elevation. This area is heavily wooded with mature tree stands and
would be very difficult to excavate due to large amounts of exposed bedrock. This option
is not feasible because of the level of surface disturbance that would be necessary to
excavate, because complete landscape restoration would not be possible, and because
visual impacts resulting from construction at this site would be substantial. Additionally,
easements and a water main extension would be required at this location which would substantially increase the cost of the project.
4. Ofher L.ocations on Nationa@ Forest System Lands
This alternative involves development of additional storage capacity elsewhere within
Forest Service Lands. At the elevation of 8,790 to the west of the proposed site, the .
mountainsides are sloped steeply to the north and are heavily forested. This option would
require considerable disturbance for construction of an access road, tree clearing, and
construction of a platform for the storage tank. The environmental and visual impacts
associated with this option would be much greater than would occur at the proposed site.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENT'AL ASSESSMENT Page 6
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Extensive environmental baseline information has been developed on the study area
through several previous studies including the Black Lake No. 2 Enlargement
Environmental Assessment, the Forest Service Environmental Statement for Meadow
Mountain; various reports by the U.S. Geologic Survey and the Soil Conservation _
Service, and site specific investigations conducted under these projects.. Information
from these studies has been summarized and updated with current field observations to
provide a description of the site and the environmental and cultural conditions for the
surrounding area.
In this EA, the study area refers to an area bounded on the west by the Town of Avon; on
the north by Interstate .70; on the east side by Vail Pass; and on the south by the divide
between the Eagle River watershed and the Arkansas River. The project area is limited
to the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, i.e. the Vail Meadows site. This EA focuses primarily (but not exclusively) on the general aspects of the physical and ,
biological environment, and cultural features for which issues and concerns were raised
during scoping that could be affected by the proposed action. There are a total of thirteen
resource categories. Each resource is discussed to a level of detail relative to its potential
to be affected by the proposed action.
A. Physiography and Geology
The Town of Vail lies on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains at an elevation of
approximately 8,000 feet, just west of the Gore Range. Physiography in the Vail Valley
is quite diverse ranging from large, flat meadow areas to steep aspen, spruce and pine
forested slopes. Mountain peaks, which surround the town on three sides, rise to
elevations over 13,000 feet. Meadow areas which were once abundant within the valley
are now primarily occupied by the Town of Vail, including both residential, commercial
and recreational developments. Forested azeas on the south side of the valley are now
largely occupied by the Vail Ski Area but for the most part remain in their natural state
with the exception of ski lifts and trails.
The Vail Valley is situated in a geologic structural trough which stretches from Vail Pass .
to the town of McCoy in north central Eagle County. Most of the azea of the Vail Valley
is underlain by the sedimentary rocks of the Minturn formation from the Pennsylvanian
age. The Minturn formation consists of gray, pale yellow and red sandstone, interbedded
with conglomerate and thin beds of shale. Outcrops of the Minturn formation can be
found throughout the area. To a lesser extent, similar rocks belonging to the Mazoon
formation occur in the area. Some Precambrian gneisses and migmatites can also be
found.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 7
-Vail Meadows Water Stora¢e Tank During the quaternary period, several large valley glaciers were present within the Gore
Creek Valley which gouged out the lower valley floor, forming steep cliffs.
Oversteepening of the lower valley wall and deepening of the valley.itself removed
upslope support for large sections of the formational bedrock which dipped towards the
valley axis. This glacial activity modified the mountain topography to approximately
present conditions. A result of the oversteepening of many side slopes in the area is the
existence of numerous unstable slopes which are the source of frequent small landslides.
Mineral resource areas are defined as azeas from which mineral extraction is possible
given economic conditions and existing technology. Mineral resources can be metallics
(precious and base-metal ores and fenous-metal ores), non-metallics (construction
aggregates, building stones, evaporites) and mineral fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, oil shale,
uranium). There are no known mineral resource areas at the locations of the alternative
storage tanlc sites considered in this EA. Cunently mined mineral resources, namely
construction aggregates, are located to the east of the study area in the larger creeks and
river valleys, and metallics are found to the south in the vicinity of Gilman.
B. Natural HazaPds
Geologic hazards typical for high mountain areas include seismicity, faults, liquefaction,
landslides and associated slope stability problems. Rockfall, mud and debris flows and.
ground surface subsidence are also sources of geologic hazard. The majority of potential
geologicai hazards typicaI for mountain areas in Coiorado have been defined by Rogers
et. al. (1974).
The State of Colorado is located in the interior of the North American plate, far from any
plate boundaries. As such, Colorado is considered an area of low seismic risk. The
potential for earthquake hazard in the study area was evaluated by reviewing seismic
histories and taking into account the hazard zone system applied by LJniform Building
Code criteria. Under this evaluation scale, high earthguake risk areas are labeled Zone 4' ' and low earthquake risk areas are Zone 1. Based on the known fault system, Colorado is
located in seismic risk Zone 1 although the most recent data indicate that the state should
be in Zone 2(moderately low risk) (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981).
Two potentially active faults exist near the study area (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981). The
Gore fault consists of a system of faults trending in a northwest-southeast direction
approximately parallel to the Interstate 70 corridor and to the northeast of Vail Pass. The
Mosquito fault Iies further east of the Gore fault, near the Copper Mountain ski area, and '
has a north-south orientation. Neither of these faults cross any of the alternative tank
locations evaluated in this EA.
Liquefaction is a process which occurs when fine-grained, saturated soils are shaken
during an earthquake. This process temporarily transforms soils into a fluid state. As the
soil liquefies, structures within the soil mass may be damaged. Based on the limited
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 8
Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank -
seismic risks in the study area, and in the abserice of significant, saturated fine-grained
soil deposits, hazazds associated with liquefaction are considered unlikely to be of
importance for any of the alternative tank location sites.
Several studies of landslides in the area have been conducted over the past twenty years
(Barton, et al., 1972; Colton et al., 1975; Golder & Associates, 1984, 1985, 1986;
Robinson and Cochran, 1971; and Cattany et al., 1986). Many small, isolated landslides
have occurred over time within the study area and numerous minor landslides of soils
covering the bedrock formations have been documented. Larger landslides have also
occurred and include several caused by glacial activity. Portions of the Vail Ski Area
have been developed on ancient landslides. In 1986, Governor Lamm's Minturn
Earthflows Task Force published the results of their review of the problem of landslides
in the Dowds Junction area and summarized the available mitigation options. (Cattany et
al., 1986). None of these studies have identified the Vail Meadows Storage tank site as
an active or potentially active landslide area.
Rockfall is a common geologic hazard within the study area. Rockfalls are typically
associated with the presence of sandstone cliffs of the Minturn formation bedrock. As
these slopes are usually steep (on the order of 25 to 30 degrees), the moving rock
fragments can reach high velocities and become a serious hazard to structures lacated in
their path. Rockfall in the study area is largely seasonally related, with the majority of
the rockfalls occurring during the spring snowmelt period. Areas of the rockfall hazard
are relatively well defined within the Town of Vail and mitigation measures have been
undertaken to protect above-ground structures exposed to this hazard. The Vail Meadows
Storage tank site is not located within any of the inventoried rockfall hazard areas.
Mud and debris flows occur when a water saturated mass of soil flows rapidly down
slope. Mudflows typically develop during torrential rains or during very rapid snowmelt
runof£ Runoff initiates rapid erosion and transport of poorly consolidated surficial
material. Numerous mudflows have been documented in the Gore Creek valley and on
the slopes above the Eagle River. While there is evidence of historical debris flow
activity within the drainage area above the Vail Meadows site, the area now appears to be
stable due to dense forest and vegetative cover. The Vail Meadows Storage tank site is
not located within any inventoried mudflow or debris flow hazard areas.
Several snow avalanche hazard zones exist within the study area. Some of these
avalanche "chutes" are relatively small and pose no threat to homes or other structures.
Homes and buildings lying within the snow runout paths of other larger chutes have required implementation of protective measures such as diversion or splitting structures.
Avalanche hazard potential within the study area has been extensively studied by the
Town of Vail and others. Reports from previous studies are listed in the References
section of this EA (Mears, 1976, 1990, 1995; Halley, 1975, 1977; Hydro-Triad, Inc.,
1990). •
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 9
Vail Meadows Water StoraQe Tank
The existing 500,000 gallon water storage tank, and the site of the proposed project, lie
within the runout zone for the Vail Meadows Avalanche. Because of the relative high
hazard this chute presents to the existing storage tank and nearby homes, several studies
have been conducted to chazacterize the dynamics and runout path of snow slides at this
site. This information has been relied on in the design of the proposed project.
C. Soals
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has identified, described and mapped soils within the
Vail Valley and throughout Eagle County. Soils within the study azea are relatively deep
and are the product of either weathering of sandy rocks or deposition by streams or
glaciers. Most of the soils are sandy, include a considerable amount of gravel and are
relatively permeable. Soils generally aze colluvial, debris flow deposits on the mountain
slopes, and deep alluvial deposits in drainage bottoms.
Soils at the site of the proposed project have been studied to provide information for
foundation design purposes (Chen Northern, 1990). Subsoils consist of approximately
one foot of topsoil overlying medium dense silty sandy gravels with occasional sand
lenses. Sandy soils contain soine cobbles and boulders. Gravels.extend down
approximately 12 feet. Approximately sixteen feet of loose to medium dense, silty and
slightly gravelly sand exists from depths of 12 to 28 feet. Dense sandy gravel occurs
from 28 to 31 feet below the surface. No free water was encountered in borings during
the time of drilling (November 1990), although soils were fairly moist.
In most areas at the site of the proposed project, soils are relatively stable as a result of
the mature grass and shrub vegetative cover. Spring runoff and occasional heavy rains
have resulted in some erosive damage azound and the existing tank and along the site
access,road to the north.
D. Grounddva4er
Groundwater conditions are variable throughout the study area and aze largely a function
of topographic conditions and the presence of streams or other surface water bodies. In
areas close to Gore Creek, the Eagle River, and other smaller streams, shallow alluvial
aquifers are present. The depth to the top of the water table can vary both on a seasonal
and annual basis. Water table elevations aze usually highest in azeas adjacent to. streams
and decrease in depth below the surface with distance from the stream banks. Water table .
elevations may occasionally and temporarily be close to the ground surface iiuring
periods of torrential rains or during periods of rapid snowmelt, but these conditions
rapidly decline following these periods. Groundwater may also be encountered at
shallow depths in relatively flat areas such as local depressions or immediately adjacent
to natural springs.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 10
Vail Meadows Water Stora¢e Tank
Several alluvial groundwater wells to the east of Vail Village supply most of the
municipal water for the Vail Valley and these wells also have a localized effect on
groundwater levels. In some portions of the study area, topographic modifications for
highway or road construction have changed natural drainage conditions and may
influence the groundwater levels and recharge areas.
At the site of the proposed project, several test pits were dug during site wetland
investi?ations. Several of these test pits were excavated to 2.5 feet and within 10 feet of a
small intermittent stream that traverses the project site. Groundwater was not
encountered in any of the test pits, indicating that alluvial groundwater in the azea is
probably limited to a narrow area immediately next to the stream, and probably occurs
only when the stream is flowing. Test borings to 31 feet below the ground surface for
investigation of soil conditions at the site encountered moist soils but no free water or
saturated soils.
E. Hydrology The study area is located within the Gore Creek watershed which is tributary to the Eagle
and Colorado Rivers. Streams and creeks within the study area are fed primarily by
precipitation, the majority of which.is snow during the winter months. Consequently,
peak streamflows usually occurs in early to mid-June. Streamflow during the late
summer, fall, and winter originates mainly from groundwater discharges.
Gore Creek drains approximately 100 square miles and is the primary source of water
supply for the Vail Ski Area and the Town of Vail. The mean annual stream flow in Gore
Creek at its mouth is 129 cubic feet per second (cfs), with an average annual discharge of
approximately 92,000 acre feet. Peak flows during spring runoff reach 1,500 cfs during
the month of. June; the lowest recorded flows have been between 10 and 12 cfs during the
month of February.
The water supply for the Town of Vail is diverted from Gore Creek primarily via an
alluvial well field located neaz the confluence of Booth Creek and used for domestic
purposes, lawn irrigation, and golf course irrigation. Water for snowmaking at the Vail
Ski Area is withdrawn from Gore Creek by way of an infiltration gallery located at a
point near the confluence of Red Sandstone Creek below the discharge point for the Vail
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Snowmaking water supplies are also obtained from an
infiltration gallery at the confluence of Gore Creek with the Eagle R.iver.
An unnamed intermittent stream traverses the site of the proposed project and drains the
steep slopes rising to the south. The drainage area above the existing tank is
approximately 205 acres.with elevations ranging from 8,760 feet MSL at the existing
tank to about 11,360 at the top of the drainage. The stream channel is somewhat incised
as it flows through the Vail Meadows site. The stream typically flows only during the
spring and early summer.months, and is often dry during the remainder of the year.
~
DRAFT ENVIRONMENZ'AL ASSESSMENT Page 11
Vail Meadows Water Storase Tank
During a site visit on June 5, 1995, a flow of about 4 cfs was measured. During a site
visit in early November of 1995, the stream was virtually dry. An analysis of potential
flood flows in the Vail Meadows drainage indicates that a 100 year flood event could generate flows of about 40 cfs at the site of the proposed tank. (See Hydrology Report,
Appendix C) .
. Field observations in the upper reaches of the Vail Meadows drainage above the
proposed tank site were conducted by Robert Weaver on July 10,1995. The
gradient of the stream is quite steep, averaging about 40 percent, and the
streambanks are very stable as evidenced by the dense vegetation root mat along
the stream. The streambed consists of large semi-angular rocks that are well
packed together and bedrock outcroppings which form a series of small
waterfalls. These conditions are consistent from the headwaters, where the
stream channel becomes defined at about 10,600 feet elevation, down to where
the gradient breaks just above the proposed tank site. The stream channel appears
to be quite stable and there is very little evidence of erosion in the drainage area, even in
areas that have been impacted by avalanches. .
There is a sharp break in the gradient of the stream where it reaches the Vail Meadows
site approximately 300 feet south of the existing water storage tank. About 150 feet
below this break in the grad'ient, the stream bends sharply to the east, traverses the valley
floor above the existing tank, and then turns back to the north and downhill generally
parallel to the site access road but roughly 200 feet to the east (Figure 2). It appears that
the course of the stream was moved to its current location during construction of the
existing storage tank. The original course of the stream appears to have continued in a
generally south to north direction, through the area where the existing tank is located.
During high flow conditions, it appears that flows periodically exceed the channel
capacity in the area where the channel bends to the east above the existing tank, with
excess water spilling down the original stream course and following an artificial drainage
to the west of the existing tank. This has resulted in some erosive damage to the access
road below the existing storage tarik with some deposition of soil and gravel on
Snowshoe Lane. Ultimately this material reaches Gore Creek via storm the storm
drainage system.
A large avalanche at the Vail Meadows site could have an impact on the pattern of
seasonal snowmelt and streamflow in the drainage through the tank site. The most
important change following an avalanche would be that snow distributed throughout the
upper reaches of the drainage would slide to the lower reaches and become concentrated
in the avalanche runout azea at the site of the proposed tank. The potential impacts of an
avalanche on streamflows would depend primarily on the.counteracting effects of faster ablation resulting from the movement of the snow to a lower elevation where melt rates
are higher and a reduction in meltwater production due to concentration in the runout azea
.(i.e. reduction in the ration of snow surface azea to volume). (de Scally, 1996)
/ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 12 _
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
Application of de Scally's formulas for computing potential changes in streamflow
associated with avalanches to the basin above the storage tank indicates in the Vail
Meadows drainage, the impacts associated with the concentration of snow in the avalanche runout area would more that offset the impacts of the higher melt rate. This
result is consistent with research in other areas. At the Vail Meadows site, a major
avalanche could result in a reduction in average daily snowmelt flows of up to about 1.6
- cfs. (de Scally, 1992)
F. Water Quality
The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has classified Gore Creek and its
tributaries for the following uses: Class 1 cold water aquatic life, domestic water supply,
Class 2 recreation and agriculture. The Eagle River from Beldon downstream to the
confluence with Gore Creek is designated as Use Protected with classified uses including
Class 1 cold water aquatic life, domestic water supply, Class 2 recreation and agriculture.
These classified uses extend down the Eagle River from the confluence with Gore Creek
to the confluence with the Lake Creek, with recreation upgraded to Class 1 for the
mainstem and its tributaries (Colorado Department of Health, 1996).
Table 1 provides a summary of key water quality pazameters monitored in Black Gore
Creek and Gore Creek near Vail. Data are from the State of Colorado STORET water
quality data storage system. Gore Creek is predominately a calcium-bicarbonate type
stream with hardness in the soft to moderately hard categories (average hardness is about
59.2 mg/1 CaC03). Values for pH range from 6.9 to 8.6 with a median value of 7.80 and
the water is fairly alkaline. Dissolved oxygeii (DO) content ranges from 9.3 to 9.9 mg/1
with a mean of 9.3 mg/1 indicating that DO levels are generally at or above the 100
percent saturation level. Dissolved nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) are generally low
with nitrate-nitrogen averaging about 9.6 mg/1(range 0.01 to 29.0 mg/1) and .
ortho-phosphate averaging 0.02 mg/1(range 0.0 to .15 mg/1). _
Degradation results from increased concentrations of nutrients, total dissolved solids,
select metals (cadmium and lead) and suspended solids.
Water quality throughout the Gore Creek drainage is generally very good, although there
is some degradation from nonpoint sources of pollution including runoff from Interstate
70 and urbanized areas. No sampling data is available for the intermittent creek at the
Vail Meadows site.
Table 'i
Selected Water Quality Parameters Black Gore Creek,
Gore Creekl and the Eagle River2 .
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 13
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
Black Gore
Creek near Gore Creek Eagle River
Parameter !lail at !lail below Dowds Junction
Dissolved Ouygen (mg/1)
Average 9.54 9.30 9.62
(Min-Max) 9.1-10) (7.5-9.9) (8.0-10.8)
PH
Average 7.93 7.80 7.87 -
(Min-Max) (7-8.6) (6.9-8.6) (7.0-8.7)
Total Alkalinity (mg/1)
Average 88.23 63.60 71.57
(Min-Max) (53-100) (26-80) (34-98)
Nitrite + Nitra4e Pd Diss. (mg/1)
Average 0.72 . 0.96 ~
. (Min-Max) (.01-12) (.01-29)
Orthophosphate P04 (mg/1)
, Average 0.72 0.02
(Min-Max) • (0-1.8) (0-15) -
Total Hardness (mg/1)
.
, Average 83.01 59.20 145.25
(Min-Max) (16-150) (21-110) (46-205)
Iron Dissolved (Ng/l) Average 51.57 65.80 94.28
(Min-Max) (30-100) (20-190) (20-170)
fUianganese Dissolved (Ng/I)
Average 40.00 6.00
1. EPA STORETT water quality data collected 1973 to 1983.
2. Advanced Sciences, Inc. 1990.
G. Vegetatiora . The study area is located primarily within the Lodgepole pine and Engleman spruce-
subalpine fir communities which occur between 7,000 to 11,000 feet in elevation.
Lodgepole pine, typically found at 7,000 to 9,000 feet, often forms dense stands with
little understory. At higher elevations, Lodgepole pine gives way to spruce-fir forest.
Douglas-fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, and blue spruce are also found in this forest type.
These species often form dense stands with little herbaceous understory because of
shading and litter accumulation (Brown, 1985).
Historically, the valley floors within the study area were characterized by grassy . meadows, wet willow meadows, and sagebrush benches. Many of these vegetation
communities still exist but in areas impacted by human development they are much
smaller and less frequent. Understory species in the study azea vary depending on
topographic, soil, and microclimate conditions. The more common species of graminoids
and forbs found in the understory of quaking aspen are blue wild-rye, fringed brome, elk
sedge, bedstraw, Richardson's geranium, and fireweed (Hoffman and Alexander, 1983).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 14
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
South facing slopes within the study area typically support sagebrush, scrub oak, and
other woody shrubs, with grassy understory arid meadows and scattered aspen groves.
Most of the other valley slopes, in contrast, support aspen-conifer woodlands. Mountain/plateau grasslands and meadows are often found interspersed with the other
dominant vegetation and typically include a variety of species. Grasses, forbs, and
scattered shrubs dominate the herbaceous cover. The more common grass species include
. bromes, bluegrasses, oatgrasses, sedges, wheatgrasses, fescues, needlegrasses,
hairgrasses, reedgrasses, bentgrasses, and junegrass. The forb component varies with
location and is diverse throughout the region. Shrubs include big sagebrush, fringed
sagebrush, rabbittirush, snakeweed, shrubby cinquefoils, wild roses, and prickly pear
(Mueg(Tler and Stewart, 1980).
The project site is vegetated by primarily with scattered aspen trees, grasses, wildflowers
and noxious weeds. In addition, the small intermittent stream supports scattered.willow
clumps, sedges and rushes in some areas adjacent to its banks.
H. Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Floodplains
Several recent studies in conjunction with this and other projects have identified and
delineated wetlands within the study area. Small isolated wetlands occur throughout the
study area as do many riarrow strips of riparian wetlands along Gore Creek, its tributaries
and the Eagle River. Riparian scrub wetlands exist on hillslopes and alluvial terraces
above and adjacent to Gore Creek and the Eagle River. The predominant overstory
vegetation consists of various species of woody shrubs including -mountain plainleaf,
wolf willow, bog and water birch, red osier dogwood, and thinleaf alder. Ground cover
consists of species common to wet meadow areas such as sedges, rushes and wet grasses.
Riparian scrub wetland areas are valued for functions including flood storage and
desynchronization, shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, sedimerit
trapping, nutrient retention and removal, wildlife and aquatic habitat, and heritage values. .
They are moderately valued for ground water discharge, and food chain support. They
may also 'have some minimal groundwater recharge value:
Wetland vegetation at the site of the proposed project is limited to small isolated willow
clumps immediately adjacent to the unnamed intermittent creek traversing the site. There
are also a few areas of rush and sedge growth intermixed with the willow clumps.
Wetland vegetation is not continuous along the course of the drainage and averages only
about 2 feet in width either side of the drainage. Wetland vegetation at the Vail Meadows
site, although spazse, provides some wildlife habitat and certainly functions to help
stabilize the banks of the intermittent stream. The total area which is covered , predominately by wetland vegetation at the site is estimated to be about 0.05 acre. .
~
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 15
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
As previously described in the discussion of groundwater, the water table was not
encountered during excavation of several test pits for examination soils. Soils in these
areas are primarily sandy loams and do not show evidence of regular and substantial
vaziation in groundwater elevations, nor do they show much organic content. As such,
the azeas containing wetland plant species technically do not meet the hydrologic and soil
criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for delineation of jurisdiction wetlands
under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500).
However, these areas do appear to provide functions which are similar to those provided '
by jurisdictional wetlands including wildlife habitat, shoreline anchoring, sediment
trapping and flood retention. For this reason, it is likely that the Corps would require
mitigation of any wetland impacts.
1. !fllilcllefe Wildlife resources within the study area are predominantly upland in character. Specific
habitats include subalpine meadow, riparian wetlands, and spruce, pine, fir and aspen
forest. These habitats provide for a diverse assemblage of both game and non-game
wildlife.
Wildlife resources have been extensively studies in the Vail area, with many of the
studies focusing on the Vail Ski Area. The Ski Area provides superior habitat for a wide
variety of wildlife species due to the diversity of ecosystems. Some of the most
commonly appearing species of birds and small mammals are red-tailed hawks, great
horned owls, blue grouse, white tailed ptarmigan, morning doves, chickadee, nuthatch,
warblers, dipper, bats, marmots, badger, skunk, weasel, red fox, porcupine, pika, mink,
muskrat, ground squirrels, mice, voles, and rabbits.
The dominant large mammals that inhabit the area are mule deer and elk, which are
attracted to the azea during the summer by the abundant forage, well interspersed habitat,
and good cover available at higher elevations. The Vail Ski Area and the proposed
storage tank site are located in the northeast corner of Game Management Unit (GMU)
45. Winter range is the most limiting factor for the 600 elk which inhabit GMU 45.
Winter range in the Vail area occuis to the west, south and north of the Vail Ski Area
(Forest Service, 1986). In recent years, elk have been observed during the early winter
months in the aspen behind Cascade Village to the east of the proposed project site.
The upper half of the area behind Cascade Village is heavily used as a movement
corridor. Elk generally tend to migrate into and across the ski area from west to east in
the spring following the receding snowline. In the fall and early winter, the elk move
across and out of the ski area to the west and south. During the spring migration, calving
occurs at elevations between 8,400 and 9,600 feet, depending on the snowline elevation.
Potential calving habitat within the Vail Ski Area includes portions of Sun Up and Sun
Down Bowls, the Cascade Village area, Golden Peak, Teacup Bowl and the east side of
China Bowl. Most of the elk moving through the ski area use summer ranges to the east
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 16 .
Vail Meadows Water Stora¢e Tank
of Two Elk Pass. The most important summer range areas within current and proposed
permit areas are the Category 2 bowls, the upper portions of the Category 3 bowls, and
' the ridge to the north of Mill Creek Road (Thompson 1985).
Deer winter range areas are located primarily between Edwards and Gypsum to the east
of the Vail Ski Area, with some deer wintering as far east as Dowds Junction and as far
west as Dotsero. The area on the eastern edge of the ski azea, to the south of Gore Creek
and. east of the Eagle River, is used as a staging area for northwesterly migration and is considered critical habitat by the CDOW. During the summer months, deer aze common
throughout the ski area. The best habitats are aspen/lodgepole stands on the north side of
the ski area, particularly the lower aspen habitats which support luxuriant
shrub/herbaceous understories. Deer habitat throughout the current permit area is
considered good to excellent. Deer using the Vail Ski Area have demonstrated a
remarkable tolerance for the relatively high levels of human activity within the azea
(Thompson, 1985).
Residential, commercial and ski area development in the Gore Valley and to the west
over the past 20 years has raised concems regarding impacts to some migratory big game
species. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has given particular attention to development
activities which encroach upon winter and- summer ranges, and calving areas, or •
potentially interfere with migratory movements. Numerous game tracking studies have
been conducted in the southern portion of the Vail Ski Area, as this area is heavily used
by both deer and elk during as a migratory corridor and as calving areas and summer
range.
The proposed project site at Vail Meadows 'is not an important summer or winter range
azea, nor is it within an identified migratory corridor. Habitat conditions to the south of
the proposed storage tank site are suitable for big game summer range as evidenced by
signs of browsing and fairly frequent sightings of cleer, elk, and black bear by local
residents.
J. Threatened and Endangered Species
The White River Nation Forest has completed a Biological Evaluation and a Biological
Assessment for the proposed project which are included in this EA as Appendix D. The
purpose of the Biological Evaluation is ensure that the proposed action will not
jeopazdize species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester or Forest species or special
emphasis. The purpose of the Biological Assessment is to document the analysis used
and conclusions reached regarding potential affects on any Federally listed threatened or
endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species due to the proposed action.
The White River National Forest lists 34 species as sensitive or of special emphasis.
Evaluation of habitat requirements and field reconnaissance concluded that the proposed
project would not conflict with any of the listed species. (Johnston, 1995)
. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 17
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
A list of Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate species occurring on the White River
National Forest was received from fhe U.S. Fish and Wildlife service on March 23, 1994
and February 14, 1995. (See Appendix D.) The following Federally listed or Candidate
wildlife species are potentially found in the vicinity of the proposed project: Bald Eagle
(endangered); Peregrine Falcon (endangered); Canada Lynx (candidate); Whooping
Crane (endangered); Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (threatened); Black Footed Ferret
. (endangered); Greenback Cutthroat Trout (threatened); Bonytail Chub (endangered);
Humpback Chub (endangered); Colorado River Squawfish (endangered); and Razorback
Sucker (endangered).
K. AiP Quality
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control
Division has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for "criteria
pollutants" which have been established by EPA to protect public health (Title 40 CFR
Part 50). Eagle County and the Town of Vail are located within Colorado Air Quality
Control Region 12, which is in attainment for all criteria pollutants except PM,o
(particulate matter under 10 microns). The applicable national and state standazds for
PM,o , carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides are shown below:
Pollutant Avera e Qime Concentration e
Cazbon Monoxide 1 hour b 35 ppm (40 mg/m')
8 hour 6 9 ppm (10 mg/m)
Particulate (PM,o) Annual arithmetic mean 50 µg/m'
24 hour 6 150 µg/m3
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual azithmetic mean 100 µg/m3
No short-term standard
Notes:
a) ppm = parts of pollutant per million parts of air; mg/m3 = milligrams of
pollutant per cubic meter of air at standard conditions (atmospheric pressure
of 29.92 inches Hg and temperature of 25° C); µg/m3 = micrograms pollutant
per cubic meter of air at standazd conditions.
b) Concentration not to be exceeded more than one time per year in averaging time period.
The pollutants of interest for this project are carbon monoxide emitted from construction
equipment and vehicles traveling to and from the site, particulate matter from
construction activities and diesel emissions.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 18
Vail Meadows Water Storage Tank Generally, ambient air quality in rural a.reas of Eagle County is well below the PM,o
standard, but compliance problems exist in some populated azeas valleys due to the
combined affects of auto emissions, wood burning fireplaces, road sanding, and other
sources. Because Vail is prone to frequent temperature inversions during the winter,
emissions from these sources has caused seasonal decreases in local air quality. The
Colorado Air Quality Control Division has periodically monitored air quality in Vail.
Based on this monitoring, Vail has not exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards
over the past few years. (Town of Vail, 1996) -
The Town of Vail conducted its own study of air quality in the Vail Valley in 1992. That
study determined that although PM,o standards were not being exceeded, wood-burning
fireplaces account for 74% of the variation in maximum levels and 79% of the variation
in winter averages PM,o. The total number of skier days combined with the number of
fireplaces accounted for 90% of the variation in PM,o. This indicated that the number of
wood-burning fireplaces and the number of winter visitors have a significant impact on
air quality. during periods of temperature inversions. The study concluded that gas
conversions in lodges could significantly improve air quality (Town of Vail, 1992).
Carbon Monoxide (CO) levels in Vail were monitored during the 1987-1988 winter and
no exceedances of federal standards were found (Town of Vail, 1992). Several years ago
Vail adopted ordinances prohibiting wood-burning fireplaces in new construction,
allowing only the installation of certified fuel burning devices, gas appliances, and gas
log fireplaces (City ordinance 8.28.030 and 8.28.040, Vail, 4-7-92).
L. Visual Resources
The Vail Valley is generally an area of high scenic quality. The study area consists of
mountainous terrain ranging from approximately 7,500 feet in elevation at Dowds
Junction to 10,549 feet at the top of Vail Pass. Surrounding peaks rise to elevation over
13,000 feet. Skiing, hiking, biking and other outdoor recreational activities are enhanced
by tlie relatively pristine nature of visual amenities in the area. The visual appearance
changes dramatically with the seasons. The dominance of aspen trees provide a lush,
green vegetative cover during the spring and summer months and spectacular changing
colors in the fall.
The U.S. Forest Service has assessed the visual resources of the portions of the study area
lying within the National Forests using its Visual Management System. This system
determines the visual quality objectives (VQO's) to be used by the U.S. Forest Service for
managing its visual resources. U.S. Forest Service lands located within the study azea are
managed for the VQO's of partial retention (PR). Under a PR classification, activities
that alter the landscape must be visually subordinate to that landscape (USDA, 1984c).
The Vail Meadows site is visible from much of the residential area lying to the north and
from the Interstate 70 corridor. However, ttre existing water storage tank, which is
DRAFT ENVIRONMENT'AL ASSESSMENT Page 19
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
entirely above ground level and visible from parts of East Vail to the northwest of the
site, blocks the view of the azea where the new tank would be built.
M. Cul4ural ResouPCes
Historic land-use patterns have radically altered many portions of the study area. From
the 1880s through the 1960s widespread cultivation altered much of the land surface.
Since the early 1960s development within the To-vvn of Vail, the Vail Ski Area and the I-
70 corridor have altered major portions of the valley floors. In some areas, modifications
to the valley floor along Gore Creek have been extensive. Most surface or shallowly
buried prehistoric sites along the Interstate 70 corridor have been excavated or destroyed. However, there is some potential that more deeply buried sites may remain along portions
of the old U.S. Highway 6 or in broader portions of the valley where earth-moving
involved with construction of the interstate highway was less extensive (Metcalf, 1992).
Several cultural resource investigation have been completed in the study area and the
results of these surveys are summarized below.
In 1993, Metcalf Archeological Consultants conducted a cultural resources inventory in conjunction with environmental studies related to construction of cellulaz
communications facilities near the Vail Meadows site. This survey did not reveal any
significance cultural resources in the surveyed azea. The U.S. Forest Service recently
conducted a cultural resources inventory of the proposed Vail Meadows site during
investigations concerning a land exchange with the Town of Vail. This survey did not
reveal any indication of cultural significance and the site has been "cleazed" (Kathy
Hardy, USFS, pers. comm. 2/28/96).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 20
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Physiography and Geology
. 1. Alternative A: No Action
Under the No Action alternative, a new water storage tank would not be constructed. The
District would continue to rely on the existing 500,000 gallon storage tank at the Vail
Meadows site. Implication of this alternative on storaae needs for emergency situations
and fire protection aze discussed in Purpose and Need section of this EA and in planning
studies conducted for the District (RBD, 1991; Merrick, 1994). Exposure of the existing
tank to high severity avalanche hazard would continue to pose a risk because water levels
in the tank would be drawn down more frequently.
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site
The primary change in existing physiographic and geologic features associated with
construction of a 1 mg water storage tank at the proposed site at Vail Meadows would be
the excavation necessary for tank placement. Tank placement would require excavation
of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil. Spoil material excavated would be used to
partially bury the tank on the downslope side. The excavation azea would be slightly
larger than the diameter of the tank to accommodate a small access road around its
perimeter. This would require additional cut on the upslope side of the tank. The tank
would be fully buried on the downslope side, and fill material would extending roughly
10 feet above the pre-existing grade.
This alternative would.also require relocation of a small intermittent stream channel. The
channel would be reconstructed at a slightly higher elevation than the existing channel.
Additional information regarding modifications necessary to the channel location is
provided in the discussion of hydrologic consequences below.
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position
Changes to physiographic and geologic features associated with construction of a tank at
a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be very similar to the Proposed Action
although due to existirig slope conditions, would not require as much excavation. .
However, the downslope (north) side of the tank would be entirely above grade and a
retaining wall approximately 60 feet long and 8 to 10 feet high would be required to
create an adequate foundation for the new tank. In addition, this alternative would not
require permanent relocation of the small stream channel, although the channel would .
need to be relocated during construction activities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 21
Vai1 Meadows Warer Storaee Tank
4. Ctarnula4ive Effects
There would be no significant cumulative impact to azea physiographic and geological
resources associated with.either of the three alternatives.
B.. NatuPaY Hazards
1. Alterna4ive A: No Acfion The No Action Alternative results in a much greater risk associated with exposure of the
existing 500,000 gallon water tanl: at Vail Meadows to snow avalanche hazazd. A study
of the potential impacts of an avalanche on the existing storage tank indicated that a 100-
year avalanche event could result in the tank being damaged or ruptured if the avalanche
occurred at a time when the tank was less than 80 percent full of water. (Hydro-Triad,
Ltd., 1977)
2. Alternafive B: Proposed Action - Vail IVleadows Site
The proposed new water storage tank at the Vail Meadows site has been designed to
withstand maximum anticipated loading conditions associated with a 100-year avalanche
event. Tank materials, reinforcement, and below grade positioning would provide
sufficient protection to prevent structural damage or movement of the tank. The
additional 1 mg of water storage capacity would enable the District to maintain higher
levels of water in storage in the existing tank throughout most of the winter. Changes to
topography associated with the new tank would not have any measurable impact on the
avalanche runout area below the tank. (Mears, 1995)
3. AItePPlatlbe C: Vail Nleadows Site - Lower Tan6c Posation The uphill. side of the new tank would be below grade and design features would be
included to enable the new tank to withstand snow loads associated with a 100-year
avalanche. This tank site, because of its close proximity to the existing tank may
effectively reduce the potential side impact of an avalanche on the existing tank.
However, this location may also increase the risk of damage from snow loading on the
top of the existing tank because a large avalanche could pass over the top of the new tank
to the top of the existing tank. This could offset the potential benefits of being able to maintain higher water levels in the tank when it is used in combination with the new
storage tank resulting in a higher risk of existing tank failure
DRAFT EiNVIRONMENT'AL ASSESSMENT Page 22
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank '
4. Cumulative Effects
There would be no change cumulative impact in area natural hazards associated with
either of the three alternatives. The Proposed Action would result in reduced avalanche
hazard to the District's water storage facilities.
, C. Soils .
1. Alternative A: No Action
Under the No Action alternative, construction of a new storage tank would not occur and
there would therefore be no associated soil disturbance. However, as discussed below
under hydrologic consequences, soil erosion resulting from overtopping of the small
stream during peak flow periods would continue and would ultimately require some form
of stream channel stabilization and storm drainage improvements at the site.
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site
Changes to soil features associated with the proposed action would primarily be due to
construction of the tank and the required excavation. The area of permanent soil
disturbance associated with construction of the access road and emplacement of the
storage tank would be approximately 11,000 sq.ft. (0.25 ac.). The area of temporary
disturbance during construction activities would be approximately 34,000 sq.ft. (0.78
ac.).
During project construction and the period of time required for reestablishment of
vegetation, soil losses from erosion will be minimized through the use of sediment
control fencing, hay bales, sediment retention ponds and other construction practices
designed to prevent soil erosion.
The proposed action would also require relocation of a small stream channel. This action
would include improvements to the stormwater drainage at the site resulting in a
reduction in soil losses from erosion.
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position
Changes to soil characteristics associated with construction of a tank at a lower position
at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action.
4. Cumulative Effects
There would be no significant cumulative impact to area soils associated with either of
the three alternatives.
I
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 23
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
D. C~sPOL9B'1C0lM~teP
I. AB$ePB'1a$9Ve A: No Action The No Action alternative would result in no consequences to regional or local
groundwater conditions. .
2. Alternative B: Proposec! Action -!lail IVleadows Site
As evidenced by soil and wetland studies at the Vail Meadows site that involved
excavation of test pits, groundwater appears to be present only in azeas immediately -
adjacent to the small stream channel that traverses the site. Furthermore, groundwater
appears to be present only during periods when water is flowing on the surface of the
stream channel, which is generally limited to the snow melt period. For these reasons, the affects on local groundwater conditions at the site will be minimal and will be limited
to the immediate vicinity of the construction activities.
3. Alternative C: !lail Meadows Site -Lower Tank Positaon
Changes to groundwater conditions associated with construction of a tank at a lower
position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action.
4. Cumulative Effecfs
There would be no significant cumulative impact to local or regional groundwater
resources associated with either of the three alternatives.
E. Ciyc9rology 1. Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, there would be no affect on existing hydrologic
conditions. However, as discussed below, erosive damage in the azea of the existing
storage tank resulting from periodic overtopping of the small stream traversing the Vail
Meadows site may require bank stabilization or other protective measures in the future.
a. Alternative B: Proposed Act6on. - Vail Meadows Site
As shown on the Site Plan (Appendix A) the Proposed Action would require relocation of the small intermittent stream channel that descends from the steep slopes to the south and
traverses the Vail Meadows site. This stream channel relocation would impact
approximately 360 feet of the existing stream channel through the site. The existing
channel would be replaced by approximately 420 feet of existing channel that will be
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 24 _
Vail Meadows Water StoraQe Tank
designed to contain flows of up to 30 cfs. This new stream channel would cross the
valley floor about 100 feet to the north of the new tank and continue down the valley on
the east side of the access road. At the north end of the site, just below the point where
there is a gradient break in existing stream channel, a debris catchment and diversion
structure will be installed. This catchment would serve to reduce the risk of stream
channel obstruction that could be caused by debris from an avalanche, and the diversion
- structure would be designed to divert flows in excess of 25 cfs into an overflow channel.
The overflow channel will be designed to convey about 15 cfs and will follow the course
of the existing drainage for about 70 feet below the diversion. At this location, the
overflow drainage will join new drainage course that will pass to the west of the new and
existing storage tanks. A catch basin on the west side of the existing tank will divert
drainage into a 30 inch culvert that will follow the site access road down drainage ditch
on the north side of Snowshoe Lane. The drainage ditch along Snowshoe Lane in the
Town of Vail will be improved to accommodate the overflow drainage.
The drainage improvements described above will serve the reduce the erosive damage
that has been caused by bank overtopping of the existing stream channel in the area
immediately west of the existing tank and along the site access road. In addition, the
proposed changes will improve the flooci flow conveyance capabilities of the drainage
system and reduce the risk of on-site and downstream damages that could be cause by a
flood event.
There Proposed Action will enhance the Districts water supply system by increasing
treated (potable) water storage capacity but will not result in any additional consumptive
use of water.
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position
Changes to hydrologic features associated with construction of a tank at a lower position
at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action with
temporary relocation of the stream during construction. Following construction, the
stream channel would be restored to its existing course and improvements would be made
to accommodate flood flows and reduce erosion problems. The impacts of these actions
would be virtually identical to he the Proposed Action.
4: Cumulative Effects
There would be no significant cumulative impact to local or regional hydrology
associated with either of the three alternatives. Upon project completion, the relocated
stream channel would serve to reduce site erosion and slightly reduce sediment loading to
Gore Creek.. In addition, the risks associated with potential flooding would be reduced.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 25
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
F. WateP Qualityy
I. ABgernative A: No Action
The No Action alternative would not result in any permanent impact to either surface or
ground water quality at the project site or within the study area. Periodic erosion caused
by bank overtopping of the unnamed stream at the Vail Meadows site would continue and
would contribute to sediment loading to Gore Creek.
a. AltePnafive B: Proposed Action - ilail Nieadows Site
During the construction period, impacts to water quality will consist of imcreased
sediment loading from disturbed area to the unnamed drainage below the site and to Gore
Creek. This impact would occur primarily in the early stages of construction and during
storm events. Because construction will begin in the spring during relatively high stream
flows, sediment will most likely be transported downstream with very. limited deposition
in the stream channel. Sedimentation would be minimized through the use of
construction practices designed to minimize and filter runoff from disturbed azeas
including the use of sediment control fencing, hay bales, and sediment retention ponds.
Revegetation following construction would result in restoration of the site to pre-project
conditions within a period of about three years. The Proposed Action would have a slight
. long term beneficial impact to the water quality of Gore Creek resulting from drainage
improvements at the site and associated reductions in soil erosion. The relocated stream
channel would be designed to prevent overtopping. and associated erosion under expected
peak runoff conditions.
3. Alternafieve C. !/ail Nleadows Sete -Lower T'an8c Position
Changes to water quality associated with construction of a tank at the lower position at
the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action.
4. CumuBative Effects
There would be no significant cumulative impact to local or regional water quality
associated with either of the three alternatives, although the Proposed Action may slightly
reduce sediment loading to CTore Creek.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 26 .
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
G. Vegetation
1. Alternative A: No Action
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no impacts to vegetation at the project
site or in the study area.
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site
The Proposed Action would require permanent disturbance of vegetation and soils of
approximately 11,000 sq.ft. (0.0.25 ac.). This disturbance would result from
emplacement of the storage tank itself and grading for the access road to and around the
perimeter of the tank. In addition, 34,000 sq.ft. (0.78 ac.) of temporary disturbance
would result from construction activities in the area. The disturbed areas would include areas containing riparian wetland vegetation as well as areas that are dominated by a
variety of grasses anci noxious weeds. Impacts to areas with wetland vegetation would be
mitigated as discussed below. Other disturbed areas would be revegetated using a native
grass and wildflower seed mix along.
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position
Changes to vegetative characteristics associated with construction of a tank at a lower
position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action.
4. Cumulative Effects
There would be no significant cumulative impact to vegetation resources associated with
either of the three alternatives.
H. Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Floodplains 1. Alternative A: No Action
The No Action alternative would result in no impact to wetlands, riparian azeas or
floodplains.
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail 6Vleadows Site The Proposed Action would require a permanent disturbance of wetland vegetation
adjacent to the unnamed stream traversing the Vail Meadows site. Wetland vegetation
consists of mature willow clumps interspersed with small areas of sedges, rushes and wet
grasses immediately adjacent to the stream. While these areas do not technically meet the '
_ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 27
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
defining wetland criteria to come under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, they do provide functional values associated with wetlands.
Impacts to azeas sustaining wetland vegetation would be approximately 0.05 ac. These
impacts would be fully mitigated through the establishment of a similar amount of
wetland vegetation along the new stream channel. Willows, sedges, and rushes would be
planted adjacent to.the new stream channel during other revegetation efforts and shown
on the Site Plan (Appendix A). This effort would serve both to stabilize the newly constructed stream banks and replace any lost wildlife habitat. It is also expected that
some wetland vegetation would naturally become established along the relocated channel. .
Additional mitigation efforts are presented below under Specific Mitigation Measures.
3. AIterna$ive C: !lail Meadows Site - Lower T'ank Positioav
Changes to wetland and riparian areas associated with construction of a storage tank at a
lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be similar to the Proposed Action with the
exception that this alternative would not require permanent relocation of the small stream
channel. The area of impact to areas of wetland vegetation would be about 0.05 ac and
mitigation requirements would be very similar to those described above for the Proposed
Action.
4. Cumulative Effects
There would be no significant cumulative adverse impact to wetland or riparian areas
associated with either of the three alternatives. Following stream relocation and
revegetation efforts, streambanks would be more stable and could be more heavily
vegetated with wetland plant species. The wetland functions and values cunently found
. at the site could therefore be enhanced. e. Wesd6s$e
I. A14erna$ive A: No Action
The No Action alternative would result in no impact to the wildlife habitats of bird and
terrestrial species known to inhabit either the project site or the study azea.
2. AIgePnatide B: PPOposed Ac$ion - !lael IVleadows Site
The Vail Meadows site provides suitable habitat for birds and small mammals including
blue grouse, white-tailed ptarmigan, chickadee, nuthatch, warblers; marmots, badger,
skunk, weasel, red fox, coyotes, pika, ground squirrels, mice, voles and rabbits.
Approximately 11,000 sq.ft. (0.25 ac.) of this habitat would be permanently displaced by
the Proposed Action. In addition, approximately 34,000 sq.ft. (0.78 ac.) of this habitat .
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 28 .
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
would be temporarily disturbed during construction activities. During the construction
period, wildlife in the immediate vicinity would be displaced, at least temporarily, due to
habitat disturbance and human activity. Following project completion and restoration of
disturbed areas, it is likely that wildlife would return to the area.
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position
Changes to wildlife habitat associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action.
4. Cumulative Effects_
There would be no significant cumulative impact to area wildlife associated with either of
the three alternatives. Area wildlife may be temporarily displaced during construction
activities, but would be expected to reestablish in the area after project completion.
J. Threatened and Endangered Species
1. Alternative A: No Action
The No Action alternative would result in no impacts to Federally listed threatened or
endangered species or those species listed by the U.S. Forest Service as sensitive or of
Special Emphasis.
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site
In April of 1995, the U.S. Forest Service conducted a Biological Assessment (BA) to
identify and document potential affects on any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered
species resulting from the Proposed Action at the Vail Meadows site (Appendix D). The
BA determined that construction of a storage tank at this site would not adversely affect
any Federally listed species.
The Forest Service also conducted a Biological Evaluation (BE) in April, 1995 to identify
and document potential affects resulting from the proposed action on species listed as
either Sensitive to Regiori 2, or listed as Forest Service Species of Special Emphasis
(Appendix D). The BE determined that the proposed action would not adversely affect
any such species. In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with water development
interests, conservation groups and the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming,
implemented a program designed to conserve and recover these endangered fish while
permitting new water development to proceed. This environmental assessment addresses
the impacts of construction of a treated water storage tank that would make use of water
, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 29
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
currently available to the District and cunently being used within the District's service
area. The proposed project would not result in any additional consumptive uses of water
that would be subject to depletion charges under the Recovery Program for the Colorado
River Endangered fishes.
3. AltePnafive C: Vail Meadows Site - Lower Tank Position
Potential affects, on habitats of Federally listed Threatened or Endangered species or on
species listed as Sensitive or of Special Emphasis by the U.S. Forest Service, associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site would be
virtually identical to the Proposed Action. The BA and BE developed by the U.S. Forest
Service have determined that no impacts would occur through project development at the
Vail Meadows site.
4. Cumulageve Effects
There would be no cumulative impact to •Threatened, Endangered or other sensitive
species that potentially inhabit the area associated with either of the three alternatives.
K. A9P Q19a09ty .
1. Alternafiive A: No Action
The No Action alternative would result in no impact to air quality at the project site or in
the study area.
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action -!/ai8 Nleadows Site
During construction, there could be a slight increase in fugitive dust and diesel exhaust
emissions: These impacts would occur during the summer months when temperature
inversions are infrequent and would be minimized and controlled in accordance with
standard construction practices. Operation of the project would have no air quality
impacts.
3. AItePnative C: !lail Meadows Sige - LOlA/@P Ta8'1I( POSitt01'9
Changes to air quality associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at the
Vail Meadows site would be virtually identical to the Proposed Action.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 30 .
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
4. Cumulative Effects
There would be no significant cumulative impact to air quality associated with either of
the three alternatives. Construction activities would result in a minor and temporary
increase in PMio resulting from diesel emissions from heavy equipment.
. L. Visual Resources
1. Alternative A: No Action
The No Action alternative would result in no impact ta visual resources at the project site
or in the study area. 2. Alternative B: Proposed Action - Vail Meadows Site
The project area is visible from some residential areas in East Vail and portions of the
Interstate 70 corridor, but not visible from the western portions of the Town of Vail or
from the Vail Ski Area. The new storage tank would be partially buried, with the uphill
side of the tank at or near the pre-existing grade. The tank would be screened from view
through because it would be buried and the area would be revegetated and landscaped so
as to blend the surrounding area. After revegetation of disturbed azea, there would be no
visual impact.
The buried tank at this location would have virtually no visual impact on the nearby
neighborhoods or on the Interstate 70 corridor.
3. Alternative C: Vail Meadows Site -'Lower Tank Position
Changes to visual resources associated with construction of a tank at a lower position at
the Vail Meadows site would be more pronounced than those resulting from the Proposed
Action. This would be due to the natural grade at the Vail Meadows site which make it
impossible to fully bury the tank. The north side of the tank would be fully exposed
above ground. Visual impacts would be similar to those already experienced with the
existing storage tank.
4. Cumulative Effects
There would be no significant cumulative impact to visual resources associated with
either of the three alternatives. If the existing tank is removed in the future, the Proposed
Action would result in a positive impact because of the reduced visibility of the new tank.
DRAFT ENVIROMvIENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 31
. Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
M. ClBItUPaB R@SOlBPCeS •
1. AI$ePBlattbe A: No Action
The No Action alternative would result in no impact to cultural resources at the project
site or in the study area.
2. Alternative B: Proposed Action -!lai8 AAeadows Site
As part of environmental investigations conducted in 1993 for development of a cellular
communications facility site, Metcalf Archeological Consultants prepared a Class IV
cultural resources inventory for an area that included the Vail Meadows storage tank site.
In addition, a cultural resource inventory was conducted in conjunction with the land
exchange proposed by the Town of Vail. No cultural resources were found in the project
area during either of these surveys. As such, no impacts to cultural resources would
occur as a result of the Proposed Action. 3. Algernative C: Nail iVieadowrs Site - L.ower Tanlc Position
As with the Proposed Action, there would be no impact to cultural resources associated
with construction of a tank at a lower position at the Vail Meadows site.
4. Cumulative Effects
There would be no cumulative impact to cultural resources associated with either of the
three alternatives.
N. Surnrnary of Environrnental Irnpacts that Cannot be Avoided
Permanent environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action that cannot be
avoided would include:
a. reduced storage tank visibility, i.e. enhancement of visual resources;
b. disturbance of 0.25 acre of grass and shrub vegetation;
c. disturbance of approximately 0.05 acres of wetland vegetation;
d. relocation of the drainage channel, improved stream bank stability, and reduced
sediment loading to Gore Creek;
e. creation of approximately 0.05 acres of wetland vegetation; and
f. reduced avalanche hazard to the District's water storage facilities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 32 .
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
Temporary environmental impacts that would occur during the construction phase of the
Proposed Action and possibly for a short period thereafter would include:
a. minor increase in diesel emissions, fugitive dust from heavy equipment;
b. increase traffic and noise levels due to construction vehicles; and
b. disturbance to approximately 0.78 acre of grass and shrub vegetation.
0. Specific Mitigation Measures
Specific precautions and mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Action will
include:
1. final project design specifications that contain:
a. a cletailed design for stream relocation, stream bank stabilization, wetland
vegetation re-establishment, and area wide revegetation with native plant species;
b. an on-site erosion control plan;
2. the following mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction phase:
a. measures to intercept runoff from disturbed/exposed soils;
b. topsoil from the construction site will be stored and used during revegetation of
disturbed areas;
c. if possible, wetland plants disturbed will be stored and used in addition to new
planting in areas adjacent to the relocated stream channel;
d. all disturbed areas will be recontoured and covered with the best available topsoil
and revegetated according to a specifications to be reviewed and approved by the
Forest Service;
e. measures to minimize erosion during the period required for revegetation; and
f. signing for safety at the construction site.
o DRAFT ENVIRONMENT'AL ASSESSMENT Page 33
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
!!I. CONSl1LTATlON AND COORDINATlON
Bill Andre, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife
Russell Forrest, Town of Vail .
Tim Grantham, Lands Forester, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest,.
Minturn, Colorado
Kathy Hardy, Lands Forester, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest,
Minturn, Colorado
William Wood, District Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National
Forest, Mintum, Colorado
!lII. LIST OF PREPAREF3S
This Environmental Assessment was prepared by the following individuals under the
direction of William A. Wood, District Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River
National Forest:
Robert M. Weaver, Environmental Consultant, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002
Walnut Street, Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302
Edward J. Armbruster, Water Resources Engineer, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants,
1002 Walnut Street, Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302
Mark Van Nostrand, Project Manager, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, 846
Forest Road, Vail, Colorado, 81657
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 34 .
Vail Meadows Water S[oraee Tank
VIII. REFERENCES
Advanced Sciences, Inc. 1990. Vail - Gore/Eagle Water Qualiry Monitoring Program
Results. Report prepazed for Vail Valley Consolidated Water District.
' Algermissen, S. T., et al. 1982. Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and
Velocity in Rock in the Contigzrous United States. U.S. Geological Survey„ Open
File Report No. 82-1033.
Barton, Stoddard, Millhollin & Higgins. 1972. Vail Pass Environmental Study. Report
for Colorado Department of Highways, Project No. I-70-2 (19), Vail to Wheeler
Junction.
Brown, L. 1985. Grasslands. The Audubon Society Nature Guides. Alfred A. Knopf,
New York, New York.
Cattany, R. W., et al. 1986. Options to Mitigate Potential Damages from Earthflows
near powds Junction, Colorado. Minturn Earthflows Task Force.
Chen Northern, Inc. 1990. Subsoil Study for Foundation Design - Proposed Water Tank
- Existing Gore Valley Water Tank Site - East Vail.. Report prepazed for Upper
Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District.
Colton, R.B. et al. 1975. Preliminary Map of Landslide Deposits, Leadville 1 ox2o
Quadrangle, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies,
Map MF-701.
Golder Associates. 1986. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Black Lake
Dam 43, Vail Pass, Colorado. Report to Tipton & Kalmbach, Inc.
Gooding, J. 1981. The Archaeology of Vail Pass Camp: A Multi-component Base Camp
Below Tree Limit in the Southern Rockies. Colorado Department of Highways,
Highway Salvage Report No. 35. Boulder, Colorado..
Greystone Development Consultants, Inc. and Resource Consultants, Inc. 1991.
Environmental Assessment for the US West Communications Baily to Rifle.
. Colorado Fiber Optic Cable Project.
Halley, R.L., 1975. KAC Avalanche Study, Vail, Colorado.
Halley, R.L., 1977. Vail Meadows Avalanche, Yail, Colorado. Report prepazed -for
Gore Vallley Water District by Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
.
, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 35
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
Hoffman, G. R., and R. R. Alexander. 1983. Forest Vegetation of the White River
National Forest in Western Colorado: A Habitat Type Classifrcation. USDA
Forest Service Research Paper RM-249. _ Holden, P. 1986. Aquatic Biology Studies Related to the Enlargement of Black Lake No.
1 near Vail, Colorado. Draft Technical Report of Biowest, Inc.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. 1991 a. Environmental Assessment for the
Access Road for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, Yail, Colorado. Boulder,
Colorado.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. 1991 b. Environmental Assessment for Black
Lake No. 1 Enlargement Project. Boulder, Colorado.
Hydro-Triad, Ltd., 1990. Vail Meadows Avalanche, Bighorn, Vail, Colorado. Report
prepared for GCI Environmental Developers. •
INSTA.AR. Evaluation of the Snow Avalanche Hazard in the Valley of Gore Creek,
Eagle County, Colorado.
Keammerer, W. 1992. Plant Species of Special Concern for Eagle and Summit
Counties. Stoeker-Keammerer. Boulder, Colorado. .
Kirkham, R. M. and W. P. Rogers. 1981. Earthquake Potential in Colorado; A
Preliminary Evaluation. Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural
Resources, Bulletin 43.
Mabey,lV1. A., and T. L. Youd. 1989. Probabilistic Liquefaction Severity Index Maps of
the State of Utah. Utah Geological and Nlineral Survey, Utah Department of
Natural Resources. Open File Report No. 159. .
Mears, Art, 1976. Vail Meadows Avalanche Dynamics Study.
Meazs, Art, 1990. Quantitative Analysis of Runout Distance, Energy and Avalanche-
Zoning Implications, Vail Meadows Avalanche, Yail, Colorado. Report Prepared
for Town of Vail.
Mears, Art, 1995. Snow Avalanche Loading Analysis - Proposed Water Tank - Vail
Meadows Avalanche, Yail, Colorado. Report prepared for Mr. G. Schaefer, SDG,
Inc.
Menick Engineering Consultants, 1994. Executive Planning Document for the Yail
Valley Consolidated Water District. Prepared for the Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District.
.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 36 .
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
Metcalf, M. D. 1989. A Class I Cultural Resource Inventory of the Vail Valley
Consolidated Water District, Eagle County, Colorado. Metcalf Archaeological
' Consultants, Inc. Eagle, Colorado. Metcalf, M. D. 1992. WestGas Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline over Yail Pass, Wheeler
Junction to Dowd Junction, Summit and Eagle Counties, Class I Cultural
Resaurce Overview and Reconnaissance. Eagle, Colorado.
Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 1990. Abbreviated Class I Report on the
Proposed Fiber Optic Line for US West, Jeffries to Glenwood Springs. Prepared
for Greystone Development. Englewood, Colorado.
Mueggler, W. F., and W. L. Stewart. 1980. Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Types of
Western Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-66.
R.BD, Inc. 1991. Preliminary Siting for the Proposed Vail Meadows Water Storage
Tank. Prepared for the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District.
Robinson, C. S. and D. M. Cochran. 1971. Intermediate Geologic Investigations, Big
Horn Creek to Wheeler Junction, Vail Pass. Report for Colorado Department of
Highways, ProjectNo. I-70-2 (19).
Rogers, W.P. et al. 1974. Guidelines and Criteria for ldentification and Land-Use
Controls of Geologic Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas. Colorado Geological
Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Special Publication No. 6.
Thornbury, W. D. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley and
Sons. New York, New York.
Tipton and Kalmack, Inc. 1986. Various Hydrology Studies Related to Black Lakes
Enlargement Project. Denver, Colorado.
Town of Vail. 1986. Vail Land Use Plan. Community Development Department. Vail,
Colorado.
Tweto, O., R. H. Moench, and J. C. Reed Jr. 1978. Geologic Map of the Leadville 1 ox2o
Quadrangle, Northeastern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey. Miscellaneous
Investigations Series, Map I-999.
USDA Forest Service. 1984a. Keystone/Arapahoe Keystone Mountain Expansion,
Environmental Assessment. Arapahoe National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region.
USDA Forest Service. 1984b. White River National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. .
~
9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 37
Vail Meadows Water Storaee Tank
USDA Forest Service. 1984c. Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Land on
Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest. Glenwood
Springs, Colorado.
USDOI Bureau of Reclamation. 1988. Final Supplement to the Final Environmental '
Impact Statement for Green Mountain Reservoir, Colorado Water Marketing
. Program, Colorado-Big Thompson, Windy Gap Projects, Colorado. Billings, _
Montana. -
Vail Associates, Inc. 1987. Yail Master Development Plan. Prepazed for the U.S. Forest
Service. Minturn, Colorado.
Scanlon, S. 1992. Draft Analysis of Wood-burning and Air Quality in the Vail Area.
Vail Department of Community Development. Vail, Colorado.
_
. I _ ~ - _ -J - - _ - - - - - -
~ - - - : _ - - - - - - -
8790 - - - _ = - _ .
~ .
_ eroo
. y~ ~ . . _ _ _ _
. . /
r ~ T . - - - = _ ~ _ - _ - - - - -
•b-tY1T~Y ~ ~'Iq:~:•~iJ ! ' _ ' _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ e7e0
~/Il'40W40~
e~eo
aortan[ r~wc JECtICN
RWALE'A'
.
- ' -
. . _ . . .
` eno - - - - - - - - - _
. eno
At llul ri~. C-~ - . " • _ _ _
\ ' - - - - - - - - - -
e~ea
~ . . . - - ' - - - - - - - - - = - - - _ -
. . . . .
oleo
.~NY ~
;
~.i . , 'h. ~ , ~ ~ - - _ = - - = - - - - = _ - - -
, r- . ~ - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - -
, . : . . . . _ . ..Y - - - - - - -
. . . . . - - - - -
. : ~ . , . . . ~ . . . - _ - - - - - - - - - - -
. . . y . .v _ _ _ - _
. .y _ _ ' _ _ _ '
. ~ ~ e7eo - - - ~ -
• i - - - -
. -
. Z : ~ ' ; . . ~ - - - - - - - -27=1 = ' - e,eo
` - - - - - - - - - - --AGCEE
Im _
_
, .
~ e~~o - - - - - - - _
.
.
~
8740 o
_
~oo":
•
~
. : . . e.i..~ti '
` rrr - - - - -
~ •.•..\\'~.•.4 ' % < a _ ' _ " " _ ' _ _ - _ _
, . ` ei ~ ~14' il. ~ _ _ _ _ _
~ ~ ` ? , i l t ..~i ' _ f[= _ _ _ - ' _
.
t
t'.. " . , _ ' - _ - _
t _ _
• ~ ~t~~~~ :~:`'1 ` ino ~ . ~a, ~ . ~ enoo eeoo.
. . a~.ew~ _9 Y.k !i• - - - - i
. , . ';a,,, ' :r i! tii~ - - - - - - -
` - - - - - -
"h 7; „`a~k,;~ ~,;`w M;~. ;E . . ~ _ = ~ _ = _ _ -
~
~
p~va ~ - - - - -
~.,.`,.,'S"
. - - - - - - = - -
.
~
r , i i't! ~ _ _ _ - - - - - - = - _ -
...i.',~~ ~
e
••~i : ' 'i . - = - -
~o.•,,,.•
~ ,
• ~y y~.- - _ _ _ _
ereo
.
~C
i - -
i'fE 1~'~jt'•~~~~' . ;i~i ~J1 tno _ ~no
l . ~-•,,....i 4 ~ i 1 ~ ' - - - - - -
~4,~ ~'j~ ;IC:~~:i - ~ ~ i, ,i - _ _ _ - -
. , . . _ .
,~.ti . . .i 1:%` r ~ _ ~ - -
_
~ • ~
\ ~ - - - - - - - - _ -e7e0
~ , - - - - - -
,;1 ~ i~ I ~ - - - -
~
M0
~ . , i
i:
. . : ~ i! - veo
1;~ • ~ - • - ' -c- _ _ = _ c
, . ,
~!J~j`. --T IM ~E~AL ~BE
' ;
~ 01
. , ~ .
~ ~i ' ' ` • i ~ ~ = eno
'~I'I
`t i j I ~ • fir ~ ~ i!
I r-r ~r. nN.a
{ ~ f ! ~ I I'~., ~ . : ~ pr. ~ . ' J i r.T w. ' • r~ .ra ..a
~ . ` ~ . _
~ ~ NO~R ~ ~:r w~M_ !IL rt~ar ,-IO . f_I •
M1~Cl b~l O(fO~nwf i~ ` ~ VM 1 R IWw _ , I " RN4 m~ m¢f 0 tit w
f~V IP nlifUl ~01
VM11+oi UftM t4A ~L
oi ~..a ~r w..oa ~ ' ~1'' a w.iw 1' i w nu aafeusa i _ w _ 4
~ar v ~~fw.a nc[ •.nai '
e[ a oen~o u..dn 5,, \ • ra ~aunv~. ne-~~ 1 l ~ _ 0 oaaa r ae
ame.ua uw[ j~? / • ~ ~Y Aw n e ~r ac ~
~anr .wn«a wnw ' ~ L i,' : • %:~'.II 1E9E2O ` . .
::nH `r aS~
~ .
3 0l P ~~m nw.t~ ``•.rq~ n w
.
1n~u+~~ I` I -"0~~ nve~ cwmw . h • r~i Ioa~~wo[~ ` •
j ~nau . • .
.
r rn~.~ i ~ . , ! ( d[na s nn. ~r ~e S s
:
• ,ab.. . ~ ;
~ ~av.w nart \ . , i i ~1 o.ino so~ nn.~a °•.a r_~e~
ii ~aa~ na~o . • . ~
•a ~auu nor.n t1 r~ooaeso~ntv.nu1
~
~ II~ ~^~).M ~~UM uK1', • I i ~
~
~ ~ ~i ~ Oti~ ~ 0 l0uro~ 0 b[ Wt [
MYJ! AC9Wl7J1lY <
M ~CORO! ~~M b • . ~
IM ~Wf~H ~M~.\~ ~'1' . . • / ~ r..~ OD~fRt1P Wtf ~
I ~ii ~w~i.u '.oi;i ~ ~ ~ - r ~ HEAowuvLuN c~vnmcMOa~o~'+.no~OM ~•n `
:u nii~ w~~i .w \'y ~ ~ r,• ~ rwu: i/s'-r-r
~
aM1 ..,.A f-900-922-1887 n
1 n :.":i: »'~i.u ~ ~ • aa, raa .
- 534-8700
r , ' • 4,.ti ATTACIIM[Ni U ~
1.0 MO WATEii 9TORAOE TANK Tr-"'
Nay.~_ r•~mi ^3:wq ~~~i.c. _ ~~~N~ TyAl VALIEY CON90LIDATED WATER 019TRICi 917E OMDMO PLAN ~6 C.
o.n w.. nv.e~. ~ ?
ORDINANCE RIO. 1
Series of 1997
A?N ORDINANCE AflNENDIMG TITLE 18 ZOfilING OF THE T'011VN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE,
SECTIONS 18.27.030, 18.29.030, AND 18.30.030 TO ALLOW T'RANSPORTATION
BUSINESSES AS A CONDITIOIV,4L USE IN THE CO(NiViERC1,4L CORE 3(CC3), AFiTERIAL
BUSIPVESS (,4BD), ,4ND HEAVV SEFiVICE (HS) ZONE DISTRICTS; CREATING COND1710N,QL
USE CRITERIA FOR VEHICLE STOR,4GE YARDS; ,4ND EST,4BLISNING SECTIONS
18.04.415 AND 18.04.385 TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR VEHICLE STORAGE YARD AND
TRANSPORT'ATIORI BUSIRIESS.
WHEREAS, transportation businesses provide a valuable service to the guests and
citizens in the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, transportation businesses reduce traffic congestion and help relieve parking
constraints in the Town of Vail by transporting persons by shuttle van rather than each guest
arriving in a separate vehicle; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code does not address uses such as transportation businesses;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code currently does not define a vehicle storage yard and does
not provide review criteria for such a use; and -
WHEREAS, transportation businesses and vehicle storage yards can have deleterious
effects on neighborhoods and adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of this amendment to the Vail Municipal Code at its December 16, 1996
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail made the
finding that adding this conditional use, with the additional review criteria, to those uses listed in
the CC3, ABD, and HS zone districts, will continue to ensure compatibility with other uses in
those zone districts, while providing an additional service to the residents and guests of the.
Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare to amend said Sections of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE', BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL; COLORADO, THAT:
[Note: Text which is strick*n is being deleted and text which is shadeci is being added.]
Page 1 of 5
I
Section 1.
Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.415, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby added and reads as
foliows: •
_
18 U4.4115 1lehicle storageyard
ehlcle starage>:yard" rri:~ans an area' where ueh~cles are t~mporarily ~ar~ed while`awa~ting
repa~r:;ar d'ESposition Vehic(es;siflred: in a~e~ECie;starag:e yard must tie licerised ~ieh~cles; andrio
ane vehicle;may remarrt in:su~h a storage yard for;more:ihan o~rie }~~andred twenty;(;120j
cvnsecutive_ar.nori consecuti~:e days,:~n a o;ne year perjod A vehicle storage yard does r~ot
Enclude. the: temovai a n d safe of vehJ cfe par ts ~r oth~e r acGess ories ,
Section 2.
Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.385 of the Vaii Municipai Code is hereby added and reads as
follows:
18 a4~:385 Tr~nsportatinn :b.usrn'ess .
NTranspartatipn busi r~ess" means a b~smess whieh provides trar~spor~ation;for persons iri, the
;
form;of a shuttte serv~ce:<~e van transportafran~ o.r by;prouid,r~ig automobales for customers
(e g,;car reniaE) Transportat%gm bus'iiiesses do not 4nciutle businesses pra~idEng uehicfes for tf~e
transpartatiion of g;oads or pro~ucts Incfud~rig, buf;not 1~rnitect ta'; panel::trucks, rnQV'ing ~aris n~
trucks= and other simjlar Wehicles~ Section 3.
Chapter 18.27, Section 18.27.030, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
[Commercial Core 3] ,
18 27;p30 Gonci~tianai uses
Q; Tra?isportaiian usinesses; su~~e~t;to the:;folIowifig conditions (m additron:#o those fourid
in Section 18 6p "CondiltionaI ~Jse Rbrmits"):
Af ue~.E~i~s stiall be:Oarked uAon approved paued parkJng areas.:;
a(I vbhicies stiall be adeq;uately sc.reened;:from pubiic rights~9f way:and ad~ac~rit
properties, con:s?stmg ;of landscaping and berrns; rn combthation wifh wafls and
ferices,.where;deerned necessaryCo.retluce the;doIoterfous::effects.:pf ve.Fi1c(e
storage;::;
Page 2 of 5
' .
3 Ttie n~~berx size and Eocation of vehrcies permittdd t:4 be stored shall be
. rm.ihqd::by...:the~il y:the Plann~ng: and: En~i ror?menta[: Comrr~ission based on tlie
_
ad;eguacy of t~?e site,for vehicle storag~; Cansideration s: alC he given ~o_;the
adequacy of Ian~scapin g and.ather screen~ng: methods to..prevent impacts ~o
a~jacentproperties ai~d other comme~ciai and/or resEdent~aG:uses;
I'arking' ~ssociated with tran:spnrtat~on busines_ses shall nof.:reduce or
compramise the par[cing requEred for ather uses on site.::
Section 4.
Chapter 18.29, Section 18.29.030, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
foliows:
[Arterial Business]
18.29.030 Conditional Uses
A. Add the following:
Transportation jusrnesses, subiect:#o the fol~awing cori.d~tians (in ~ddition to thpse. found'.
~n.Secf~on:~8 6a: Condft~onat;Use P:ermits~)`;
A1I::vehECl..es shall be parked up~n. approved. paVed park~ng axeas;
Alf:';vehfeles shalt be adequately.screened from:public rights of way:and;adjacer~t
prop~rt~es, eon;si5ting ofi landscap~;rtg and`berms, ?n combrnat~on with waEls and
ences;.~uhere.d:eemed.necessary:to reduce the;deleter~ous eff~c~s:of v.eh~cie
sttira9e;
The nurriber, size ~nd:focation ~f:v~hietesperm:itted to::~e.stored siialt:be
determined ~y, the Plann~ng and EnVironmentai Gommission based;or~ the
atlequacy of the: site fnr ~rehtcle.storage : Consideration sh:alt:be given. ~o tiie
e uaG o# lane~ s
ad q y. caping antl ath
er: screenrng cnethads tfl;prevent irnpaets tq
adjacent propert~es. and other commerciaE:and(or resid.entral uses;
4: Parassociated with transpartafion busine5ses sha(I not reduce :or
;
comprarnise.:the.~ar[cing requ~red far other uses:;on> site,
Section 5.
Chapter 18.30, Section 18.30.030, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows: [Heavy Service]
Page 3 of 5 ,
18 3!)M0 0 oindlfiianal Uses
. ;
0; Tr~risportat~~n busmesses and ve#~icie storage.yards, subj~ct;to the folfawIng coridEtiar~s '
{ici additEOn;ta those fourid in Sectxon 18 6Q;,`Conciition~l,;;tfse F?ercnit
All veh1cles:shaft;be park~d.upon ~pproved paved.parking ar.eas;
2: Al!( Wehicles shaft;;be adequately screened:;from public rights of way;and adjaceRt
prapert~es; cnn$ist~ng of landscaping and berms; ~n cvmb~r~ation.w~t: walls: and
fiences, w:liere d'eemed;; necessary ta red~ace the tleleter.[ou;s ef#ects of vel?icie
st
The numbe~, size and f;oGato# ve:hiples ;permitted ~o be stoied siiali b:e
d0 termined by the. Plaft*rnngand En;v1ropm'entW COrnmissJon laased>on t}ie
adequacy;a# the;site fQr vehicls storage ~onSiderat~on $half;;be g)uen ta the
adequacy:of fands~apir~g and; other:screening methods: ~o pre:ver~t impact.'s. to~
adjacent;properties aRd othei cornmerciaf and/or resider~tial uses;
;
4: Park~ng a'ssoc~ated vu:ith transportation busmess.es and:veh~~;fe storage yards stia{1
not::~educe or comprornise tl~e parking requtred for oti~'er uses fln-site.
Section 6.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each
part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one
or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 7.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Page 4 of 5
Section 8.
. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall
not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless
expressly stated herein.
Section 9.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE
IN FULL, this 21 st day of January, 1997. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 4th day of February,
1997, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF , 1997.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1997 PSg@ 5 Of 5
MLE COPY
61flEfiflOFiAPlDUNfl
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
0
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 16, 1996
RE: A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning
Code to allow van storage/transportation related businesses in the Commercial
Core 3, Arterial Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use
and add Sections 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle
storage yard and transportation business.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DESCRIPT10N OF THE REQUEST
On October 28, 1996, the PEC directed staff to develop an amendment to the Zoning Code
regulating van shuttle services and car rental businesses as a conditional use, located in the
CC3 zone district. Staff has developed a proposal to amend the Zoning Code to allow these
uses.
. The proposed amendment allows "transportation businesses" (van shuttle services and car rental
establishments) as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 3(CC3), Arterial Business (ABD),
and Heavy Service (HS) zone districts. Staff is proposing 4 additional review criteria for such
uses (see proposed text changes). The proposal also provides a definition for "transportation
business" and "vehicle storage yard."
In review of the proposed amendment, staff looked at all of the commercial zone districts to see
if these businesses could be a compatible use with other uses allowed in the districts.. The
Heavy Service zone district currently allows a"vehicle storage yard" as a conditional use.
However, the code fails to define a vehicle storage yard. Staff believes that the impacts of a
vehicle storage yard are similar to that of a transportation business antl therefore is proposing
that in the HS zone district, vehicle storage yards be subject to the same criteria as a
transportation business. .
BI. BA?CECGROUND
The Zoning Code currently does not specifically address businesses such as Vans to Vail or
Colorado Mountain Express, which are commercial enterprises providing van transportation
within and out of the valley. These businesses have numerous vans (10 - 50) as part of their
operation. This issue arose out of a code violation at the West Vail Lodge, which had leased a
portion of the parking lot to a transportation business and was storing 8 to 10 vans on this
property (zoned CC3). The operator of the van business was not licensed to operate on the site.
1
When Chapter 18.52, Off-Street Parking and Loading, was originally adopted, this type of use
was not contemplated, nor did the use exist.
The problem is where to draw the line. How many vans can be parked in a commercial district .
before they start to have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood? The staff's proposal will
allow the PEC to determine, on a case-by-case basis (based on the criteria proposed), how many
vehicles are appropriate for a proposed site.
Many communities across the country regulate the number of vehicles that are permitted to be
stored on a commercial site due to the negative impacts such a use can have. This type of
storage can have negative impacts on neighboring commercial and residential uses as they are
generally unattractive, create clutter, and create the appearance of "greater intensity" of
development. They also utilize parking areas which may not have been required/allocated for
such a use.
Staff believes that these uses can be appropriately regulated via the conditional use process,
subject to the proposed review criteria.
111. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
In considering the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, staff relied on several relevant
planning documents before making a recommendation. Specifically, staff reviewed the purpose
sections of the CC3, ABD, and HS zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail
Land Use Plan.
Zoning Code
According to the purpose statements of these commercial zone districts, these zone districts are
intended to provide sites for commercial establishments which are compatible with other uses in
the district.
Vail Land Use Plan
The following goals found in the Vail Land Use Plan support this proposal:
1.3 The quality of the environment should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible.
2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together
closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more'efficiently.
IV. PROPOSED TEXT CHAIVGES
DEFINITIONS:
18.04.415 Vehicle storage yard "Vehicle storage yard" means an area where vehicles are temporarily parked while awaiting
repair or deposition. Vehicles stored in a vehicle storage yard must be licensed vehicles, and no
one vehicle may remain in such a storage yard for more than one hundred twenty (120)
consecutive or non-consecutive days.in a one year period. A vehicle storage yard does not
include the removal and sale of vehicle parts or other accessories.
2 .
• 18.04.385 Transportation business
"Transportation business" means a business which provides transportation for persons in the
form of a shuttle service (e.g., van transportation) or by providing automobiles for customers
` (e.g., car rental). Transportation businesses do not include businesses providing vehicles for the
transportation of goods or products including, but not limited to, panel trucks, moving vans and
trucks, and other similar vehicles.
ZONE DISTRICTS:
Commercial Core 3
18.27.030 Conditional uses
0. Transportation businesses, subject to the following conditions (in addition to those found
in Section 18.60 "Conditional Use Permits"):
1. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved paved parking areas;
2. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent
properties. Screening shall consist of landscaping and berms, in combination with
walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of
vehicle storage;
3. The number, size and location of vehicles shall be determined by the Planning
and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle
storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other
screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other
commercial and/or residential uses;
4. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or
compromise the parking required for other uses on-site.
3
Arterial Business .
18.29.030 Conditional Uses
A. Add the following:
Transportation businesses, subject to the following conditions (in addition to those found
in Section 18.60 "Conditional Use Permits"):
1. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved paved parking areas;
2. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent
properties. Screening shall consist of landscaping and berms, in combination with
walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of
vehicle storage; _ 3. The number, size and location of vehicles shall be determined by the Planning
and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle
storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other
screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other
commercial and/or residential uses;
4. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or
compromise the parking required for other uses on-site.
Heavy Service 18.30.030 Conditional Uses
. ;
0. Transportation businesses and vehicle storage yards, subject to the following conditions
(in addition to those found in Section 18.60 "Conditional Use Permits"):
1. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved paved parking areas;
2. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties. Screening shall consist of landscaping and berms, in combination with
walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of
vehicle storage;
3. The number, size and location of vehicles shall be determined by the Planning
and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle
storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other
. screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other"
commercial and/or residential uses;
4. Parking associated with transportation businesses and vehicle storage yards shall
not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on-site.
4
, V. STA,FF RECOfWMENDATGON
Staff recommends that the PEC recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the
` Zoning Code to the Town Council to allow "transportation businesses" as a conditional use in the
CC3, ABD, and HS zone districts. Staff recommends that the PEC make the finding that adding
this conditional use, with the additional review criteria, to those uses listed in the CC3, ABD, and
HS zone districts, will continue to ensure compatibility with other uses in those zone districts,
while providing an additional service to the residents and guests of the Town.
f:\everyone\pec\memo\vancode.d 16
5
/
i
, 7. A request to amend Sections 18.27.030, 18.29.030, and 18.30.030 of the Zoning Code to
allow van storage/transportation-related businesses in the Commercial Core 3, Arterial
Business, and Heavy Service Zone Districts as a conditional use and add Sections
9 18.04.415 and 18.04.385 providing definitions for vehicle storage yard and transportation
business.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Maurielio
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo. He said that staff was recommending
approval to the PEC.
John Schofield asked, based on the 4 criteria, if the percentage of existing parking lots complied or
did they have to make changes to the existing lots?
Dominic Mauriello said it depended on if the area had surplus parking, or not.
Mike Mollica stated we would look at each location on a case-by-case basis.
Dominic Mauriello said some modifications to the site would have to be done.
Greg Moffet had some changes in the conditional uses. He said No. 2, on the second line, to
change the period to a comma and strike "screening shall" on page 3.
Gene Uselton asked if CME would come back to the PEC for permission?
Mike Mollica said, yes.
Greg Amsden had no comments. .
Galen Aasland would like to put a limit of 10 vehicles. He would hate to see 20 Vans to Vail in a lot
and that the appiicant would need to prove there was a compelling need.
Mike Mollica advised if the lot couid be adequately screened, then ihe PEC should approve it.
Galen Aasland said he would hate to see a fleet of vans.
Susan Gonneily said tiiere was not that much excess property, so your concern was self-regulating.
Mike Mollica said with the impacts to adjacent properties, the PEC would still have to deal with it.
Greg Moffet said you could always put a sunset on a conditional use permit, or call-it up.
Henry Pratt had nothing to add.
Greg Moffet said we would be requiring someone to spend more money on screening and this
would be-a benefit, particularly behind the West Vail Lodge.
Greg Amsden made a motion for a recommendation of approval to Council with the following text
changes: to delete "screening shall" from No. 2 and combine sentences to read as "properties,
consisting of landscaping."
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes December 16, 1996 . 17
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. ~
8. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1, 3, 4, 6, to .
allow two satellite dishes to be installed at the northwest corner of the Vail Commons
property, located at 2099 N. Frontage Road West/ Vail Commons.
Applicant: KTUN Radio
Planner: Tammie Williamson
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997
9. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park
• Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd
Oppenheimer.
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997
10. A request to amend section 16.20.020 and to add section 16.04.065 of the Sign Code to
allow for electronic signs as Public Information Signs.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Dirk Mason
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 1997. .
Greg Amsden made a motion to table items 8, 9 and 10 until January 13, 1997.
The motion was seconded by Henry Pratt.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0-1.
11. Information Update:
"'Appointment of one PE.C representative to the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP). This
Board meets twice a month (2nd & 4th Thursdays) from 8:30 am to approximately 10:30 am.
The duration of the term would be consistent with the member's PEC term duration.
Greg Moffet asked for a volunteer to serve on the AIPP Board. He then said to wait until the next
meeting, as Diane Golden was not present.
~ : .y: i=.:~i'i!:°`•'J
12. Approval of November 11, 1996, November 25, 1996 and December 9, 1996 minutes.
Galen Aasland and Henry Pratt had changes to the 11/11/96 minufes.
vE-?,JJ
, . M,:i..
' Planning an.ci Enviromnental Coiwnission
. :'i.;;~.,- '.~Cr'ui,: ~iY:4•
Minutes
December 16, 1996 - 5" . - :.,«.;~~yr'~~:.;•,'._ ~
, . . _.__-..._.._.~__......,...-...-.-m.~_.__._..,....,~..~_.... r-..k,... _ : _ r . `a-._,. ~._,..r~
_
, . "..__.::_v.. . ,._.___~__°Z•~"- ~
. _ . - . . . . . . _ _ . . . - --r~w i_ , . Frr~2.,
ORDIfiIANCE NO. 3
SER9ES OF 1991
AN 013DIRlANCE REPEALBNG ARdD REENACTING THE INVESI'IVIEIVT POLICY SET F012TF9
BN CHAPTER 3.52 OF THE nAl1NICIPAL CODE OF TFIE TOVVRI OF VABL ,
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council adopts the required investment policy for the Town of
Vail which represents the financial boundaries within which the Town's cash management process
will operate; and
WHEREAS, it has become necessary to repeal and reenact that financial policy.
(VOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIIVED BY THE TOWiV COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT THE INVESTMENT POLICY SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 3.52 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BE REPEALED AND REEIVACTED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
Chapter 3.52
1NVEST@AENT POLVCY
Sections:
3.52.010 Statement of Purpose
3.52.020 Scope
3.52.030 Objective
3.52.040 Standards of Care -
3.52.050 Safekeeping and Custody
3.52.060 Suitable and Authorized Investments
3.52.070 Investment Parameters
3.52.080 Reporting
3.52.090 Policy
3.52.090 Statemeng o$ PuPpose
This Investment Policy of the Vail Town Council for the Town of Vail represents the financial
boundaries within which its cash management process will operate.
3.52.020 Scope
This investment policy applies to all financial funds of the Town of Vail (hereby referred to
as the "Town"), except the Pension Trust Fund.
3.52.030 Objective
The primary objectives, in priority of order, of investment activities shall be:
1. Safety.
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments shall
be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio.
The objective will be to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk.
1
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997 ,
A. Credit Risk. '
Credit Risk is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or backer.
Credit risk may be mitigated by:
* Limiting investments to the safest types of securities;
* Pre-qualifying the financial institutions, brokers/dealers, intermediaries, and
advisors with which the Town will do business; and
" Diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual
securities will be minimized.
B. Interest Rate Risk.
Interest rate risk is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall
due to changes in general interest rates. Interest rate risk may be mitigated by:
* Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash
requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell
securities on the open market prior to maturity, and
* By investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities.
2. Liquidity.
The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements
that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that
securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands (static liquidity).
Furthermore, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should consist
largely of securities with active secondary or resale markets (dynamic liquidity).
3. Yield.
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of
return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk
constraints.and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of least importance compared to the safety
and liquidity objectives described above. The core of investments are limited to relatively low risk
securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed.
Speculative investments will not be allowed. Speculative investments are those attempting
to gain market premium appreciation through short term market volatility resulting in increased risk
and loss exposure. The Town will not purchase a security which cannot be held to maturity. This
does not mean an investment cannot be sold prior to maturity.
2
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
° 3.52.040 Standards of Care
1. Prudence.
The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "prudent person"
standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers
acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment policy and exercising due
diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market
price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the
liquidity and the sale of securities are carried out in accordance with the terms of this policy.
Investments shall be made with judgement and care, under circumstances then prevailing,
which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own
affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as
well as the probable income to be derived.
2. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.
Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal
business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment
program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial decisions. Employees and investment
officials shall disclose any material interest in financial institutions with which they conduct
business. They shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could be
related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers shall refrain from
undertaking personal investments transactions with the same individual with whom business is
conducted on behalf of their entity.
3. Delegation of Authority.
Management responsibility for the investment program is held by the Town Manager and
appointed designees. iVo employee may engage in an investment transaction except as provided
under the terms of this policy and any procedures which may be established by the Town Manager.
The Town Manager shall review the quarterly investment report (see Section 3.52.080).
There is hereby created an investment committee, consisting of the Town Manager,
Finance Director, and the Finance Controller. Members of the committee will meet at least
quarterly to determine general strategies and to monitor results. Minutes of the decisions made
by the investment committee shall be kept on file in the Town Clerk's office. The committee shall
include in its review and deliberations such topics as: potential risks, authorized depositories, rate
of return, maturity structure and investment transactions.
It shall be the duty of the Finance Controller or his/her appointed designee to manage the
day-to-day operations of the portfolio, and place actual purchase/sell orders with institutions. In
3
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
the absence of the controller, the Finance Director shall assume these duties. The Finance Controller shall establish a system of written internal controls, which shall be reviewed annually by
the independent auditor.
Management of a portion of the portfolio and placing of buy/sell orders for a portion of the
portfolio may be delegated to an independent investment manager designated by the Town
Council. The transactions of any selected independent investment manager will be subject to the
Town's investment policy and will be reviewed and verified by the Finance Department.
The authority for the investment philosophy and selection of investment managers for the
Town of Vail Employee Pension Plan and the Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees Pension
Plan shall be the responsibility of the Pension Plan Trustee as defined in the pension plan
document.
3.52.050 Safekeeping and Custody
1. Authorized Financial Dealer and Institution.
Qualified banks - can only be commercial banks and the Town's investment with the bank
may be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars. The Town's Finance Controller shall obtain and
review whatever documents are necessary to verify the bank's continued stability including the
monthly listing of securities pledged for collateralization to monitor the bank's collateralization of
Town deposits.
Non-qualified banks - can be either commercial banks or savings and loans or savings
banks and the Town's investment with the bank will not be in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars. The Finance Controller shall inquire with bank officials and/or review an independent bank
evaluation to determine the banks meets the standard selection criteria established by the
Investment Committee.
The Town shall select a primary bank, which bank the town uses to process daily deposits
and checks, at the discretion of the Investment Committee every three to five years. A formal
request for proposal should be used in the selection process.
Securities dealers not affiliated with a bank shall be required to be classified as reporting
dealers affiliated with the New York Federal Reserve Bank, as primary dealers. Broker/dealers
which are not primary dealers may be used if they have been approved by the investment
committee. The investment committee shall develop and document the methodology for qualifying
non-primary broker/dealers.
2. Internal Controls.
The Finance Controller and Finance Director are responsible for establishing and
maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the entity are
4
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The intetnal control structure shall be designed to provide
reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance
recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2)
the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management.
Accordingly, the Finance Controller shall establish a process for annual independent review
by an external auditor to assure compliance with policies and procedures. The internal controls
shall address the following points:
a. Control of collusion. Collusion is a situation where two or more employees are
working in conjunction to defraud their employer.
b. Separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping . By
separating the person who authorizes or performs the transaction from the people
who record or otherwise account for the transaction, a separation of duties is
achieved.
c. Custodial safekeepinq. Securities purchased from any bank or dealer shall be
placed with an independent third party designated as primary agent for custodial
safekeeping. The primary agent shall issue a safekeeping receipt to the Town
listing the specific instrument, rate, maturity, and other information. Securities may
be purchased from the primary agenYs brokerage department and safekept by the
same bank's trust department.
d. Avoidance of physical delivery securities. Book entry securities are much easier to
transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place.
Delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The
potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities.
e. Clear desiqnation of authority to subordinate staff members. Subordinate staff
members must have a clear understanding of their authority and responsibilities to
avoid improper actions. Clear delegation of authority also preserves the internal
control structure that is contingent on the various staff positions and their respective
responsibilities.
f. Written confirmation or telel2hone transactions for investments and wire transfers.
Due to the potential for error and improprieties arising from telephone transactions,
all telephone transactions should be supported by written communications and
approved by the appropriate person. Written communications may be via fax if on
letterhead and the safekeeping institution has a list of authorized signatures.
5
Ordinance Na. 3, Series of 1997
3. Delivery vs. Payment All trades where applicable will be executed by delivery vs. payment (DVP). This ensures
that securities are deposited in the eligible financial institution prior to release of funds. Securities
will be held by a third party custodian as evidenced by safekeeping receipts.
3.52.060 Suitable and Authorized Investments
1. The town shall invest in the following accounts, or securities:
A. Fully collateralized or insured interest bearing checking accounts, savings
accounts, and certificates of deposit at commercial banks with amount not
to exceed one hundred thousand dollars if the bank is not designated as a
qualified institution by the investment committee.
A commercial bank may use any securities authorized by the Public Deposit
Protection Act as collateral.
B. Certificates of deposit at savings and loan associations insured by the FDIC
or other agency of the federal government with amount not to exceed
ninety-nine thousand dollars.
Deposits with savings banks insured by the FDIC with amount not to exceed
ninety-nine thousand dollars.
C. (1) Any security issued by, guaranteed by, or for which the credit of any
of the following is pledged for payment: The United States, a
Federal Farm Credit Bank, the Federal Land Bank, a Federal Home
Loan Bank, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the
Federal National Mortgage Association, or the Government National
Mortgage Association;
(2) a. Any security issued by, guaranteed by, or for which the credit of the
following is pledged for payment: An entity or organization which is
not listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection C but which is created
by, or the creation of which is authorized by, legislation enacted by
the United States congress and which is subject to control by the
federal government which is at least as extensive as that which
governs an entity or organization listed in paragraph (1) of this
subsection (C).
b. No security may be purchased pursuant to this paragraph (2) unless,
at the time of purchase, the security is rated in its highest rating
6
Ordinance No. 3, Series af 1997
a
' category by one or more nationally recognized organizations which
regularly rate such obligations.
D. Colorado Investment Pools. The town may participate in a Colorado Public
Investment Pool, the Colorado Local Government Liquid Asset Trust or
other similar local government pools organized in conformity with Part 7 of
- Article 75 of Title 24, CRS, which provides specific authority for pooling of
local government funds.
E. Any money market fund that is registered as an investment company under
the federal "Investment Company Act of 1940", as amended, if, at the time
the investing public entity invests in such fund:
(I) The investment policies of the fund include seeking to maintain a
constant share price;
(11) No sales or load fee is added to the purchase price or deducted from
the redemption price of the investments in the fund.
F. No load mutual funds that invest in mortgage backed securities issued by
the Government National Mortgage Association ("GfVMA") or the Federal
National Mortgage Association ("FNMA"), or the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation ("FHLMC"). ,
G. Repurchase agreements - with either qualified commercial banks or a
primary securities dealer for which a properly executed master repurchase
agreement has been entered into by the town. Repurchase agreements
involving pooled collateral shall be avoided. The securities used as
collateral shall be safekept in accordance with Section 3.52.050
Safekeeping and Custody.
2. If a specific maturity date is required for cash flow purposes, bids will be requested
for instruments which meet the maturity requirement. If no specific maturity is required, a
market trend (yield curve) analysis will be conducted to determine which maturities would
be most advantageous. After selecting a type of instrument at least two bids should be
obtained from similar institutions. Two bids are not required if treasury bills or notes are
purchased at a treasury auction or for overnight or open-term repurchase transactions.
The Town may place an investment with a local institution that is not the highest
bidder, provided the bid is not more than twenty-five basis points below the highest bidder.
The rate of interest must be at least equivalent to the average rate of return
available in the market place.
7
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
It is the responsibility of the Finance Controller to demonstrate compliance with this section. A local institution is defined as a bank or savings and loan association doing
business inside the corporate limits of the Town of Vail and/or Eagle County.
3. Interest allocation method.
All investments will be in the name of the Town of Vail and in most cases it will be
a general policy of the town to pool all available operating cash into a Treasury Cash
Management investment portfolio. However, a specific investment purchased by a specific
fund shall incur all earnings and expenses to that particular fund. Interest earnings from
pooled funds shall be allocated to all participating funds in the following order.
a. Payment of interest earnings shall be allocated to designated funds from its
specific investments.
b. Payment to the general fund of an amount equal to the total annual bank
service charges as incurred by the general fund for all operating funds as
included in the annual operating budget.
C. Payment to each fund of an amount based on the average monthly cash
balance included in the common portfolio for the earning period.
4. Funds borrowing from pooled cash fund.
All funds may borrow cash from the pooled cash fund in order to cover shortfalls in
their equity in pooled cash. The interest rate charged shall be equal to the interest rate
earned on the pool at the time the money is borrowed.
3.52.070 Investment Parameters
1. Portfolio diversification.
The town will diversify use of investment instruments to avoid incurring
unreasonable risks inherent in overinvesting in specific instruments, and individual financial
institutions.
Maximum Percent
of Portfolio
Diversification by Instrument:
Money Market and Interest Bearing
Checking Accounts with
Commercial Banks 50%
Money Market Funds 50%
U.S. Treasury Obligations
(Bills, Notes and Bonds) 100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities
(per Section 3.52.060 1. C(1)) 100%
U.S. Government Agency Securities
(per Section 3.52.060 1. C(2) a) 25%
8
, Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
il
° Repurchase Agreements 75%
Certificate of Deposit
Commercial Banks or Savings Banks 100%
Certificate of Deposit
Savings and Loan Association 25%
Local Government Investment Pool 100%
Diversification by Financial Institution:
Repurchase Agreements
fVo more than fifty percent of the total investment portfolio shall be
secured in Repos with any one institution.
Certificates of Deposit - Commercial Banks
No more than twenty percent of the total investment portfolio shall
be secured in any one commercial bank's CDS.
If the amount of any of the above investments are in excess of the percentage allowed, it
is not considered a violation of this policy if the amount is corrected within thirty days.
2. Maturity scheduling.
Investment maturities for operating funds shall be scheduled to coincide with
projected cash flow needs, taking into account large routine expenditures (payroll, bond
payments) as well as considering sizeable blocks of anticipated revenue (sales tax,
property tax). The period from the date of purchase of a security to its maturity date will be
five years or less except for transactions initiated by an appointed independent investment
manager, or if authorized by the Town Council.
3.52.080 fteporting
1. Methods.
The Finance Controller will submit a quarterly investment report which discloses
investments on the last day of each month. This report will be distributed to the Town
Manager, Town Council members, and the Finance Director. The Finance Controller will
present at least annually the investment report to the town council.
2. Performance Standards.
The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters
specified within this policy. The portfolio should obtain a market average rate of return
during a markeUeconomic environment of stable interest rates. Portfolio performance
should be compared to appropriate benchmarks on a regular basis.
9
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
3. Marking to Market. A statement of the market value of investments having a remaining maturity
exceeding 2 years shall be issued at least quarterly. This will ensure that the minimal
amount of review has been performed on such long-term investments in terms of value and
subsequent price volatility.
4. Monitoring and adjusting the portfolio.
The Finance Controller will routinely monitor the contents of the portfolio, the
available markets and the relative values of competing instruments, and will adjust the
portfolio accordingly.
3.52.090 Policy
1. Exemption.
Any investment currently held that does not meet the guidelines of this policy shall
be exempted from the requirements of this policy. At maturity or liquidation, such monies
shall be reinvested only as provided by this policy.
2. Policy review.
The investment policy shall be reviewed annually by the investment committee. A
recommendation will be made annually to the Town Council for any proposed changes to
the investment policy.
Section 2
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each
part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one
or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 3
The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision
repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any
provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
10
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
' INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AiVD ORDERED PUBLISHED OiVCE IN FULL ON
FIRST READIfVG this 21st day of January, 1997, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the 4th day of February, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Robert W. Armour, Niayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AIVD APPROVED O(V SECOND READIRIG AiVD ORDERED PUBLISHED
in full this 4th day of February, 1997.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
C:\ORD97.3
11
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1997
a
OH@1I1+Y1`?L-Sl`iC.E 1\O. bb .
SERIES of 1996
AN ORDINANCE AMENdDING ~ECTION 18.04, DEFINITION5, ADI?ING
66FJl\ti1CT1LO1atyL 1(`EE CLLLJJm99 L'"S1VHY 66ll 1LOACALAO1\AL Il'EE CLLLJB LLJlQIIT99y t'L1V'lEl\DI1VG
SECTION 18.22.030, CONDITIONAA, USES, AI.,LOVVING FIZACT'IONAI., FEE CLgJB
AS ACONDI'II'gONA1L US]E IN TIgI~ PUBLIC ACCOIlqMOI)ATI0N ZONE DISTRICT,
AMIENDINcG SEC'd'ffON Il8.60.060(A)(7)9 CONDITIONAlL, L1SE PEltMI'g' CRIT'ERIA-
]FINdDINGS.
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to amend Sections 18.22.030 and
18.60.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow fractional fee club as a conditional use
in the Public Accommodation Zone District and to provide criteria and findings applicable to
fractional fee club requests in Vail; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1996, in accordance with Section 18.66.140 the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments and unanimously recommended approval of the amendments to the Town Council;
and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council believes that quality fractional fee club unit are an
appropriate means of increasing occupancy rates, maintaining and enhancing short-term rental
availability and diversifying the resort lodging market within the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council believes that a fractional fee club is a form of public
accommodation; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and
beneficial to the Town of Vail and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to adopt Ordinance No.
22, Series of 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council believes the proposed amendments are consistent
with its adopted goals, objectives and policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
SEC'd'gON ll
Chapter 18.04, Definitions is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.04.136 Fractional Fee Club, means a fractional fee project in which each
condominium unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the Town of Vail, '
has no fewer than 6 and no more than 12 owners per unit and whose use is established by a
reservation system. Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental
in a managed program when not in use by the club members. The project is managed on-site
with a front desk operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week providing reservation and
registration capabilities. The project shall include or be proximate to transportation, retail shops,
eating and drinking establishments, and recreation facilities.
18.04.136.1 Fractional Fee Club Unit - a condominium unit in a fractional fee club described as such in the project documentation and not an accommodation unit within the
fractional fee club.
1 Ordinance No. 22, Seria of 1996
~
18.04.430 Fractional Fee [Deleted]
SECTION 2
Section 18.22.030 - Public Accommodation-Conditional Uses - of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.22.030 Conditional uses
. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Aublic Accommodation Zone
District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.60:
A. Professional and business offices;
B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers;
C. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations;
D. Ski lifts and tows;
E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities;
F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures;
G. Public transportation terminals;
H. Public utility and public service uses;
1. Public buildings, grounds and facilities; J. Public or private schools;
K. Public parks and recreational facilities;
L. Churches;
M. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than
10% of the total Gross Residential Floor Area of a main structure or structures
located on the site in a non-conforming multi-family dwelling;
N. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way,
street, walkway, or mall area;
O. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310;
P. . Type III EHLT as defined in Section 18.57.060;
Q. Type IV EHLJ as defined in Section 18.57.70;
R. Fractional fee club as further regulated by Section 18.60.060(A)(7)(a-e).
SECTION 3
Section 18.60.060(A)(7), Conditional Uses Permit criteria-findings, of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
7. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractional
fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered:
a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing
facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of
accommodation units as are presently existing. Whether this equivalency
is maintained by an equal number of units or by square footage shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
b. Lock-off units are encouraged and may be counted up to one-half (1/2) of
an accommodation unit for purposes of calculating the equivalency of
accommodation units or equivalency of square footage. The lock-off
equivalency percentage (up to one-half) shall be used when calculating
parking requirements.
c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of
occupancy.
2
4
d. Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or
redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that
allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required will
be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the .
project.
e. The applicant shall submit to the town a list of all owners of existing units
. within the project or building; and written statements from one-hundred
percent of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without
condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall
be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty days prior to the
date of filing the application for a conditional use.
SECTION 4
l:f any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 5
The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
SECTION 6
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty
imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any
provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
SECTION 7
All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of January, 1997, and a public hearing shall be held on
this Ordinance on the 21 st day of January, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Building, Vail, Colorado.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
3
t
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND
ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF JANUARY,
1997.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST: Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
4
dd
e4
OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
DATE: January 17, 1997 .
SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report
TOV/VA Task Force
The TOV/VA Task Force met last week to review the holiday peak period and to discuss future
Task Force activities. The purpose of this memo is to provide you with a brief update of this
meeting.
Although we do not yet have sales tax reports from December, I have attached the following graphs
showing activity from the 23rd of iVovember through January 5, 1997. These graphs show parking
transactions and bus ridership for a three year period. They give some indication of activity
compared to the previous two years. ~
The Task Force will be meeting again on January 29th to discuss late season (April), early season
next year. The Task Force will also continue to work to address the mid-week troughs which we
continue to experience.
I hope you find this information interesting and useful. If you have questions or need additional
information please do not hesitate to contact me.
1996 Audit
The audit of fiscal year 1996 is scheduled to begin March 17th. Steve Thompson and Chris
Anderson have been meeting with Jerry McMahan to prepare for the audit. We anticipate the audit
to take approximately two weeks. Jerry will be making his presentation to the Council next June.
(more)
RECYCLED PAPER
Meeting with Avon Town Council
As requested, I have set up a dinner meeting with the Avon Town Council. As we discussed at the
last Council meeting, the date for this meeting is Wednesday, January 22nd. We will be meeting
them at Cassidy's in Avon. This event is scheduled to begin at 6:00 P.M. Please advise me if you
will not be able to attend so I can have an accurate head count.
The FalseAlarm Ordinance
The Police and Fire Departments have been working for several months to develop a false alarm
ordinance intended to minimize the amount of false alarms (both Police and Fire). We hope to
have the draft of this ordinance complete within the next month. Once the ordinance has been
drafted, we will be meeting with the lodging community and merchants to review it and discuss it
prior to bringing it to the Town Council for your consideration. It is our intention to try to have
something adopted by the middle of the year.
RWM/aw
Attachment
Village Sfrucfure Parking Transactions
1996/97 vs. 1995196 vs. 1994195 Qhrough January 5
Gridlines indicate Saturdays
4,500
0
;
~
4,000 : ~ '
~
. ~ _
~ Village Parking Transactions 1994/95 i
, a-- Village Parking Transactions 1995/96 i
, . . .
3,500 ---~-Village Parking Transactions 1996/97
,
, .
, 1....... .
, _
, , _ _
~
,
• ; i
;
:
;
;
;
3,000 ~ ~
.
r.~
, , -
` _
_
,
.
a r~~~,
O
.u~.z
.
L) 2,500
. ~
_ .
~ , _ , ~„-~-,..,q
N . , ,
/ A\
c ~ .
~ .
. I ~ . . . ~,E, ~
c 2,000 - ' ~ _ c7~
~ Q ~ £ , . , • \ s
•i . ~ ~ , 1~' . 1~ ~ ~,~j; . . . ,,O . . . . " ? ~ ~ -,e. O,
, ' ~ 1
/ .
. :
, ~ • ~ 4 ( y ~ .
. ~
1,500 ; , . p ~ 'i,
• , D~ i•-°'? ~
, , ~ . •
1,000 - `O. . " ~ - " •
~ : . . , . . . ~ • ' 1. ' „ . . 1~' • . . ~ . , , ' ' ~
500 -
~ _ ' ~ • , , .
.
. .
a:~•
„
' ~ • c:; . . _
• ' -
„
. . . .
•
O . - ; , . . . " . -
=t
i',. .
W A GNn M V O ~ND tN0 O ~ N W A Cn ~ V 00 ~ j
0 O ~ O ~ p p Q n~ w a cn rn ~ oo ~ o rv w a. cn rn ~ oo ~ o L L L L L
0 0 0 0 0 o 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
z z z ~ o o'~v o 0 0
< < 0
< < < ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 ~00
rn
io co co io co cn iD cD rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn ~ ~ co cn m co co ip ~p c~ ~ c~n c~p co cn cn cp o cD cD ~ ~ ~ ~ v
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
Lionshead Structure Parking Transac4ions
1996197 vs. 9995/96 vs. 1994/95 through January 5
Gridlines indicate Saturdays
4,500
i
4,000
,
Lionshead Parking Transactions 1994/95 - " -
o-- Lionshead Parking Transactions 1995/96
;
3,500 Lionshead Parking Transactions 1996/97
~
;
;
,
, _
,
~ i
,
_
3,000
_ _
N ( ! i i
O
~ 2,500 ~
,
, ~
~ , _ ; -
c
c 2,000 - ~ '
_ -
~
. .
.
~ i
L
~ A
~
EL
O or
~ A
_ _ r
1,500 - ~
; /L'_o Q.
, . ~
, •
~
.
o
~ 1,000
' ~ •.Q ^ - Q
p . 0~~
O
500 ` ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ y-~ ~ - { ~ , t`~~, ~ 2r ~ ,~5 5~~,~,.. ~ ~ ~ • k" y~~^ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ; ~ ~5 q
r
~
~ ~
N N N N N N N W A N O~ v ap ~p
W A CT ~ "7I OD c~~p O ! O ~ N W A C.TI ~ V OD tD e.~ 2 s.,N W.?, (11 p~ NV fJN W
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~D O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~`~,° v o o b b b v o v o o v v o 0 0 o b o o b ow m d d d
0 < < < G < < < < (D (D (D (D fD (D (D (D (D ID (D (D fD ~ ~ C'(p1 ~ ~ (D (D > > > 7 7
rn rn rn rn rn rn iO cO rn rn rn rn rn rn co cb cn
rn rn rn rn rn ~ co io ~ ~ co co m ~ co ~ ~o co ~ co ~ co 10 10 ~ (p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
Village ¢ Lionshead Parking Transactions
9996/97 vs.1995/96 vs.1994/95 through January 5
Gridlines indicate Saturdays
6,000 ;
Q ~ Village + Lionshead Parking Transactions 1994/95
5,000 - ; ~ - - - • o - - Village + Lionshead Parking Transactions 1995196 - - , '
.._Q_ _
-fl-- Village + Lionshead Parking Transactions 1996/97
.
. , ;
°
4,000 ' .
N
~ . :
~ .
~
4;
;
1..
~
'
. .:Si
i,
- . ~ ~
,
~~3. ,a.:.=..
, , ~
. .
o . . . . , a
. t , .o .
~ .
. . , .
/
. . . /a
.
.
;o'
r,
,
R ~ •
;
.
.
. ,
.
, . ~
~ ~ - • , .
,
;
~ 3,000 - . `b...... . .
:
f- . p -
10'
cc
,
.
.
. \
. , . ~
,
, . ,
.
:
_ , . ; , . .
2,000
. ;
.
.
:
, . . . .
. . ~ ~ - . . .
1,000
. ~ - _ . - , . . - .
. .
. . .
0
. ~ . . _
• ' . . . . e ' : s
, . , . ~ ~ ..:.s.~^ . ~ : . . « . ~ ' , , .a,` .;s ~ :`A •
se;. . y.,,~ : S . . ~ . , r.... _ r i.. °:i~. `v~Z'. . r ' .T''•!
W A [Ni1 ~ V ONO cN0 O CI) N' W A Cn Q~ V Oo c0 - - - - - - O
W (p N^ ~ N N N` N N~ N tfJ ~ N.•N N W W A Cn
O N W A (r ~ V N W A (T m V W tD O L L L L L
z z z z z z z z~v ~v o 0 0'~v '~v '~v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o~'~O o v o o v o b o> j>;~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 m
~ < ~ < < < < < ~ ip cD to tn to co ~ ca 0 c~ 9 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 fD c~ o c~ v ~ ~
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn~ iD ~~~cn co ca co co co io cc to cc cn ~ co cn co ~ ~ v
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn` i i rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
Parking Transactions vs. Parking Lot Fill Times
Village and Lionshead Parking Structures
2:00 PM Note: Gridlines indicate Saturdays 1996/97 Qhrough January 5
' 6,000
~ o Village Fill Time 1996/97
~
~ o Lionshead Fill Time 1996/97
~
1:00 PM ;
- - - - - - - - - 5,000
r -
~ -fl- Village + Lionshead Parking Transactions
I ~
~ 1996/97
~ y
12:00 PM -------------4
~ ~
, - - -
~ - 4,000
cu
L
E '
o
+
'
0 11:00 AM = - L
1 _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - 3,000
c ,
cc
10:00 AM ! - -
- ~
, - - - ~ -
_ - I----
, , - 2,000 r
~
c
Je
I ~ I L
a
9:00 AM ~
, - -
~ - 1,000
8:00 AM - ~ '
N N N N N N N W ~ N W .p (n p~ V OD (p I ~ O .
W A GT m V Oo cD O N j N N
O N W A N N N N N W j N W 3~ ()i
O O Z Z O ~ O ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ N W A Cn Q~ V Oo (D
< c < < Q1 ~ m`D o Z L L L L
~ O O o 0 O ~ p O o O o p p d m w n~ m
< <<< co co co co co co i~ m c~~Di c~cDi 0 m m m m m m m m m m N m ~ > >
co co co 6 ~ co co co rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn co co co co ~ q 4 c~ ~ c~ c,~i c~fDi c~ p c~ c~ ~ iD io co iD io
rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn co co m cD co cD co ~ cb ~~p ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ •
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
Riders on TOV Bus System
1996/97 vs.1995196 vs. 1994/95 4hrough January 4
Gridlines indicate Saturdays
35,000
~
i
~
~
30,000 g Total Riders 1994/95
,
, a --otal Riders 1995196 j -
-o-- Total Riders 1996/97
25,000
, . ~
,
0
i ~~h
20,000 # .
d
~ ~ ~
p~~
ao
4
-~;'s,`
t
Q ~
m , ~
~ ~
' v 15,000
a ( ~ ~
.
O~
~1 ~ 1 ~ - , •
.
Z
10,000 ' • , o ~
, ,
t~
0
~
-
, ~ f41,a ~
o
O< . ~
9=
.
' , . . . ZI , w ' , . . , . .
. .
5,000
~
T N
~ ~
"
~
k
~.~t ~
~
O ,.,.°~.,.~3
N N N N N N N W 1 N (o yl T T V 00 10 '
W A (l~ M V Oo t0 O O - N W A Cn T V OD O
cD.• N_. N N N N AN N%•:~:..N N W W N W ?
z z z z z z z z ~ o ° ~ V y,, i, T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ O o o v o o v v v O 0 o m m p o O O v
"F p d d m nLi
~ < < < ~ c < m m m m m m m m m m m c'mi ~ ~ ~ ~p ip m m > > > ?
cn ~ co io cn io ~ co rn rn rn rn rn cn tD co w 0 ~ ~ 9 9 9 9 9 9 . in co io io ca io c~ ~ ~ io co
rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn ~ 4 ~ 5~ c~ o ~
rn rn rn
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn ~ ~ rn rn rn rn ~ V ~ ~
Data represents sum of ridership on E. Vail, In-Town, Golf Course, W. Vaif, Sandstone, Lionsridge, and Ford Park routes.
Fill Times at Lionshead Parking Structure
1996/97 vs. 1995196 vs. 1994/95 through January 5
Gridlines fall between Fridays and Saturdays
2:00 PM
o Lionshead Fill Time 1996/97
e Lionshead Fill Time 1995/96
1:ooPM xcLionsheadFillTime1994/95 - - ~ 13:05 ~
7 r--------------
- r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -i- - - -
I 1 ~ ~ ~ I
~ 12:30
~
12:00 PM
- - -
, ,
~
E
ir
0 11:00 AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
tm
d I I I ~ I •
10:00 AM---------------- J - --1---------------L
~ ~
~
9:OOAM
~
~ ,
~ - ~
i ,
~ , , ~ , •
I
8:00 AM
N N N N N N N W ~ N W A Vl ~ I V ~ ((7 J
(r OD 10 O
W A O) V ~ ~ j N N N N N N~ N ~N W j
O O O o p p O O ~ f N W A N M v M O N W A Gn T V Oo lO O
Z Z z Z z Z Z Z m m m m CDCD ? M 9 MMo o v o O bo O o 0p o v o O o 0 0 o v O p L L L L L
m m m wm
< < < 0 < < < 0 c~ 0 c~~i ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~
~ cn cn co io ~ ca ~ cn m co ~ ~ cp
m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rnCn iD 6 cD co co co cn ~ co co cn co iD cn ca co co cn ~ ~ v v v`v°
rn rn 03 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
Fill Times a4 Village Parking S4ruc4ure .
~ 1996/97 vs. 1995/96 vs. 1994195 through January 5
Gridlines fall between Fridays and Saturdays
2:00 PM
o Village Fill Time 1996/97
e Village Fill Time 1995196
1:00 PM-------------- )cVillageFillTime1994/95
-r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - -i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i
i i
12:00 PM -
- - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - '
, ~ - - I-
~
E
LL
0 11:00 AM I I I I ~ I
L -
J i i-
i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C I ~ ~ ~ ~ I
10:00 AM J -------------1
, - - -
~
9:00 AM ' - - - - - - - - - -
-
, ,
I
I
I ~ ~ I I I
8:OOAM -I- -4-- - - I--
N N N N N N N W ~ N W A (T M V Oo cD ~ ~ N j N N N N N N N N CJ W
w ii c, rn - oo co 0 0~ iv w~a ~n rn v oo ~
Z Z o n> w a cn rn v m ~ o
L L L L L
Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ b 6 6 O O ~ O O m 0 O O O O ~ v ~ O o ~ p ~ O O O O O o O o p d ~ d n~ m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
< < ~ ~ < < < < cD io cb co co co co co co
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn co co cD co io io co co cn iD co co co co cD io ip cD co ip ca co v r v
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
TOV Bus Riders vs. Parking Transactions
1996/97 through January 4- 5
Gridlines indicate Saturdays
30,000
;
' 6,000
i
~
25,000 Village + Lionshead Parking Transactions 1996/97
'
,
\ i=... ; 5,000
Total Riders 1996/97
~4
'A ~sa
~~~.n
~
~ _ ,.•:w .
~ ~ . E <'.~t ~ E ~ :
- ;
. ,
20,000
, , ~ 5 ~f :T ?Y',p•
.
.
y,~', . .
_
~ ~1~
, ~
; _ . . ,~F ~~c. .
`r~A M 4,000
, .::~:v.~~::,`4~
:.Fya xCY C Y~`4 a..\ ~Y .
i:_
2 :~-'~.'a\~" ~ ~.i3:~: ~x~_~•~•} _
J~°
. : ~ ~--g•., a' ft.°`~'~~ r,
A~ c
~
~
f;V.:? ~4~, U
.
^ y:
w
. . -
.
.
~ 15,000 N
,
~ .
. _ _ '
. ~ :
fn •:C~,'~e . ,
3,000 ~
m
~ • - -
' _ c
• z•~y ~ k: ~ k • a
10,000 _ . . . . . . .
_ . . . >
^
L,ooo
` ' .
t' • w e`}.". : L'. . '
,
.
.
, z
A ,
5,000 <
. _ ~ . . . , . . , ~ ~
. . . F . . _ . .
. ~ , . • . ~ . ~ ' ' ' . , _ . ' . , . 1iooo
. .
A
.
. .
' . .
~ . -
.
. . . . :n.3'¢r: .
. ^t:c
~f z~=`: l~~e ; % r~'i'£,'.
. ~ • i ~
.
. Y?; ~ ,'-;.~5'.~:, ~ a.
~Y" . y,2
O
t.^.T } • `p,; s F,na.:.
`M:`F~•e'-"'~' '.:3;g 4:t:.=~~•~..`
O~ Oo O N A p~~j O N O O N A O) Oo
O
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 O N A ~ po O N .NA QNj pNp W y ~
< < 0 ~ < < < ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ O ~ 0 O O p b O m oLi = .
~ co ~o co co co ca ~ m co ca m c~mn n m m m t~ tp > >
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn tO rn rn rn rn rn ~ co rn 4 4 4 1' S' ~ ~ ~
m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn ~ ~ ~
MEM0RAND UIVI
TO: Town Council
FROM: Andy Knudtsen
SUBJECT: Update on the Public Works Seasonal Housing Dcvelopment
DATE: January 21, 1997
The purpose of this memo is to update the Council on the status of the Public Works Seasonal
Housing development.
On January 15, 1997, staff receivcd five Statcmcnts of Qualification from interested development
teams, in response to the Town's Request for Qualifications. Thc lcad membcrs of the responding
tcams (in alphabetical order) are as follows:
Corum Rcal Estatc Group Inc.
Coughlin & Company Inc.
Isom & Associates
Railton and McEvoy Architects
Victor Mark Donald5on Architccts
The staff tcam of Bob McLaurin, Larry Grafel, Susic Hcrvert, Susan Connelly and Andy
Knudtscn plans to intcrvicw two or thrcc firms the wcck of January 20 - 24. Staff has askcd
Mayor Bob Armour to join in thc intervicws, as a Council rcprescntativc. On January 28, staff
will ask Council to confirm the staff s rccommended selection before negotiating a contract.
On February 4, staff will prescnt the proposed public process Problem Statement, Givens, and
Schedule for Council's rcview and approval. Continuing with our commitment to "Open, honcst,
and fair," staff has developed a public process which will enablc all interested community
members to contribute to the decision making process. As we heard from the Kezziah-Watkins
team during the last training session, "Involving the community in decisions does not guarantec
that everybody will be happy, but it does guarantee that those affected by the decision will have
the opportunity to have a say in that decision."
cc: _ Bob McLaurin
Larry Grafel
Susie Hervert
Susan Connelly
F:everyon6A ndy\97_memos\tc-pubwks.121
• Forest Insect
& Disease
~ Leaflet 2
U.S. Department
of Agriculture
Forest Service
Mountain Pine Beetle
Gene D. Amman,' Mark U. McGregor,2 and Robert E. Dolph, Jr.3
~ . w~
,
N ' 0"~
.
;
Y
n»~}
~r=v
~
'Principal entomologist, U.S. Depanmenr of The mountain pine beetle, Dendroc-
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain tOnlls poJ2CtBl'oSRB HOpk11lS, IS 8 IriOID-
Forest and Range Expenmenc scacion, Ogden, ber of a group of beetles known as bark
UT.
zEnromotogisc, U.S. Department of Agricul- beetleS. EXCept whe? adults emerge
mre, Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry and and attack new trees, the mountain
Pest Management, Northern Region, Missoula, pine beetle completes 1tS llfe cycle
MT under the bark.
~ 3Encomologisc, U.S. DePanmenc of Agricui- The beetle attacks and kills lodge-
ture, Forest Service, Forest Pest Management,
State and Pnvate Forestry, Pacific Northwest Pole, ponderosa, sugar, and western
Region, Portldna, o?t. white pines. Outbreaks frequently de-
velop in lodgepole pine stands that
contain well-distributed, large-
diameter trees or in dense stands of ~
pole-sized ponderosa pine. When out- Fi9ure i
breaks are extensive, millions of trees Mountain Pine Beetle
may be killed each year. Periodic
losses of high-value, mature sugar and
western white pines are less wide-
spread but also serious. r-•---~
During epidemics, widespread tree
mortality alters the forest ecosystem. `
Often, beetles have almost totally WA MT
de leted commercial ~Wt ~p pine forests i1 7P,1
and, in some cases, have converted 1 '_oR l-i~;-
valuable forests to less desirable ~r
timber species, such as subalpine fir. NV U~'~~Y co
Sometimes, forested areas are con-
Ir ff. ' ,
verted to grass and shrubs. The pro- CA1~
fusion of beetle-killed trees can NM
change wildlife species composition Az,',~ 1'
and distribution by altering hiding
and thermal cover and by impeding
movement. Tree mortality may in-
crease the water yield for several ~
years following an infestation.
MOI'eOVe1', the dead trees left afteC Figure 1-Probable distribution of the moun-
tain pine beetle rn North America.
epidemics are a source of fuel that
will, in time, burn unless removed.
Range and Hosts Limber, Coulter, foxtail,
The beetle is native to North whitebark, pinyon, and bristlecone
America. It is found in an area from pines are also infested and killed.
the Pacific Coast east to the Black Scotch pine, an exotic in North
Hills of South Dakota and from nor- America, is highly susceptible to at-
thern British Columbia and western tack. Douglas-fir, true firs, spruce,
Alberta south into northwestern larch, and incense cedar are occa-
Mexico (fig. 1). Its habitat ranges sionally attacked, but because they
from near sea level in British Colum- are not true hosts, broods rarely
bia to 11,000 feet (3,353 m) in develop. Attacks on nonhost trees
southern California. usually occur when nearby pines are
The four major hosts of the moun- heavily infested.
tain pine beetle are lodgepole,
ponderosa, sugar, and white pines.
~
2
~
Evidence of Infestation
The mountain pine beetle begins ~
~ attacking most pine species on the ~W,
lower 15 feet (4.4 m) of the trunk.
Trees are generally killed by beetles
of a single generation. However, large sugar pines are first attacked in the crown. Two or ` . more generations of beetles-each
generation attacking a lower por- ~ r=
tion-may occur before the tree is
killed. Examination of infested trees usually reveals the presence of pitch '
tubes. Pitch tubes are made when
female beetles bore into the tree. There are two types of tubes. Pitch
tubes on successfully infested trees
are cream to dark-red masses of resin Figure 2-unsuccessfuuv arracked rree hus
mixed with boring dust and are one- "Prtched out" beetle.
fourth to one-half inch (6 to 13 mm)
in diameter. Pitch tubes on unsuc- cessfully infested trees are larger,
tyree-fourths of an inch to 1 inch (19 zr~ ro 25 mm) in diameter, and widely
scattered over the trunk. When beetles
are not present in sufficient numbers,
trees can produce enough resin to
r
"pitch out" beetles as they bore into the
inner bark (fig. 2).
Besides having pitch tubes, 4~
successfully infested trees will have dry boring dust, similar to fine
sawdust, in bark crevices and around
the base of the tree (fig. 3).
Sometimes, however, infested trees
can have boring dust, but not pitch
tubes. These trees, called blind at-
tacks, are common during drought
years when trees produce little pitch.
~
.a~.4.A,~.
Figure 3-Pitch tubes on the Irunk and bor-
~ ing dust around the base rndicale that this
lodgepole pine has been attacked and krlled
bv the beeNe.
3
When the beetles attack, they carry finally rusty brown (fig. 5). Fading
I blue-staining fungi into the tree. After begins in the lower crown and pro-
one to several months, the sapwood gresses upward.
begins to discolor (fig. 4). In large sugar pines, fading in the
Woodpeckers, feeding on larvae upper crown is the first evidence of ~
under the bark, make individual infestation.
holes in thick bark, or they may par-
tially or completely remove thinner
bark. These signs, plus the resulting pile of bark flakes around the base of
the tree, are good evidence of bark ~
beetle infestation.
The first sign of beetle-caused "mortality is generally discolored
foliage. Needles on successfully in-
fested trees begin fading and chang-
ing color several months to 1 year
after the trees have been attacked.
The needles change from green to Figure 4-Sapwood has been dlscolored by
yellowish green, then sorrel, Ced, and blue-s[aining fungi; heartwood rs not starned.
, .
»
,
. "
~
~
~
Figure 5-Dying trees. Discolored foliage is a
sign that these lodgepole pines have been at-
tacked anci killed bv the mountaan pine beet[e.
~
4
I
Life History
The beetle develops through four
~ stages: egg, larva, pupa, and adult.
Except for a few days during the
summer when adults emerge and fly
to new trees, all stages are spent
under the bark of infested trees.
The beetle usually takes 1 year to
complete its life cycle. However, at
~ high elevations where summer
temperatures are cool, 2 years may
be required to complete the life cycle.
~
, • r And in California, two generations
t .fmay be produced in 1 year in low-
~
v elevation sugar pines.
Under the bark, female beetles
t I construct straight, vertical egg
x~ a galleries. Packed with boring dust
,
~
these galleries are mostly in the
phloem, or inner bark, although they
slightly score the sapwood. They range
from 4 to 48 inches (10 to 122 cm)
long, averaging about 10 inches (25
cm) (fig. 6).
Females lay tinY, Pearl-white eggs
in niches along the sides of the
galleries, usually during the summer
and early fa1L The eggs hatch in 10 to
14 days, although they may take
longer during cool weather. (See
.
~ cover photo.)
V W Sometimes, eggs are also laid in
late spring by females that survived
~the winter. Surviving females may
either reemerge and reattack trees or
merely extend their egg galleries.
The legless larvae are white with
ffibrown heads. This stage lasts for IRL
about 10 months-from August to
the following June. The larval
broods feed on the phloem, con-
~ structing galleries that extend at right
angles to the egg galleries. When
Figure 6-Bark beet/e ga!leries form an iden- iTlatui'2, larvae excavate oval cells in
~ lifyrng pattern. Mountain pine beetle egg
galleries are vertrcal. The larvae construct
their feeding gatferies at right ang(es to the
egg ga!leries.
5
~
which they turn into pupae. By July, Unmated female beetles making
the pupae usually have been the first attacks release chemicals
transformed into adults. called aggregating pheromones. ~
Adults feed within the bark before These pheromones attract males and
they emerge; when several feeding other females until a mass attack
chambers coalesce, adults occur in overcomes the tree. Adjacent trees
groups. One or mare beetles will then are then infested.
make an exit hole (fig. 7) from which Attacking beetles carry with them
several adults will emerge. Within 1 the spores of blue-staining fungi on
or 2 days after emerging, the beetles their bodies and in a special structure
will attack other trees. on their heads. As the fungi develop
and spread throughout the sapwood,
hey interrupt the flow of water to
°lie crown. The fungi also reduce the
~
tree's flow of Pitch, thus aiding the
beetles in overcoming the tree. The
combined action of both beetles and
~ ~4 fungi causes the tree to die and the
rM" needles to discolor.
Factors Affecting Outbreaks
Z A number of factors can affect the
size of mountain pine beetle popula-
Figure 7-Exr1 holes, about 3132 inch (2.4 t10IIS. .
mm) rn diameter, made by mountain pine FoOd Supply. The food supply reg
beerres. ulates populations of the beetle.
Beetles usually select larger lodgepole
pines that have thick phloem. They
need adequate food, found in large-
diameter trees, far their population to
build up. After the targer lodgepole
pines are killed, beetles infest smaller
and smaller trees, where phloem is thin
and excessive drying occurs. Beetle
populations then decline to endemic
levels.
The relationship between beetle
populations and phloem thickness has
not been established for other tree
species.
•
6
, Tree Resistance. A copious pitch search for larvae, make holes in the
flow from some pines can prevent suc- bark, causing the bark to dry and thus
~ cessful attack. In effect, the beetles killing additional beetles. Woodpeck-
drown in the pitch as they bore into the ers probably play a role in reducing
inner bark or must abandon the tree. beetle numbers during endemic periods
The number of attacking beetles, the but do not control the beetles during
characteristics of the tree, and the epidemics. Several other bird species,
weather affect a tree's ability to pro- including nuthatches, feed on adults
duce enough resin to resist attack. But exposed during flight or as they attack.
if a large number of beetles attack a A dolichopodid fly and two
tree, the beetles can successfully over- species of checkered beetles (fig. 8)
come the tree's ability to pitch them are common predators: they may
out. reduce beetle numbers in individual
Predators and Parasites. Nema- trees but seldom affect mountain
todes, internal parasitic worms, can pine beetle infestations. Parasitic
hinder or prevent egg production. wasps sometimes cause substantial
Other nematodes feed on eggs after mortality in trees where their short
they are laid by the females. ovipositors can reach the larvae
Woodpeckers feed heavily on larvae through the thin bark.
in some trees. Woodpeckers, in their
.
•
4I I
1
/ Ir~
~
e
Figure 8-A rheckered beetle ( Enoderus
sphegeus Fabricius) eating a mauntain pine
. beetle adult.
7
, " s 'i ~ ( ° a.~ ~s ~ ~ . ~ a. . ~1
~ p ~ . V
r ~ § ~
~4
~ ~ • ~ ] {
" °.f 7~ ~ ~ r ~ T . 4 ..,r~,s . ~ r ~:'fie ~ ~ ! ~ s ~ t. • <
~ ~ ~ f n~. .1: r ~ ~ .Y~~ ll # _ .P '..ir. .ii~ f . . j.
Figure 9-Larvae of Ihe round-headed wood-
borer (see (arva near top of photo) have
devoured both the phloem and Ihe mountain
pine beetle brood.
Competition. Larvae compete for are also protected from the cold and •
food and space not only with each more likely to survive.
other but with larvae of other beetles.
For example, the larvae of the round- Stand Hazard Rating
headed woodborers, feeding within the Resource managers can take ap-
inner bark, occasionally destroy almost propriate action to prevent outbreaks
all of the mountain pine beetle brood or reduce damage if they can identify
found there (fig. 9). those stands having characteristics
Cold Terraperature. Unseasonably that lead to bark beetle infestations.
low temperatures may retard out- This process of risk assessment is
breaks. Early autumn or mid-spring called hazard rating, and several
temperatures of about 0°F (-18 °C) methods of hazard rating pine stands
and winter temperatures below -34 °F are available. These methods are based
(-37 0C) may affect outbreaks on characteristics frequently associated
.
Unfortunately, such cold with epidemics. Computer models are
temperatures may affect only low- available to predict losses to mountain
lying areas; beetles survive on Pine beetle based on stand structure
warmer slopes. Beetles in thick- and habitat type. It is still not possible,
barked trees and in portions of tree however, to predict when stands will
trunks that are below the snow line become infested.
•
8
• ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
~
OK a~,~
A
, ' , a ~ ~ ~ a • K , i ~
"A.~
A. µ
i^ a
> <
Figure 10-Hrgh-risk ponderosu prne stands
auacked by the beeNe. Trees wrth yellow
/oliage have been recently atlacked; grav
irees were ki!!ed the year before the trees wrth
ye/lok, foliage were attacked.
• High-risk lodgepole pine stands Silviculture. Silvicultural control
have an average age of more than 80, measures are the most efficient.
an average diameter at breast height Thinning stands of lodgepole and
of more than 8 inches (20 cm), and a ponderosa pines will prevent or
suitable climate for beetle develop- minimize beetle-caused mortality.
ment based on elevation and latitude. Patch cutting in lodgepole pine
In second-growth ponderosa pine, stands creates a mosaic of age and
high-risk stands have a high stand size classes, which reduces the
basal area, a single story, and an acreage of lodgepole pine that will be
average diameter at breast height highly susceptible to beetles at one
more than 10 inches (25 cm) (fig. 10). time.
Where clear or patch cutting is not
Control feasible, selective harvesting will help
Control options available for reduce mortality. Trees can be
managing the mountain pine beetle harvested selectively in riparian
depend somewhat on the size of the zones and in areas along roads, in
outbreak, the age of the stand, the campgrounds, and around scenic
size of the trees, and the conditions vistas.
of the site.
•
9
Salvage can retrieve wood that Attractants. Synthetic beetle attrac-
otherwise would be lost, and if tants are now available to manipulate
beetles are removed with the tree and and monitor small outbreaks. Baiting •
disposed of, some reduction in the and trapping with attractants, man-
beetle population can be expected. agers can contain small spot infesta-
However, once a large outbreak has tions, thus preventing their spread into
developed, salvage logging of in- susceptible stands and maintaining
fested material to reduce future tree beetle populations at low levels until
mortality generally will not be effec- roads can be built, allowing for stand
tive. management. Using these new tools,
Insecticides. Insecticides are avail- managers can also protect high-value
able for direct control of beetles in in- campgrounds and other recreation
fested trees. The use of insecticides in sites.
such situations requires the combined Information. Private landowners
efforts of all landowners within the can get information about mountain
designated management area. How- pine beetle management from a Coop-
ever, if beetle outbreaks are large, di- erarive Extension agent at their land-
rect chemical control may not be cost grant college, a State agricultural ex-
effective: treatment costs may exceed periment station, a county Extension
the value of the wood apparently office, the local State forestry office,
saved. At best, insecticides provide a or the Forest Pest Management staff,
temporary control measure that slows U.S. Department of Agriculture, For-
infestations. They will not stop an out- est Service. Federal resource managers
break as long as the susceptible stands should contact the Forest Pest Manage- ~
remain unaltered. ment staff in their area.
Preventive spraying before trees
become infested will protect in-
dividual high-value trees. Such
preventive treatment does not require
a united effort by landowners as does
the treatment of infested trees.
However, periodic treatments will be
necessary for as long as the outbreak
lasts.
Insecticides are reviewed con-
tinuously by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; persons con-
templating the use of insecticides
should ensure that they are still
registered.
•
10
References McCambridge, William F.; Hawksworth, Frank
~ Amman, Gene D.; Cole, Walter E. Mountain G.; Edminster, Carleton B.; Laut, John G.
pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine for- Ponderosa pine mortality resulting from a
ests. Part II: population dynamics. Gen. Tech. mountain pine beetle outbreak. Res. Pap.
Rep. INT-145. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department RM-235. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun-
Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1983. tain Forest and Range Experiment Station;
59 p. 1982. 7 p.
Amman, Gene D.; McGregor, Mark D.; Cahill, McGregor, M. D.; Amman, G. D.; Cole, W. E.
Donn B.; Klein, William H. Guidelines for Hazard-rating lodgepole pine for susceptibil-
reduciog losses of lodgepole pine to the moun- iry to mountain pioe beetle infestation. In:
tain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Hedden, R. L.; Barras, S. J.; Coster, J. E.
Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-36. Hazazd-rating systems in forest insect pest
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, management: Proceedings of a symposium;
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 1980 July 31-August 1; Athens, GA. Gen.
Range Experiment Sta[ion; 1977. 19 p. Tech. Rep. WO-27. Washington, DC: U.S.
Berryman, Alan A.; Amman, Gene D.; Stark, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;
Ronald W., eds. Theory and practice of 1981: 99-104.
mountain pine beetle management in lodge- Safranyik, L.; Shrimpton, D. M.; Whimey,
pole pine forests: Proceeding of a symposium; H. S. Management of lodgepole pine to re-
1978 April 25-27; Pullman, WA. Moscow, duce losses from the mountai? pine beetle.
ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Tech. Rep. 1. Victoria, BC: Canadian For-
Range Experiment Station; 1978. 224 p. estry Service, Pacific Forest Research Centre,
Borden, J. H.; Chong, L. J.; Pratt, K. E. G.; Department of the Environment; 1974. 24 p.
Gray, D. R. The application of behavior- Sartwell, C.; Dolph, R. E., Jr. Silvicultural and
modifying chemicals to con[ain infestations of direct control of mountain pine beetle in
the mountain pine beede, Dendroctonus pon- second-growth ponderosa pine. Res. Note
~ derosae. Forestry Chronicle. 1983 October: PNW-268. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
235-239. Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific North-
Cole, Walter E. Some risks and causes of mor- west Forest and Range Experiment Station;
tality in mountain pine beetle populations: a 1976. 8 p.
long-term analysis. Researches in Population Stevens, R. E.; McCambridge, W. F.; Edmin-
Ecology. 23(1): 116-144; 1981. ster, C. B. Risk rating guide for mountain pine
Cole, Walter E; Amman, Gene D. Mountain beetle in Black Hills ponderosa pine. Res.
pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine for- Note RM-385. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. De-
ests. Part I: course of an infestation. Gen. Partment of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Tech. Rep. INT-89. Ogden, UT: U.S. De- Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experi-
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inter- ment Station; 1980. 2 p.
mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta- Struble, George R. At[ack pattern of mountain
tion; 1980. 56 p. pine beetle in sugar pine stands. Res. Note
Cole, Walter E.; McGregor, Mark D. Estimating PSW-60. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of
the rate and amount of tree loss from mountain Agriculture. Forest Service, Pacific South-
pine beetle infestations. Res. Pap. INT-318. West Forest and Range Experiment Station;
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1965. 7 p.
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station; 1983. 22 p.
~
11
~
Pesticides used improperly can be injurious to human beings, animals,
and plants. Follow the directions and heed all precautions on labels. Store
pesticides in original containers under lock and key-out of the reach of children
and animals-and away from food xnd feed
Apply pesticides so that they do not endanger humans, livestock. crops.
beneficial insects, fish, and wildlife. Do not apply pesticides where there is
danger of drift when honey bees or other pollinating insects are visiting plants,
or in ways that may con[aminate wa[er or leave illegal residues.
Avoid prolonged inhalation of peshcide sprays or dus'ts: wear protec[ive
clothing and eqwpment, if specified on the Iabel.
If your hands become contaminated with a pesticide, do not eat or drmk
until you have washed. In case a pesticide is swallowed or gets in the eyes,
follow the first aid treatment given un the label, and get prompt mcdical
attention. If a pesticide is spilled on your skin or clothing, remove ctothing ~
immediately and wash skin thoruughly.
NOTE: Some States have restrictions on the use of CnunoH:
certain pesticides. Check your State and local fCgUI:I- PESTIqDES
tions. Also, because registrations of pesticides are undcr
constant review by [he U.S Environmental Protection
Agency, consult your local forest patholugist, county
agriculture agent, or State extension specialist to be sure
the inrended use is still registered
~
Revised June 1985
. _ 5 ( d-l• k ~l ~d,~,w+. ~ i
!lAIL VALLEV MOl9NTA9N PIIVE BEET9..E ASSESSMENT .
Prelaminary Results
.Darauary 1997
Tom Eager and Roy Maskl
USDA Forest Service
Forest Health iVianagement
Gunnison Service Center
BACKG ROtJ N D
During the past three years, an increase in mountain pine beetle activity has
been observed in lodgepole pine stands in and around Vail Valley (Grieve 1995
and 1996; Johnson 1996). This beetle activity impacts both private and public
lands. In August 1996, Roy iViask met with Dave VanlVorman (White River
National Forest) and Russell Forrest and Todd Oppenheimer (Town of Vail), to
discuss an assessment of the ongoing mountain pine beetle activity. Those
present discussed the current mountain pine beetle situation and identified an
assessment area (Figure 1). The area is approximately 9 miles (north to south)
by 18 miles (east to west) It encompasses approximately 80,000 acres (of which
approximately 9700 ac. is wilderness). At the brief 8/96 meeting, the following
assessment-related needs vvere identified: 1) involve Colorado State Forest
Service in assessment; 2) obtain up-to-date 1:12,000 scale color infrared (CIR)
photography to supplement exisfing beetle information; 3) summarize existing
stand inventory da4a (for future mountain pine beetle hazard rating); 3)
summarize existing mountain pine beetle occurrence data; and 4) develop
management options and recommendations.
METHODS AND 6aESlJLTS
The CIR imagery mission was co-funded by the Town of Vail and the Holy Cross
Ranger District. In October 1996, members of the USDA Forest Service, Forest
Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET), completed the CIR imagery
mission. The color positive film was then processed into 9" x 9" photos. Photo
acquisition was funded by the Gunnison Service Center.
~ Eniomoiogist and Service Center Leader, respective1y
S
_ Page 2
Results of imagery mission:
* Due to elevation changes, photo scales range between approximately
1:12,000 (higher elevations) and 1:16,000 (lower elevations). NiP6
activity is readily apparent especially at the larger scale.
~ Due to time of year (and possibly to time of day), shadows are evident
on the north aspects of some steep terrain.
* The area was covered by a total of 14 flight lines (approx. 1.3 miles
apart).
Because of weather complications, flight lines 3 and 10 (reference flight
line map) were completed in two segments each.
* Side and end lap of photo coverage is sufficient for stereo viewing of all
parts of the assessment area.
Results of photo interpretation:
In December 1996, Gunnison Service Center completed the CIR photo
interpretation activities.
* Elevation in the assessment area ranges from approximately 7400 to
12,000 feet. iViost iViP6 activity occurs between 8200 and 9600 feet.
* Photo interpreted "spots" were compared to existing information (USDA
FS 1996 aerial survey and Grieve 1996). Additional IVIPB activity appears
evident from photo interpretation (total exceeds 200 ac.).
* Largest concentrations of beetle activity are in or immediatety adjacent to
the I-70 corridor.
Numerous "spots" are located in areas of difficult access (reference 7.5
min. quads).
Work to be Completed
1) Ground truth a percentage of the photo interpreted NiP6 spots. 1
2) Acquire existing stand inventory data within the assessment area.
3) Identify cover type across the area and hazard rate lodgepole pine stands
for susceptibility to iViPB infestation.
4) With stand hazard ratings and current fVIP6 occurrence data, develop
management recommendations.
5} Complete GIS work and finalize report.
r
Page 3 ,
REFERENCES
Angwin, P., T. Eager, W. Bailey, D. Johnson and E. Smith. 1996. Piney
Analysis Area, Holy Cross Ranger District, White River iVational Forest,
Forest Health Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region.
Renewable Resources. Forest Health iVlanagement Gunnison Service
Center. Biological Evaluation R2-97-01. 80 pp.
Grieve, J. 1995. 1995 Niountain Pine Beetle Survey, Summit, Grand and Eagle
Counties. Colorado State Forest Service. Dillon, CO. xx pp.
Grieve, J. 1996. 1996 fVlountain Pine Beetle Survey, Summit, Grand and Eagle
Counties. Colorado State Forest Service. Dillon, CO. 37 pp.
Johnson, S. ed. 1996. Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the Rocky
Nlountain Region. USDA Forest Service. Renewable Resources. Forest
Health Management. 46 pp.
,
~'iie-r?. ~_-r-~ ~ li _~.r^ ' - - ~ i~- - ~f ^"'~i"- ~ - ~ . .-~:r.u..< 6t~.. . n< 9 ' . io I . _ (~n7•y.~ '
f
_ ~
I I;t:'i~ :;'~'~i ,°e'.~C--..~ ~r,~',k •.,us. ~ ' • . =-=--•'i- - . eT ~ . ~q ~ \ ~(1~i~
.
~ ' .
UPPe~~~ •..i I / `
NEST
~
J • Prnay l.nk'e
ie . ~..'S 11 14 I
lL?
Red nd Wliite
pi~K~ 410 f'or.F is u
7
SMoB u tain 8 ~So a 18 ~t
, J.,2.. p ~ ~,~}VA F~' c rt ~ t~ ` 6 ~~th
• i 1 , Boo1h'
u i x~ ~~~~J~ \ I So4~ i p Lok¢ i Fa(fs
I _ Boss ~nfne ~21 P(tk(n zzj 70 e2 p3
~o ~
r I k ~fv t~ j Lae ~T r7 T1n ~T
Q
jN 77 1V A1,
0 • ~ _ ~ ~`~i :o n y . Kelter Mtn " \J Il V ~
7 It1
~
0
~ I ............:..-i~'°a~.......1,~~~ 3 1'1~oes
~ . ' I - ~ o s `E : G ,.a . 0p ~ ti
j0 4 ~ _ ~ Red SP; 1~~e/~ tr ) 1 ta ~ ts , tdt
~ ila1 ~1 zb lu zs.~k Cr ~ zvG 8aldMtna~q.. 26
~Pv ; y~,~'
II ~ - f¢ 1219
~ j ~
U o'd l3uck,: av ~ n
- c
r,es! ~,~~-~~~i;..;~/•.'.` ~ .\\~'1'---~ ~ i . 1 - j G,yd i.\ , /tr:
75 ~a
. ~
77 7 » c ~ ' . i.~:.
~ ? . ~l 1• I I
3: » . ` 7 k Q 't o ) \ M " - .
3 II>
a ; al I
Bufler
,
I0532~ I W ~ ~ i 3 32 ll ~De(uge LcrF~Y.
101
~ ~ ' •yp \or A ~,,aa a`% L v;~,i:;:: '
Is,
~ ~:d i~• 6 4 ~ ~ .,.ggg //qpp ppp .I 5Q s ~ J Y /
1 T r° ~i~S ui
no Lake
- _.Fq ~Subslaiio~ ~ ~O f'> ~o . ~ . •~9 s I , G ,
e WILDE RN 1;,>S,
~
c~ e r N'i!lur.~
, r~ ' f~- • , ~ ' FallsB„4 Lake
e~ io 9 io ti~ Red
eSt ) I. i
,
` i3i;
e ~ 0
i
von~~,'~' 1 Bighprn B1_ o ~
, 15 v
~
o
I)3 E _
a ~ P • • REEK...... .
.c I~ ;y, ~ i~ ~s adip ..I, ~ ~ n ~ ~ T , .i•. r .
rr.
4 ~ \ `y~,i7n ~l) ` O 2Cih~ e ' les 16 I]
~Got Mid Vail u ie
c; 7 .yc 'Dow ort heast~
un io ~ Game Cr Bowl ~ ~Qq . . . . I
'i ~o 198ow1 ar igan :i ~Ecdc.
~ cCo 2i HOLY tot 21 Ya` t . PJ55
~of y CROSS_ Sunup hina 23 ,?vReo 19 21 n
Sundown;
^5?.~ ti U ~
W~.. F 1 1008~i ~ Bowl owl 11816
ud. r I ~ ~ Uonshead ~ Bow)
gn I. . ~ K, _ 1~
6 ~ I ~ ~ 2 ' ~ ~i s a O
:s 7 r~ i ~ Radio Lw ^ TeacuP
B/
~ ~ EtK rR^L 'I~^ J c
Two Elk 3P
aciliry ts .ro t° 86wl 00~' 26
g~ t u r ~ r, i y e r Vi ew i k P a 5 5 jo ~ zv ..78
m 7 Cr ¢ as (i L1 6
~e j
~
»
3 34 3s~;. °
~OUTH ~ G •\2a / o I 36 31 3: „3, i :_~:nr•:
" lleaveri)"t~c~
5'I';1N U:1RI)
i~
FI ,,I--
0011\
~
t ~I1 z t rjb 5~~05 ' 4~: SHRIN ~ ll 5 \~:x` ~ ;n~•:a +
'
A urkey
~ 3 p / i; f3`
0(s~ en l
. . . ~ . ' • / n ':n~' ~a . 3 ~ ~ .
~ Wa'r Ldog -1 as, - rinq^tn oc
I ~ Lake i.
. ,
.
p \g Loke
~ ° Z
\ ~ 'a~ i~/~ ~ I Ji
~
Sh
~o' u 1z / ~ e CrJ rine Pass
~ crouse
A I I . ti9 lo i:
i~r~~,•. ~i
n:..• d in ~
~ /.ak¢ ° ~
e ~U
\ ~ I I J ti ~ / b~• ° 0 9F ~ i ~
~pp
of,... - !----J~- - - - ~L ~ o ~
r ~ r.Q : ' • ~ n, ,
~
g
v
SloMtn
~s I1 ' ~ Iti,~ ~ i i os° lqian o
Boo! 1 ' f~( u U c ie ~'S I5 NBwhouSe
1l.ake i Beld C. ':u~° I Oll~u•~
TIGIWON g T Linnei ie
. f I „ . • ~ . . ioiwo0 COmm
, Figure 1. Vail Valley mountain pine beetle assessment area. Color IR imagery was obtained for the area in
. October 1996.
.
W5
-sQc!Sz je~~~ef Z
~~=~f~•N ~<~+I~ ,
~
l: w*x'` . ~.~rrk.;: ~~~7~ "A• 'f~ Y'Y~ 4~ ~ . ~ ~~,x~;; ~
1%
~ ~ ;.t^~Y • i . . t i ' ~ 1 w, .~ajl~. ~
~
.i ~1' ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ s, { ~ + ` `1~-~~,~~•i ~tr ~ a ~ t t~~
:~s:-~. s,~"r :'~`~a,.i.;,• ;y . . ~~`'~~y~
-~A
Y 1 ~ ~ Y+ ~ , ~ . S ~t . ~ ~ •
~~`~c~~~~~t,~ ~i~¢~ Y- '•~5: q.Z~
tf`l.~,[
-~F
°I, . ~ ~ ~~Y
d - - r~ iw ` :
Figurc 10-High-rrsk pontlerosu pine srunds
uttucketl bt, tlie beelle. Trees with Ye!low
Joliuge hure been receirrlY uuacketl; Krul'
nees tieie ki!(ed theyear bejore rhe rrees wirh
re!low foliage u~ere ntracked.
High-risk lodgepole pine stands Silviculture. Silvicultural control
have an average age of more than 80, measures are the most efficient.
an average diameter at breast height Thinning stands of lodgepole and
of more than 8 inches (20 cm), and a ponderosa pines \%ill prevent or
suitable dimate for beetle develop- minimize beetle-caused mortality.
ment based on elevation and latitude. Fatch cutting in lodeepole pine
In second-growth ponderosa pine, stands creates a mosaic of age and
hieh-risk stands have a high stand size classes, which reduces the
basal area, a single story, and an acreage of lodgepole pine that will be
average diameter at breast heigh[ highly susceptible to beetles at one
more than 10 inches (25 cm) (fig. 10). time.
Where clear or patch cutting is not
Control feasible, selective harvesting will help
Control options available for reduce mortalitv. Trees can be
managing the mountain nine beetle harvested selecuvelv in riparian
depend somewhat on the size of the zones and in areas along roads, in
outbreak, the age of the stand, the campgrounds, and around scenic
size of the trees, and the conditions vistas.
,
of the si[e. -
9
Salvage can retrieve wood tha[ Attractartts. Synthetic beetle attrac-
othenvise would be lost, and if tants are now available to manipulate ,
beetles are removed with the tree and and monitor small outbreaks. Baiting disposed of, some reduction in the and trapping with attractants, man- '
beetle population can be expected. agers can contain small spot infesta-
However, once a large outbreak has tions, thus preventing their spread into ;
dexeloped, salvage logging of in- susceptible stands and maintaining
fested material to reduce future tree beetle populations at low levels until
mortality generally wili not be effec- roads can be built, allowing for stand '
tive. management. Using these new tools,
/i:secticides. (nsecticides are avail- managers can also protect high-value
able for direct control of beetles in in- campgrounds and other recreation
fested trees. The use of insec[icides in sites.
such situations requires the combined Information. Private landowners
efforts of all landowners within the can get information about mountain
designated management area. How- pine beetle management from a Coop-
ever, if beetle outbreaks are large, di- erative Extension agent at their land-
rect chemical control may not be cost grant college, a State agricultural ex-
effective: treatment costs may exceed periment station, a county Extension
the value of the wood apparently office, [he local State forestry office,
saved. At best, insecticides provide a or the Forest Pest Management staff,
temporary control measure that slows U.S. Department of Agnculture, For-
infestations. They will not stop an out- est Service. Federal resource managers
break as long as the susceptible stands should contact the Forest Pest Manage- i~
remain unaltered. ment staff in their area.
Preventive spraying before trees
become infested will protect in-
dividual high-value trees. Such
preventive treatment does not require
a united effort by landowners as does
the treatment of infested trees.
However, periodic treatments will be necessary for as long as the outbreak
lasts.
[nsecticides are reviewed con-
tinuously by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; persons con-
templating the use of insecticides
should ensure that they are still ,
reeistered.
.
,
10
Q~e~.~c~~-d., `t~ 11( f= S G~~i'u-d' ~~l~-~.~, ~9•~'
~ • ~~.~a-~
Byron Brown Loyctte Goodcll Jcanninc Erickson
P.O. Box 547 1967 Circlc Drive 1987 Circlc Drivc
Vail, CO 81658 Vail, CO 81657 Vail Co 81657
Ncvin Nelson Paige Sodergrcn Ernst Glatzle
2498 Arosa Dr 2449 Arosa Dr 2317 Garmisch Dr
Vail CO 81657 Vail CO 81657 Vail Co 81657
Catherine Edborg Kaye Ferry Vernon Taylor, Jr
127 Rockledge Rd 2395 Bald Mtn Road 102 Rockledge Rd
Vail Co 81657 Vail Co 81657 Vail Co 81657
Clint Josey Karin Scheidegger Mary Jo Allen
95 Rockledge Rd 2436 Chamonix Lane Box 861
Vail CO 81657 Vail Co 81657 Vail Co 81658
Mikc and LaVon Horn Art Abplanalp Herbert Schorpp
2308 Gar?nisch Box 157 2633 Cortina Lanc
Vail Co 81657 Vail Co 81658 Vail Co 81657
Bob Armour Rika Mouw Kathy Langenwalter
2668-A Arosa Box 884 Box 1065
Vail Co 81657 Vail Co 81658 Vail Co 81658
Kcnt Rosc Davc Cole Jack Carnie
Box 219 PO Box 5555 2920 Mann's Ranch Rd
Vail CO 81658 Vail CO 81658 Vail Co 81657
Konrad Oberlohr F:\evetyonc\russ\loaa.lbl
2656 Davos Trail
Vail Co 81657
W5 7 VWa tv
.
~ a U
_ ..j .
~
Newsletter of the Colorado Transportation Information Program (COTIP) December, 1996
Colorado's Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP)
Rou non~~~~~~ taur- th~ ; Vail was a town with a problem. At peak traffic flow during
the sid season, the I-70/Vail Road interchange was swamped
/
with traffic. Twenty minute delays were common for motor- ~
ists entering and exiting the city.
Then came the roundabouts. Uail hasn't looked back since. /
Roundabouts have long been popular in Europe, especially
in Britain, where signalized intersections are rare. Amodern
roundabout is a circular intersection based on British design ~ I
guidelines. Key features of modern rounda.bouts include:
o Yelded entryways. Traffic moves one way through the
roun d a bout, and tr affic in t he circ le a lways has the right-
~
of-way. j
o De. flected entiyways. Entrances are angled toward the
direction of traffic flow to ease entry into the round-
abOUt.
o Flared entryways Entrances widen at the juncture with roundabout maintenance.
the roundabout to allow more traffic to move through
the circle. So how do the roundabouts stack up against signalized in-
tersections? Pretty well, by all accounts.
A modern roundabout interchange refers to a freeway-to- ,
street interchange with at least one roundabout. Uail's round- "The waiting time to enter the intersection has been nearly
about is Colorado's first modern roundabout interchange,
and actually contains two rounda.bouts, one each for the east-
bound and westbound lanes of I-70 (Fig. 1). The north IN THIS ISSUEo
interchange is a five-leg, 120-foot raindrop-shaped round- Roundaboccts ..........................................................1
about and the south interchange is a six-leg, 200-foot circu-
1 COTIP's Netiv Director ............................................4
lar-shaped roundabout.
Name-Cl2an; in; Contest ........................................5
The initial idea for a roundabout came from a Uail citizen. Eisenhotiver- Titnnel .................................................6
After rejecting a signalized intersection to solve the traffic
congestion at the I-70/Vail Road interchange, the town In Memor•iiun ..........................................................8
adopted the roundabouts. During the planning process, Uail Information Handhook ...........................................8
received critical input from sources including a San Diego
firm specialiang in roundabout desig~ British high- Rock Cracsher .........................................................9
consuwaylting agencies who helped pioneer the modern roundabout, Calender ...............................................................10
and Nonvegian highway agencies experienced in winter
2 The Wheel December, 1996
eliminated, even during our heaviest
periods," said Greg Hall, town engi- a
neer. "That's been the big difference ~
we've seen so far." Around 2.5 mil-
lion cars have passed through the
roundabout since its October, 1995 ~ ' -y ' g " ~ : ° l~' r • ~ °
completion, Hall estimates.
The virtual elimination of delays at the
~ intersection came in spite of Uail's
busiest holiday season to date: nearly
r~=-~ -
- ~
15 percent more vehicles per hour at - - ~J •w -"~`T _ ,~e^
r~..
peak periods compared to the 1994/
1995 holiday season, according to Uail statistics. The north roundabout car-
.t s rT.,~- ~ ~ `t"`~,"~'r,~+ ~
ried a high of 1, 819 vehicles per hour A44-'~"-~~~^:~-~.
„a~„ .*~..o.-.: . . a; .~5.. w.a..: vy , -k:.~
a
during the afternoon peak on Decem-
ber 28,1995, compared to 1,557 cars , ~:-y~ . ~ .'•,~"~<':-~~._.~.~m_.
~
per hour recorded on December 29 c~
the previous year. The south round-
about can-ied 3,284 cars per hour dw-
~
ing the afternoon peak, compared to >
2, 898 vehicles the previous year. n~
Both figures fall well short of the
roundabouts' carrying capacities.
•>~BKey to the roundabouts' high capac-
ity is efficient pavement utilization,
added Hall. Typically, signal coordi-
nation at interchanges causes ineffi-
cient pavement utilizatioq as only one
or two movements at a time are re-
leased. Roundabouts have the ben-
efit ofconstant pavement utilization. Above: Traff c breezes through Yail's new roundabout. Below: Signs
Additionally, platoons ofvehicles re- warn motorists of the roundabout well in aatvance of the itiiersection.
leased from signals ofren causes tem- porary bottlenecks on the freeway. By
contrast, therandom arrivals ofroundabouts make them more to traffic in the circle and approachine the intersection too
freewayfi-iendly. fast have been the most common cause of the accidents,
Hall said. Uail proactively desiQned the roundabouts for the
Accidents, another measure ofthe intersection's efficiency, first-time user, placing visual queues ofthe roundabout, the
have declined and are now actually slightly below average, yielding process, and the one-way tra.ffic circuiation well in
said Hall. Five accidents were reported from October to advance of the intersection. In addition the city placed map-
December, 1995, compared with an average of seven for like directional sians before and in the roundabout to help
the same period over the previous three years. These fig- guide motorists to their destinations.
ures come in spite of pre-construction fears by some Vail
residents that the roundabouts would become a sort of cir- Modern roundabout interchanaPs also usually cost less than
cular demolition derby their signalized counterparts. Typically, the cost of retrofit-
ting a freeway interchange with mociem roundabouts on each
"Driver education continues to be the key. Failure to yield side is one to four millian dollars. By contrast, the cost of
December, 1996 The Wheel 3
easier to plow than a sig-
IVorth Frontage Fd ~ nalized intersection, said
Spraddle Cr F,d Hall. Snowplows can
clear a roundabout in one
fonvard circular move-
ment, where as cross in-
tersections require several
On-ramp Off-ramp back and forth movements
~
- to clear.
Hall - also cited the
roundabouts' eye-pleas-
i ~ I ing appearance as an un-
expected bonus. The in-
= 1-70 to Grand Junction I I terchange provides a
I pleasant entryway into
Vail and reduces frustra-
I tion for visitors by keep-.
I-70 to Denver ~ ing traffic rolling along.
~ For a town that depends
_ heavily on the tourist
Off-ramp > trade, these are tangible
On-ramp benefits.
~ The bottom line, accord-
~ ing to Hall: "They work
..i
TheY work so welL ui f
act,
Souih Frontage Rd "
~ta9e ~a - - - - that Uail's down-the-high-
F~o way neighbor, Avon, is
planning five roundabouts
' ~ - to relieve congestion in its
~ ~ - _ -
downtown byway. State-
~
~ wide, Hall has received in-
formation requests on
~
Sca/e: 1 " roundabouts from high-
=80' way departments in
Figure 1: I-70/Vaii Road, Vaii, Colorado Loveland, Colorado
interchange capacity improvement projects that require Springs, Snowmass, and even the state's across-the-line
bridge widening to accommodate signalized ramp and frorrt- neighbor in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
age road intersection is typically five to twenty million dol-
lars. Since the 3 6-foot-wide undercrossing at the I-70/Vail There is almost a universal consensus, a rarity in this day and
Road intersection was not widened, the total cost to the age, that Uail's roundabouts are a success story. All those
town was only $2.6 million, according to Hall. The project initially opposed to the idea, including both of Vail's largest
also saves the town an estimated $85,000 per year on traf- newspapers and several prominent citizens, have publicly
fic direction service officers, whose services are no longer reversed their positions. Though there are only 14 modern
required. roundabouts in the country so far, their almost universal suc-
cess may herald a new day for roundabouts in North America.
Colorado's snowy climate was also a concern for the round-
about. Vail's maintenance crews thinlc the roundabout is ByMisha Macaw, C077P Editor.
algi 6 O
Your Transportation Tax Dollars at o. Thiroul lhout E,
. I
. o.s
. o I I e ~
I ~ I
. I] .
1 e'
24
LEADVILLE ~ , . , . ,
RED CLIFF • ~
MINTURN s
~ II I
VAIL EAGLE
~o DOTSERO 70
AVON / GYPSUM
BEAVER CREEK
We're rolling out these new services to mark the inaugural start-up of our new Regional
Transportation System, funded by the new half-cent county-wide sales tax. Watch for additions
in the coming months and important developments for new bike paths throughout the county.
I I ' I P' I / / / / / I / Att-thority
1-4 3 CaU 479-2358 oir 949-6121 for hnnforma~on on roautes9 iFares and tacfl~etso