Loading...
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