HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-08 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAVL TOWIV COUIVCIL
WORK SESSION
TIDESDAY, AP129L 8, 1997
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUIdCIL C8ii4iViBERS
' AGENDA
NOTE: Tumes of Btems aPe approxirnate, subject to change, arad cannot be relied upoav to
determ6ne at what time Coannce[ wiB@ consider an item.
1 • Discussion of U.S. Forest Seroice Control Burn. (45 mins.)
Dick Duran
Tom Johnston ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the U.S. Forest Service
Bill Wood plan.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On 2/28/97 the USFS met with the Vail
Fire Department and discussed their intent on the control burn. We
agreed to have TOV fire equipment on Bald Mountain Road more for
comfort of our eitizens than fire fighting. We will do the same for
Spraddle Creek. We cannot recommend burning of Unit #4 at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: We will support the U.S. Forest Service
with on-duty personnel.
2• DRB Revievv. (15 mins.)
3• . Information Update. (10 mins.)
4• Council Reports. (10 mins.)
5• Other. (10 mins.)
6• Site Visit and Discussion re: A request for approval to allow for off-site
Lauren Waterton parking at the Swiss Chalet, 62 East Nleadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block
5-E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. (30
mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Deny the applicant's
request.
BACKGROUIVD RATIONALE: On February 24, 1997, the PEC
approved, with six conditions, a request for three variances to allow for an
addition to the entry of the Swiss Chalet. The PEC recommended,
through one of the conditions of approval, that Town Council approve two
new parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet that are partially located on the
Bavaria Haus property. Section 18.52.060, Parking - Off-Site and Joint
Facilities, states that Town Council may approve parking spaces located
off-site if certain conditions exist. See the attached staff memo, dated
April 8, 1997, for a complete description of the request.
STAFF RECOMMEPVDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
approve the applicant's request.
7• Executive Session - Personnel Matters and Lease Negotiations. (1 hr., 30
mins.)
Adjournment - 5:30 p.m.
~
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIANES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I I
THE PVEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/15/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/22/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. Ifd TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING -WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/15/97, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IM 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.
C:IAGENDA. WS
2
a ! ~ ~ ~A
~S ~ ' ~
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor REFER TO
DEPARTflflEiVT OF iVATURAL RESOURCES tv.
DMS0~~ ~F MLOLWE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Y
Ferry D. Oison, Director
606 E3roadway ~
Denver, Colorado 80216 OF
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
For Wildlife -
For People
March 1, 1997
Town of Vail
ATTN: Russ Forrest
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO. 81657
Dear Russ,
This letter is in response to your request for the Colorado
Divisions of Wildlife (CDOW) position on the prescribed burn of
Booth Creek.
Background
In the late 1980's or early 1990's the CDOW applied for and
received funding from Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
(FNAWS) for this same burn. Unfortunately the funding did not
include the EA. Due to other projects for both the CDOW and USFS
the project was not able to be completed in time frame required by
the grant. Therefore the money was returned.
The CDOW and USFS looked at this burn again in 1994 and
decided on the general area to be burned. This meeting was in
relation to what would benefit wildlife. The USFS must complete
their assessment of what can be done safely. The CDOW was then and
is now in support of a burn to restore the habitat for bighorn
sheep.
The CDOW can provide you with the benefits of a burn for
bighorn sheep. The USFS is in the final stage of finishing the
burn plan for this area. Until the burn plan is completed the CDOW
can not provide you with specifics. The recent public meeting the
USFS held was the start of the process to get general public
comment. Once the USFS has completed the burn plan the CDOW will
have a specific action plan to comment on. In discussions with Tom
Johnston, USFS the plan should be completed in the next week. The
CDOW and USFS will then sit down and review the plan for wildlife
benefit vs burn safety. Upon the completion of this step the CDOW
can provide comments on a completed plan.
Russ, I believe the following information will answer most of
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman - Louis F. Swift, Vice-Chairman - Arnold Salazar, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member < Eldon W. Cooper, Member - Rebecca L. Frank, Member
William R. Hegberg, Member - Mark LeVatley, Member
" . s. i , ' ~ . . , Booth Creek $urn Page 2 of 3
CDOW Andree 030197
your questions or the councils questions on the benefit of the burn
for bighorn sheep.
The CDOW has done studies on the benefits of burning bighorn .
sheep habitat. These studies and others have shown that burning:
0 will increase the digestible organic matter,
0 increase the nutritional value of the forage,
? recycle the nutrients from the plant bio-mass back into the
soil,
o stimulate nitrogen fixation in shrub communities,
A open the hillside to improve sight distance (allows the
bighorn to forage further from escape terrain),
0 reduces the time spent foraging (this is done by reducing
the overstory vegetation which can interfere with the bighorns
ability to find high quality forage),
0 opens historic migration routes and retains existing
migration routes that are become heavily vegetated.
The only way to accomplish these items on the Booth Creek: site
is with a prescribed burn. Other methods of habitat improvement
(brush beating, chaining) required the site be accessible for heavy
equipment. Further treatments requiring heavy equipment can caused
increased soil problems on steep sites. There have been
suggestions of using volunteers to cut the brush. This will remove
the ta11 brush and aspen trees but doesn't achieve the desired
goals of improving the forage quality. This type of treatment will
not stimulate grass and forb production nor will it remove the
overstory of herbaceous shrubs that can interfere with the bighorns
ability to find forage.
Some people have questioned why do the burn if the sheep herd
is in good condition. The following should answer those questions:
1) The key to this question is you don't wait for something to
far apart before you take action to correct it. Also the
sheep can look healthy but is the habitat able to maintain
itself, habitat can take 20 years to recover from overgrazing.
2) The habitat for the bighorn sheep has been heavily grazed for
years and is reaching the level of overgrazing in some areas.
The burn will open up additional foraging areas for the
bighorn thereby dispersing the grazing pressure. The burn
will return the nutrients from the plant bio-mass into the
soil thereby providing a better soil quality, which in turn
will increase the productivity of the hillside.
3) If you don't treat the habitat before in starts into decline
the benefit from any habitat improvement is greatly reduced.
Booth Creek Burn Page 3 of 3
CDOW Andree 030197
4) The bighorn habitat is being continually impact from the
increasing population (housing at the town shops) and
recreation levels in the valley. The burn will provide
additional foraging areas away from the homes and I-70.
5) Although the bighoxns look healthy, all bighorns carry the
lungworm. Lungworm itself doesn't kill the sheep but
predisposes the sheep to pneumonia. If the bighorns become
stressed from poor quality habitat the probability of a
massive die-off greatly increases. When the bighorns are
concentrated in small foraging areas the concentration of
lungworm and other diseases increase.
A side benefit to this burn is the regeneration of the aspen
clones on the hillside. Aspen habitat is second only to riparian
habitat in the diversity of wildlife that use it. Allowing the
aspen clones to be replaced by pines will have a negative impact on
wildlife diversity.
Russ I hope this covers most of the questions you have. The
CDOW will provide additional comments when the burn plan is
completed. Please feel free to call me if you have any additional
questions, 926-4424.
Sincerely,
- IA41-`-'-
Bill Andree
District Wildlife Manager-Vail
xc: Johnston
Konishi
file
. . a
ngcnda last revised 4/03/97 9 am
DESIGN REVIEW BOAItD AGE1VDA-
lWednesday, Apri12, 1997
3:00 P.M.
1PRO.bEC'Il' ORIE1VTA'B'ION / NO Il.UNCIEI -Community DeveLopment Department 1:45
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Brent Alm Clark Brittain
Ted Hingst
Bill Picrcc
Grcg Amsdan (PEC)
S?'g'E VISVTS - 2:15
l. Burgermeister - 1502 Buffehr Creek Road
2. Peters - 4193 Spruce Way
Driver: Lauren
9'UB1LIC HIEA?t0NG - TOiWN COUNCfl~, CHAMBERS 3:00
1. Swcaring in of the ncw DRB member (Bill Picrce) - Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk.
2. Election of DRB Chairperson and Vicc-Chairperson for a one-year term (4/97-4/98).
Chairpcrson - Brcnt Alm No Vice-Chairperson selected at this time.
3. Pcters - New residence attached to an existing unit Laurcn
4193 Spruce Way/Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Steven Peters, represented by Steve Isom
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WI'II'H 4 CONDI'B'I0N5 -
1. That 3 spruce and 3 aspen be added to the west side.
2. That a tree mitigation plan be provided.
3. That limits of disturbance be shown on the site plan.
4. That the railing on the existing structure be replaced to meet code and match the new
railing and the T-111 be replaced with wood siding.
,
4. Burgermeister - New single-family residence Lauren
1502 Buffehr Creek Road/Tract A, Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing #2.
Applicant: Michael Burgermeister, represented by Steve Isom
CONClEPTUAL REVIEW -NO 5~OTE
1Y1WN *VAIL
, .
5. Vail Athletic Club - Final review of Phase II redevclopment/renovation Mikc
352 E. Mcadow Drive/Parccis A& B, Vail Villagc First Filing. .
Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represcnted by John Perkins
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Biil Pierce VOTE: 4-0
'd'ABLED UNTIL APRiL 16,1997
6. Leach - Final review of a new single-family residence Tammic
1390 Buffehr Creek Road/Envelope B, Parcel 4, Lions Ridge Filing #2.
Applicant: David and Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Bill Pierce VOTE: 4-0
APPR0VED WITH 3 CONDITIONS-
That the split-face granite be changed to a Buff Colorado sandstone to be laid in an
ashlar/brick fashion.
2. That the railing details and colors shall be reviewed and approved by staff.
3. That the plat be pc•operly executed prior to the issuancc of any building permits.
7. Koenig Residence - Final review of a primary/secondaty with an EHU Tammic
392 Beaver Dam Circle/Block 3, Lot 4, Vail Village 3rd,
Applicant: Howard Koenig, represented by Bill Reslock
MOTION: Tcd Hingst SECOND: Grcg Amsdcn VOTE: 4-0
APPIROVED
8. Information Update:
a Election of 1997 officcrs.
Namc Term Expire Terms Served
Bill Pierce 03/31/99 03/97-03/99 (1)
Brent Alm 03/31 /99 04/95-03/99 (2)
Clark Srittain 03/31/98 03/96-03/98 (1)
TedHingst 03/31/98 03/96-03/98 (1)
1997 PEC Representative
John Schofield Jan. - Mar.
Gene Uselton Apr.- Jizn.
Galen Aasland Jul. - Sept.
TBD Oct. - Dec. ,
Staff Ap.provals
Red Sandstone Elementary - New chain link fence Diz-k
551 N. Frontage Rd./Lot S, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch lst
Applicant: Eagle Caunty School District .
2
Dreschcr - Window addition Dirk
244 Wall Strect/Lot L, Clock 5-C, Vail Village lst Filing
Applicant: Jarcd Drescher
Jaurcgui - Dcck cnclosurc Dirk
600 Vail Valley Drivc, #A-13/Northwoods
Applicant: Miguel Jauregui
Mariscal - Deck enclosure Di.rk
600 Vail Valley Drive, #A-15/ Northwoods
Applicant: Jose Mariscal
Spruce Creek Townhomes - Color change and reroof Dirk
1750 S. Frogtage Rd. WesbSpruce Creek Townhomes
Applicant: ' Spruce Creek Townhomes Association
Innsbruck Meadows - Alterations to previously approved plans George
Kinnickinnick Road/Lot 2, Intcrmountain.
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by Sally Brainard
Bartlit - Two 250's with minor exterior alteration Tammic
778 Potato Patch Drivc/Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Fred Bartlit, representcd by Laura Nash
GNC Wcst Vail Mall - Sign Dirk
2151 N. Frontage Rd. Wcst
Applicant: Mike Nudd
Ross - Reroof Dirk
] 297 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st.
Applicant: Don Ross
Pitkin Creek Condos - Reroof and eave extensions Dirk
4021 Bighorn Rd./Pitkin Creek Park
Applicant: Pitkin Crcek Condominium Association
Guinness - Window and door installation Dirk
950 Red Sandstone Road, Unit 6
Applicant: John & Christiana Gninness
Saldanha - IDeck expansion Dirk
1380 Westhaven Drive/Lot 22, Glen Lyon -
Applicant: Stephan Saldanha The applications and information about the proposals are available for pub(ic inspection during regular office hours in the project
planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information. ~
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: April 8, 1997
SUBJECT: A request to allow for two off-site parking spaces for the Swiss Chalet, located at
62 E. Meadow Drive/Part of Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Viliage 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
Planner: Lauren Waterton
, I. BACI(GFiOl1ND ARID DESCRIPI'IOR9 OF THE REQUEST
The appiicant is requesting to allow for two parking spaces to be located partially off the property
of the Swiss Chalet. The two parking spaces are required due to an increase in the parking
requirement for the property. The applicant received Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) approval on March 10, 1997 for three variances in order to enlarge the entry to the Swiss
Chalet. As part of this project, an interior remodel will reconfigure the hotel lobby and create a
separate bar area for the restaurant. The enlarged bar area increases the parking requirement
for this property.
The parking spaces would be located on the north side of the building and would encroach onto
the property of the 8avaria Haus (also owned by the Sonnenalp Properties). These two parking
spaces woutd encroach approximately 13 feet onto the property of the Bavaria Haus. According
to Section 18.52.080 (Parking Standards) of the Vail Municipal Code, alt required parking must
be located entirely withiri lot lines. However, Section 18.52.060 (Parking - Off-Site and Joint
Facilities) allows the Town Council to approve off-site parking.
The Swiss Chalet is located within the Public Accommodation zone district. This district requires
that all parking be located on-site and that 75% of it be enclosed. The three variances related to
parking, approved by the PEC, include, not providing all the additional required parking spaces
on-site (1.64 spaces not provided), not providing 75% of the required parking within the building
and allowing for parking in the front setback.
The Parking and Loading section of the zoning code requires that any applicant receiving a
variance for the number of parking spaces located on-site must pay into the Town of Vail Parking
Fund. Therefore, the applicant must pay-in-lieu for the 1.64 spaces that are not provided on-site.
Additionally, should the Town Council not approve the request for the two additional spaces
located partially off-site, the applicant would be required to pay into the Parking Fund for those
spaces, as well.
II. rRITERIA USED FOR EVALUAYING THIS REQUEST
The review criteria for this request are established in Section 18.52.060 (Parking - Off-site and
Joint Facilities), and are as foilows:
A. The facility must be located within 300 feet of the use served.
The parking spaces are located partially on the property of the Swiss Chalet and
will be located within 300 feet of the building.
B. Location of the proposed facility and the operation and maintenance of such
facility fulfills the purpose section of Parking and Loading chapter of the Vail
Municipal Code.
'These spaces are located adjacent to the Swiss Chalet and adjacent to parking
for the Bavaria Haus. Staff believes that the proposal meets the purpose section
and will help to meet the parking demand for the uses on-site.
C. The proposed parking will be as useable and convenient as parking located
- on-site.
These spaces are located closer to the building than most of the parking spaces
located on-site. Staff believes that these spaces will be as useable and
. convenient as the existing, on-site parking.
D. The proposed parking will not cause traffic congestion.
Staff believes that the proposed parking will not interfere with the existing parking
for the Bavaria Haus or the Talisman Condominiums. These spaces do not
reduce the width of the access to the Talisman, and staff believes that this
request will not cause traffic congestion.
E. The proposed parking will not create an unsightly concentration of parked
cars.
Staff believes that the addition of these two spaces will not create an unsightly
concentration of parked cars. The parking for the Swiss Chalet is not contained
within one area, and these spaces are separated from the other parking spaces.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing to improve the streetscape along East
Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. Staff believes that these improvements
will screen the existing and proposed parking from the street.
Ili. PLANPlING AtdD ENVIRONIViENTAL COiV16UIISSION RECOMMENDATION
The PEC recommended that Town Council approve the applicant's request to allow for these two
spaces to be added as parking for the Swiss Chalet. They also recommended that should either
property ever be transferred separately, that the applicant would be required to pay into the
Parking Fund for these two spaces at that time.
2
BV. STAFE RECOHAMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow for two parking spaces to be located partially
off-site, subject to the following finding:
1. That the criteria for off-site parking facilities have been met.
The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition:
1. The Town Council has the ability to require any legal instrument necessary to
ensure continuation of such facilities. Staff recommends that the applicant and
the Town enter into an agreement that requires the owner of the property to notify
, the Town should either property be transferred separately. At the time of transfer,
the owner would be required to pay-in-lieu for the two spaces. The pay-in-lieu fee
would be determined by the rate at that time.
3
i
~
1 • -
t-,r:,,lDow n21VC.
.
P
ROPERN LIN
~ ~ ' t/'~';,!1~•-~'~'„rj= 4 F ~
- / ,
ncw nn.f~e
~ ` ~ ~ 1 . , ~
~
V' /F ~ J`. /il;,~? i~~ ~ " J.'; o~'~.
\ / ~ ; ~ d ' ~ ~ , /~j~ ~ ~ • _
~~~M ~ 1 _ , ~~•r~~i, ~ ~ ~ . i/ . ' . Y\~.o ~ .
\N.: ,rP , ^ E•
TV1/O
SPACES
UNDER CONSIDERATION
WITH THIS PROP
~ ~ ` Rcu
OSAL
-Trr
\ % T I I 1 I 5 ~
I S w'SS /i
CHALET _ O ~
i 1 Q I,-
~ .
~
~ ~ ~r•,T, ~ n'
~
1
/7 T[•.t Tv.v
co
1Y 'A¢rH~ ^R~C
y.bJ mR~S
1
1
`
' \
~
dd
e4
ll OV'D'N OF D't7tI1L .
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157 MEMORAiVDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney ~`jGt
DATE: April 3, 1997
RE: Berry Creek 5th Filing Land Use Plan
On April 3, 1997, at the regular quarterly meeting of the Eagle County Recreation Authority, •
Rick Pylman of Peter Jamar Associates presented the Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit
Development at Berry Creek 5th Filing. It is anticipated that this preliminary plan will be filed
sometime in April. On June 14th of 1994, the Eagle County Board of County Commissions
approved a sketch plan PUD for the Berry Creek 5th Filing. The sketch plan approval included
recreational, equestrian, residential, and educational uses. The proposed preliminary plan is
consistent with the sketch plan that has been previously approved.
The Plan's key features provide opportunities for public recreation fields and facilities and open
space in the form of a regional park along with the opportunity for equestrian facilities,
educational facilities, and limited housing development.
In regard to the housing development, it is assigned in the 1993 approved sketch plan to a 16.5
acre parcel on the northeast corner of the property. It was approved with a density of 91 units.
The proposed Preliminary Plan restricts residential development to a maximum of 91 dwelling
units consistent with a condition placed upon the sketch plan by the Eagle County Board of
County Commissioners. Please contact Anne Wright if you are interested in receiving a copy of
the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan.
On a related item, on April 16th the Eagle County School District RE50J will be holding a
meeting at the Edwards Elementary School to discuss proposed land uses which are being
developed by the School Board's land use planner. It is anticipated that this will also involve
discussions concerning the use of the Berry Creek 5th Filing, in addition to the Miller Ranch
which is owned by the School District. It is not anticipated that there will be any review of the
proposed land use plan by the School District or the Recreation Authority prior to this public
dissemination on April 16th.
If any additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks. ~
RTM/aw
l
Z?~~ RECYCLEDPAPER
~1
RECE6VED A~~ ~
Cift e Wo use
CONDOMINI UMS
555 East Lionshead Circle
Vail, Colorado 81657
970476-2340 o 800-654-0635
FAX 476-9303
March 28, 1997
To: Vail Town Council
As an owner of a Lifthouse Condominium and agent for the other forty-four
condominium owners in the Lifthouse building, I would like to convey our concern in
regard to the redevelopment of Lionshead.
Our building has enjoyed the existing views since we opened on IVlarch 12,
1973. Our location and views have been very important to our economic success. If
Vail Associates is allowed to increase the height of their new development, the impact
on our bui{ding wou{d be felt in a number of ways:
1. It would reduce property values;
2. It would decrease our rentals to a large extent if our views were to
be eradicated;
f +ho
3. !t would s°~'°r?l" !!''.';nuct thc rlt~rkc vf tho rpJc+~i ~ron~e . 1 n frnnI+l v nl ll
~ . ~ i i auul iA~ I\v
Lif4house where our guests enjoy the sunny Apres Ski. The idea of
the redevelopment is to bring guests to Lionshead, and open,
sunny decks are a very important factor in that decision-making
process;
4. Any additional height will increase the liability factor in regard to
the ice build-up in the Mall and, potentially, an increase in law suits
against the Town.
We are totally in favor of the redevelopment of Lionshead and wish to involve
ourselves with a serious upgrade of our bui{ding. You are the elected officials charged
with the responsibility of making decisions in accordance with the majority's wishes.
Thank you for your time and consideration in dealing with our concerns.. Please
feel free to contac4 me for any further input.
Sincerely,
Douglas (Packy) Waiker
General Manager, Lifthouse Condominiums
cc: Bob NicLaurin, Town Manager
v-Pa r~i Brandemeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Suzanne Silverfhorne, Public Relations, Town of Vail
David Corbin, Vail Associates
Gary Boris, Lionshead Merchant's.Association
Nlike DeAnse, Vantage Point
Jeff Wright, Destination Resorts
Will Miller, IVlontaneros
Kit Williams, Lazier Properties
Allison Parrish, Bart & Yeti's
EAST VffILLAGE flOMEOWNERS ASSOCIAT'ION9 INCo
Of6cers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Pah-ick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulldns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
To: Mayor Bob Armour and Members of the Town Council
David Corbin, Vail Associates
From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director
Date: Mazch 31, 1997
1ZE: Stage Two Wish List, Lionshead Master Plan
~ The following list of facilities and improvements are submitted at the request of many
members and affiliates associated with the Homeowners Association. The Boazd of Directors of
the Homeowners Association has not at this time taken a position regarding the merits of specific
proposals. However, the Association notes that at the time of public hearings regarding the con-
tent of the Lionshead master planning contract, it was sta.ted by representatives of the Town Ad-
ministration and Vail Associates that the interconnecting links between Lionshead and the Vail
Village commercial centers were included in the Lionshead master planning process and contract.
As well, systemic interconnections such as truck deliveries, parking, roadways, traffic manage-
ment and mass transportation systems were included as subjects of inquiry and analysis in the
Lionshead master planning process. The Town Council concurred that these matters were to be
included in the planning process.
The Association is concerned that in the statement of "Lionshead Community Policy Ob-
jectives" and accompanying public relations literature that the solicitation of facilities and im-
provements to interconnecting links and systemic interconnections does not appear to be readily
explicit. As a consequence, we are concerned that there may not be a full awareness nor fair re-
presentation of the need for including those facilities and improvements in the Lionshead Master
Plan that may serve the broader interests of the community and the affected surrounding neighbar-
hoods. Therefore, we request that the public be more fully informed regarding this aspect of the
planning process and that the door remains open to the inclusion of any credible ideas throughout
the entirety of the planning process. It is the intent of the Association to continue to raise and ad-
vocate the inclusion of the following issues and related matters on behalf of its members and af-
filiates throughout the duration of the Lionshead Master Planning process.
The following list of improvements addresses all or specific "Lionshead Community Poli-
cy Objectives" or have been discussed or included in other pertinent community planning docu-
ments and venues. The financing for the following facilities is dependent upon the type of facility
in relationship to its primary user group and beneficiaries. In no event are genera( property taar
increases advocated or other types of tax increases that would have an adverse impact upon the
competitiveness of the community's businesses. The following list is subject to changes, additions
and modifications.
1. Truck Delivery terminal to provide partial or total support for truck deliveries in both
Vail Village and Lionshead.
2. If the expansion of the inventory of public parking spaces is require, do so in structures
on the West and/or North Lionshead Day Skier Parking Lots and/or expand the capacity of the
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970)
827-5856
Lionshead Master Plan/EVHA/JFI,/3/31/97
Page 2
existing Lionshead parking structure. These parking structure sites are preferrable to the expan-
sion of public parking elsewhere in the community, with the possible exception of the Vail Village
Parking Structure.
3. Locate a Regional Mass Transporta.tion Center in conjunction with a Lionshead Public
Pazking Structure.
4. Complete South Frontage Road traffic flow improvements including east bound I-70
offramp west of Lionshead, realignment of South Frontage Road north and west of Vail Associ-
ates Maintenance Facility, roundabouts at key intersections between the main Vail roundabout and
the west entrance to Lionshead. Reduce the net amount of asphalt surfacing associated with all
- aspects of the redevelopment.
- 5. Complete the Civic Center Complex with a performing art center, in conjunction with
other recreational and cultural facilities compatible with eacisting improvements and that are ap-
propriate for the present civic center site (east end of the Lionshead parking shucture).
6. Comp(ete West Meadow Drive Streetscape plan to improve safety for pedestrians, bik-
ers, and bladers by esta.blishing the street as the primary non-motorized route between Vail Village
and Lionshead. Divert all non-essential motorized traffic onto Frontage Road system including
non-essential mass transportation and high speed bike haffic.
7. Establish wildlife and riparian habitat nature preserves in wetland areas and on stream
tract lands on all stream courses between Lionshead and Vail Village.
8. Provide service access to Vail Mountain for maintenance equipment and personnel on
routes and in a manner that minimizes conflict with established residential areas.
cc: Bob Galvin
Board of Directors
. .
_x.. , t _ . t _.y~
~ . . `
. . . . . - - . . , . 3. ~iY~, ,
~ . . • - _ . . . • . ' - . . .
~
~ Arvada confl icts iiastler
CounCj19 CjtjZ~?ns The protesters included Dave back of the chambers. The coun-
Chandler, a wry but intense man cil members complain that Chan- f~..
clash over growth Who ran for the council last ear ~
and regularly churns out ress re- dler .and his group sometimes c:
By Stacie Oul4on leases and a newsletter uestion- smirk or pretend that they are
Denver Post Staff Writer ing the council's integrity and gagging. ~
. ARVADA - It was a St. Pat- truthfulness. His silent protest The proposal to limit public
rick's Day sight to see in Arvada Was indicative of his penchant to comment - Which now appears
, two weeks ago. go talking during the council likely to die a silent death befor.e.
for 's a final vote -
public comment time and make came because the L
A handful of protesters showed his case in other forums. He lead ing
s council was angered over a meet- up at the city council meeting a group of residents called the last month when 100 area res- , with green packing tape strapped Arvada Good Government Com- idents packed a conference room .
across their mouths in a stinging mittee. to try to comment at a routine f:
- and unusual - challenge to a The protest was just the latest County cornmissio erse Jefferson!.' ,
proposab to limit public com- irritant to cluncil members, who The council has sgen the ire of;;.:.
ments at council meetings to 15 routinely keep an eye on Chandler
.
minutes on any given issue. and his cohorts as they sit in the
Please see AR!/ADA on 6E=~
. . • • . _ . . ..s _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ..,-M < ' :
0
. `Y.
;s.
. • ~i:y.f
. . y:
y..
• -
3
_ •,+yA
. ~yt
• 'rt'
F:
.
. .
;a}
. .,,•.-r..
.;r
y~
. I
. . . , : _ _ ~~•..~-a4,Lax.
' • . ~ , THE DIINR POST • ' ' / / . Sunday, March 30, 1997
o ' o m - ~
i - Council, citlzens clash on owth F.:K5
~ ~
, ARVADA from Page 1 B ,.f.y~;+_
residents before, but Councilwom-
an Lorraine Anderson acknowl•
A' ~aesemom.er Jnaww, nntrew am HaAwnuw edged that members lost their cool 2
~tl~aoc~semom~er
^ KmrnuN,MVvi, amvmshvensafcapra that day, trustrated that so many
Diiikwhe MaiwY lB&NRT, W~e 06W AM 6 WunswaM '
Horm6Mcfpby um,~erro pnw,w¦rdsanm pebple came to speak on topics the
~saer's ~d rn«nvviwraei, u nw amuer mn a wmswam - I -
~oerswqwarnanmmoews,r,wna nwae~owadM~n,mv council didn't think were pertinent.
ro Hamamccamrv PASTORE,ROU ftmsn+ccmmv Some council members have also
r~+maninw+~v eon+a~o,efma nvaoahaun+«+uOv been irritated by county residents
, ~~~Y ~T.~ ~'s who appear to speak on city issues
swNa+s,Earl aurva.sh"msa.cmira the think wi11 affect them.
Ofiqc's FtQltluid MorUuvSFEtiFMaN, Cmbtte klormi Matuvv Y f r- ;
v Hormarxcamv wnc+sR,r+e.r cnwe+rmMarWv Anderson, who has been on the
council for 12 years, said the show 1%,
SenLrgTheDenserCommuntrySineel89p of force was a manipulation of the ~e • ; . ~ T +
governmental process.
n
~ This northwest suburb has a his-
tory of rancorous meetings, includ-
, ~ 832•7832 - E. nm ;i~~+1.~.wrc,• ing an era in the late 1980s when
Joanne Conte's citizen alliance
5-3663 433-6425 - w. 29th 233-4611
group prodded the council on a doz- N
LEIINART- R'AGiVER- en issues. The flamboyant Conte
mroi~~ c~ouµ~+.Mmnnm won a seat on the cour.cil in 1991
Me CMSNm ADert J. Bval. DaqIE C Ua ther 01 BettV Ftr0u5m, ArH t
ioo~s~.en• a M. ~i,o,~,q~K,R SleWrcnW~ but was voted off two years ago.
.avcn~a~o shterme e I.Me
rno~er, IanO, RoEneV L %
'~..nwcw a ome~i~~ ivoa~~, owmaa, wn, ona The tape protest and study Ses-
RV. lunl5, Mak StMM~, uM M E.'
b,~pn rx°;'~.4GOIorGYafe. n~n w~ DOtlaS, . sion are just part of that ongoing
if L. 01 16: Pamoa. Tx O Ds e
1 history, residents and council ~
o~~ai-o~~ama~n« of av 5~py,~JlfkfonAlSOWvrvmp
y NKtS, nlOhlwS d o,~ n OrnndchllErcn, 165 members saY• But some believe the
wnero~, r~esday, oeatoanuar o~ a
1:70Ae~m.M. Ollnper woas- reat•crernacmcrond<hiiea ren ,n c6op vi~umm~, k~ Mo~aov ~.ooo.M.,
conflicts have taken on more dis-
HM CNCk. ~y,7-0PM
CHAPEL HILL MbRTUARV
courteous and personal tone.
mt-Ie ~ en+ we _
"qM1°0'"': moria cara<n:. a.ronue. Chandler and Conte color the
(1 ~ menn ov aanxr tnaoei Km
~
MORRIS- Ma+~. , aeoi s. coio~mo council as an entrenched, arrogant
UovNMpd597,fwmerty &°`~,u'~`r°" group that's disrespectful and
Som of Dmver. Scrvke TuesOOV.
~ 10 ~oN^+ ~ aA~ leer of citizens. The council fires
~ w. svm nve. m ea Y .
~H+. back that Chandler is out for politi- M1,` rne oenver Post I erien erea;ere
cmw,s to eem eam em~nt
c~~.<~, sew woa~wa~m, cal gain and their other critics mis- Dave Chandler, one of the Arvada city counciPs house where he publishes an anti-govemmgnt-
°"iveB0715 represent the facts to inflame the most ardent critics, Shows the `war room' in his newsletter.
r mo,. situation.
M[TCHELL- Some in the middle are tired of
Tumtlar. G.CbvNJtUMallakewooE, = •
w. mnoma m oo~ rmn~~ the fight. ARVADA FACTS
,rm c~. PRE-PLANNING
a„~r. °r~eav, A n t, r.oop.ht., ISATIMELYWAY `1t's like two kids fighting,° said ~ , .
TOFASEGIUEF 1 Charles "Hereford" Percy, presi- Population:89235
RackY Mountofn Socleh o~ Median home velue:
„a, o,m,. FOR THOSE YOU HAVE dent of FirstBank North and presi- , ` t ,~~r ~ ~ ~ $89,800.
Lw~ iyn r+cuov, 13640 endt Ct•, LOVED A LIFETIME dent of the Arvada Economic De-
M: faMKf 07 grppn~lllE,CO800P0.
velopment Associatioa ~ Median household income:
Ktl1x~ ~ Percy and others outside the bat- $39,000
71.1 ~:mu., m sexcr: rui Seles tex: 7.5 erCenL
'~10dia,~ Ue note that the two sides spend a ~ „ p
SCHAIIDT- OL~vicee ~Major employers: Cobe La~
~u~, cw~m, 'wrmm i. smmm, •:600 l«n I rxEt~ lol of time calling each other liars ~
iNAtOdt.Re. f Nprt f45. MMII t:l lll h\\ 41'f:\I'~k: a 1 `l ~ +
instead of respecting diFferent oratories, the cih/ of Arvad
~ ~~'d~~ ~ Sna~ o~ •„9s «F„s n~~~..ce ,3-Q~_ Sundstrand Fluid Handlina ;
o inions. That effectivel cuts o(f
P Y +~•fft ~ SaxCe:TneatyM AnaEa ~se~m1990
nme.~s.a. e.m i xrmav, MOORE HONARU mmunication
~ry IKM' NWO 4:\tT 171h A1 F.\l'k co. ce^S~s a~u
one~ oma ~ry mso t t wmdcniarm. ser - • [
nm ~ vka,MaMOY,7PM.kev~mc~7JY54{F~I :41h,\\'4.1IIF: BIIL tfle COIlE11CtS. SaV LI12 artici- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
WeOnesCay, uble Hevt ol Mory Catlidk CROR1 IIILL
P P
~ants, also are a sYmPtom of a
oeaM1m~s~ ov wcHUNO •m~~r.+~ +nn n~r~i for the ConvenienCe of the cifizeus?
%~o``runav, iom~ u~, s~ problem familiar to every metro And it will come down lo if those'
e~rs assan m tu ot rw e~ ao~arwns HIGHL4ND CHdPF,L
s~,shsoo, ~,~wxp~~~ioio,mo~wa •!wusn~N~n~~t.rt: area resident and government: ~ro~asu n.- n~. nw„n~~ o,: aftected will be able to stop ik': '
vo~„ ~m a7~e-,wev~~~w rb,m. ctLAPeL HILL • Growing pains. As sprawling subdi- +
N. »m S. cn~ uuau„ x~.cn. v~sions bear down on roads, schools Anderson and council supporters
Ult PRE-ARRANGED FUNERALS HONORED and other services, disputes about say Chandler's consWnt drumbeat.
that the rnuncil is in the back pock
what should be done escalate. R+!
OVER 1,000 MORTUARIES M1ATIONWIDE one'
et of developers amounts to an pn
"If you're affecting taxpayers, wa
V rranted persona] atlack
they tend to strike out in a more ot many t6at he launches inhis'' ~
hostile way than they might have . rna oenver Posi i cien Merti~ newsletters.
~ g," Y Council member Lorraine Anderson said protesters' show of force
~ l 10 Years a o said Arvada Ma or "Our perception is that the Good .
Robert Frie, who has been on the Was a manipulation of the governmental process. Government Committee has• '
RUNYAN council for 20 years.
, ,~[J]tQ~ Once a bedroom community, Arv been out there stirring issues that
STEVENSON 93 and 72. said the city fails to dis- the quality.' " aren't really issues," Anderson;
C~SE cnr,TO?. WOODS vada has grown into a city of tinguish between needed economic For much of the 'SOs, residents said.
90,000, hemmed in by Westminster ~owth and urban sprawl. su orted an owth as a wa
nn Aurora Lakcwuod Golden to the north and east, Denver and PP Y B~' Y to She complains t6at Chandler and?.
dAve. 1~s 11•~~~rosi. 6425 Rc.~i~rr,ed, i ith 4 W:,sh,oci~~n ' Adams County to the southeast and ~efferson Center could bring create jobs, Frie said. But when others orchestrated the massive:
21 366-3551 ?3;_3~3~ z7y~~57j Wheat Ridge to the south. about 95 more homes into the can- the commercial growth waned, turnout at the February council,:~
Arvada can grow only west to- Yon, part of project that would ulti- Percy said, residential growth con- session and manipulated the pro->.
-ward the foothills, through once-ru- matety include 1,000 homes pl~s tinued, causing residents to focus _
~ai-~.,~~e.e.-ei_a-. _ commercial and.. retail develop- on the negative effects of new pop- "It you can go in and manipulate'
chettes. Growth is especially ment in [he city. wation. Ete expecrs growth-re/ated ' a goveming body in suc6 a way to'
ainful for residents who live on "I think eo le rew issues such as [raffic to be a key disrupt it, to keep their' (ocus ofE-
' 60MER0- SIMMONS- P p p gnize growth factor in the council election this some of the main issues, it hel
Ro~muake~ E '~~a,•,n,~ o,~ a~aoy ~ t Kiowm that land and wnsider it "the last is inevitable. The question is not tall. "There is a growing force to ain ou li ~
ma ~~d, tokm., w~a~usbov. ~ vestige of the West," Frie said. will we grow. The more important B Y pa hcal power,'." she sald.
v,m a~~ a~.s~~~e~,o~~caonoi change the council," he said.
awosv- v. mf«~i aaw~ "H'hen you grow west there's an question is how will we grow," said Chandler (ires back that the
kmn~ ~ NIII'Seme ery. ~milvkuoi immediate difference." Tom Maglaras, an Arvada resident Chandler, whose crew has taken council discounts his group's ef~
°"'"°,'ss But the batUe isn't drawn strict- who lost a fi ht over a small devel- the place of Conte's group as the fo
rts tor personal reasoc~s.
s"+.d~ ' u. ste. 700, oenv«, e8 g m
80~'~ ly along no-growth vs. pro-growth opment'on a strip o( land known, council's constant needler, said the "They like to see personality in,-
lines as much as over what consti- after its shape, as the "banana" council fails even to listen to resi- terjected ioto these kinds of de=
p~di«e~ tutes proper growth. parcel. "That's where the citizens dents
&MCCONATY bates because when the do tha
of Tom Hotfman, a Coat Creek and the city part ways because the "The problem is that people then they can avoid addressing tAe
psmror Canyon resident fighting the pro- city says, 'Come one, come all, put know~ going in how the vote will go real issue," he says.
Meeluary posed 18,000-acre Jefferson Center up whatever you want.' The citi- and that the council won't look to Conte and others say that, pci,
oIM0UM0UVfT(FMF7FRY development at Colorado highways zens are saying, 'LeYs think about alternatives to make a situation vately, some council members dG
' 11d01
~
Prited.. Superior bq lar W. NM Ar-w satisfy both sides." he said. "I think make biting, inapproPriately d' ;
b . ~o~ 425-951 t
o~'T~ARt~~ (res, ~dents) organize becauseghere paraging remarks about citizens. •
Infortnation 477•1627 ABEYTA- really is a culture of arro ance Councilman Bob Dyer also faults
J Bhd . _..477•1625 Fw,o ax~+o of o~~~« c~- that you know you're up against some of his council colleagues for
rado elvd. 757-1238 Mo; oi Grace I. Hayward John Thomas Parks once a developer comes m." treating citizens who come before
Rknora a.xvro, »on a~emm~ It'S a com la' y ,
cer eoad 745-441e ~ R~~a a~~,~~«. dio Homemaker, nurse, 90 Produce truck off-loader, 61 p mt raised b sever• them Ppprly.
. De°""~,t"o„`"°°W"'°"o al nei hborhood rou s tha[ have
Isworth Blvd
.............986-9615 ~i~= ~o`M"d.~ma,d Grace I. Hayward of Loveland, a John Thomas Parks of Denver, a g g P But Anderson said it's only hu-
eat orona,nuc,er. M~s or homemaker and nurse, died Friday in produce truck off•loader, died fought the council on growth is- man to lash out~ "If I'm confronfa(=,
; Oui famlly Seroing Yours o00 ~~"'aBuiafbMe; Loveland. She was 90. µ'ednesday in Denver. He was 61. sues. They say the councit dcesn't tional with you, you're going to be
~a~, evs imi~, oerver, m+... hold developers to the standards confrontational back. When sorime-
~,,ma„t on~~rce-tny. Private memorial services will be Graveside services will be at 1:30
HOUGHLAND- set out in city codes. back and rails at ti~;
a,,,,~. ~a„~~ ABOTE- held. There was cremation. P.M. Monday at LaHarpe Cemetery one comes
~a a~o~1O ,°r'a"~°~"n",,,":f c`°°we~"°r°rn°~~°oi rnf She was born April 30, 1906, in Up- in LaHarpe, Kan. But council members and their you're going to put up your d~
Jucgth ~mos e~. (F.R.P. 4kehur5l~' OrorbC~rlStian e~,ml, land, Neb. On Jan. 14, 1935, she mar- He was born Ocl 4, 1935, in Red- supporters disagree and say critics fenses."
, Monaav ~or',w,.,KOa~„ ^AOntlay, 100° ried Frank °S ike" Ha ward in Love- tield, Kan. His interests included fail to understand that they can't At another council meetin las'f
Ra`'1Diy`..,°~,. s°~ ,°'wiv"doY; Chu/U 1985 M~IIk, P Y g
I~T~ ~M. s nkc~r~ ~~w~a,~~~,o~„~~]and. He is deceased. Sports and fishing. tell a property owner not to devel- Monday on the Jefferson Cente~;
a~~a s~"0"k'n,o< ~ m~~~ mov ~°~+O She graduated from nursing school He is survived by tive sisters, Gol- op land. The council can oNy shape most everyone expected another il~ r+orro~m x,w~n uoo rowth within certain uidelines, sni m session. But the meeting
`„~.x,,,-' «atooM,n~ omror,coeoa6e. in Tallahassee, Fla., and the Univer- die Cunningham, Colorado Springs, B, g pp' g
's1 w'~00v~,"~, sity of California at Berkeley. Hay Martha McIntyre and Nancy Culbert- sa~d Councilman Don Allard. was remarkably civil. ~
s, ewnuur - ivao sf,oemer
N~~Y W2„e aard and her sister, Helen Denton, son, both of Weed, CaliL, Anna Mae The dispute comes down to That meeting, both sides said;
~ ~[ot ~ i~ . oenm ~u tnerrv st.,
R,goran the first hospital in Loveland, the Combs, Independence, Mo., and Es- "whose ox is being gored," Frie was a good starting point for actu-,
°i~60.C010' PASfOHE- ~R~OUnZ Namaqua Hospital, which apened in ther Combs, Osawatomie, Kan. said. "We need to.have some road aliy setting aside the bickering a4
Po~fae o} pMm 1932. expaosion. IYs not a question of •really talking. But the running bat=
R6x D. MORTUARY
"1oi0o~
w, a~. imv m M,,,,ti She enjoyed cooking, canning and Elberta Brown Linn growth or no growth. Do we need it tle could cbntinue.
k,e~°~bss~Mroa„" ea°,'. a9s-o5s~ playing bridge. HD
,a,m,,(rea„~ ,,,so,n„oum~c memaker, nurse, 87
There are no immediate survivors.
Elberta Brown Linn of Littieton a
^ 7 ~
Oft-n AWACW •
roFONCRO' ,
~~~i Wayne Coons Jr. 2omemaker and nurse, died March
Councfl
expected. to c~~o
R e tu e d produce man a er 72 • Sbe was 87. •
. . - • 9 ate memorial sernces wiA be ° •
yne.GoonaJ;,ofrDenver:ands, hei OSe :'commentlt . ~
Y~ p~ ~e d,today There was cremaGon
i
APR- 2-97 WED 9:04 AM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX N0. 9709494280 P. 1
o p o
O p a
~
o ~0 1~~?o 2a 00 Itm ~a
Soaokaa 66um - Road
at irwkwuh R"d
a
i
ee
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADV@SORV
April 2, 1997
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
!!A0L TOiNN COUfVC6L HBGIiL@CHTS FOR AaPRBL I
VVork Session Briefis
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Interviews for Board Appointments
The Council interviewed two community members for an open position on the Local
Licensing Authority and six applicants for two openings on the Art in Public Places
Board. See evening meeting briefs for selection of appointments.
--Ford Park IVlanagement Plan
In reviewing final changes to the Ford Park Management Plan, the Council agreed to
eliminate policy statement 13, which had listed the park as a potential location for a
future community parking structure should the need arise. In suggesting removal of the
controversial policy statement, Council member Sybill Navas also successfully
convinced the other council members to modify policy statement 12 as a compromise to
allow the town to maintain flexibility by reviewing each situation on a case-by-case
basis. Policy statement 12, the only reference to parking in the document, will read as
follows: "Adequate parking for the needs of the park are to be provided in the park and
at the Village structure." During public input, Jim Lamont of the East Village
Homeowners Association offered some technical suggestions, while representatives
from the Vail Village Commercial Property Owners Association and the Vail Recreation
District continued to advocate for elimination of policy statement 13. Tom Steinberg
suggested the addition of a stairway for better access from the soccer field to the park.
Also, Arturo Brillembourg of Northwoods Condominiums expressed concerns about
congestion on Vail Valley Drive, while Kaye Ferry of the Vail Village Merchants
Association said she wouldn't object to a parking structure under ground, noting that
Vail already has a parking problem. Diana Donovan asked that parking for the park be
included as an allowable use within the document. She also suggested adding fences
around the retaining walls, preserving the mature trees by the Manor Lodge bridge and
combining the school house and Nature Center operations. Mike Ortiz, manager of the
tennis center, expressed concerns about a plan to relocate a tennis court at the town's
expense, noting safety and feasibility issues. For more information, contact Todd
Oppenheimer, TOV park superintendent, at 479-2161.
(more)
RECYCLED PAPER
r
I
TOV Council Highlights/Add 1
--Update on Public Works Seasonal Housing Development
Andy Knudtsen, senior housing policy planner, said the town's seasonal housing
development for the Public Works site is proceeding on schedule. The plans were
reviewed by the PEC and DRB on March 24, with both boards giving favorable reviews:
Also, no access requirements will be required by the Colorado Department of
Transportation, he said. Knudtsen said that once construction costs are determined by
the design-build team, he'll provide another update to the Council to review those
- figures. For more information, contact Knudtsen at 479-2440. ,
--Review of Existing Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) Policy and Possible
Alternatives
The Council heard a presentation from Russell Forrest, senior environmental policy
planner, and Tom Braun, the town's consultant, on the GRFA analysis. The Council
had directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine if it is an
appropriate tool for regulating mass and bulk when compared to other alternatives.
Yesterday, three alternatives were reviewed for single family, duplex and
primary/secondary type structures, only. The first alternative would keep GRFA, but
allow for development of interior space in existing homes. The second alternative
would keep GRFA, but not count basement space. The third alternative would
eliminate GRFA. Forrest presented information on the pros and cons of all three,
including the staff's recommendation to eliminate GRFA. (for a packet of the pros and
cons, please call 479-2115). Forrest also described discussions by the Planning and
Environmental Commission which ultimately voted 4-3 in favor of the first alternative
with several conditions. During discussion, Tom Steinberg urged the Council to require
employee housing units as a condition of approval, while Eric Larson wondered why the
Council is concerned about the "boxy" designs of single family homes when his building
site in Intermountain is surrounded by boxy condominiums. Pat Dauphinais advocated
for elimination of GRFA, saying it inhibits good design, while Jim Lamont suggested
consideration of rezoning neighborhoods such as West Vail and Intermountain to
address the issue. Diana Donovan read a prepared letter advocating enforcement and
compliance with the current regulations rather than throwing out #he system all together.
. Council members appeared to lean more heavily toward option one (with variations)
and asked that additional work be done to explore how employee housing opportunities
could be factored into the proposed option. Forrest and Braun will return to the Council
for an update and possible final decision at the April 15 work session.
--Development Review Improvement Process (DRIP)
The Council heard a brief overview on "DRIP" by Susan Connelly, director of the
Community Development Department. DRIP is an interdepartmental effort to improve
the existing development review process with involvement by the Community
Development Department, Public Works Department and Fire Department. Connelly
said the first phase of DRIP would be presented at this week's construction season
kick-off, which includes creation of a standards handbook and a proposed "trial run" of
an improved design review process for single family homes and duplexes. The
experiment will run April 14 though June 18, after which staff and customers would
evaluate what worked and what needs further refinement. Connelly said the impetus
for the DRIP effort was the frustration experienced by some of the town's customers, as
(more)
e TOV Council Highlights/Add 2 reflected in the annual Community Survey. For additional details, contact Connelly at
479-2140.
--Council Reports
Kevin Foley reported on a recent meeting of the Trails Committee of the Eagle County
Recreation Authority. Foley said the group decided to move the ribbon cutting for the
Dowd Junction Bike Path to Aug. 23 due to inconveniences caused by construction of
roundabouts in West Vail and Avon, and the Highway 6 widening project.
Sybill Navas attended a meeting of the Northwest Regional Council of Governments in
Walden. She stressed the value of attending such meetings because of the diversity of
opinions shared within the IVorthwest region.
--Other
Sybill Navas inquired about the status of a day care center requirement for the Vail
Commons project. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said a day care provider has been
selected for the site by City Market. Additional details are available from Andy
Knudtsen in the Community Development Department. On another matter, IVavas said
she was distressed to hear consideration of the possibility of a parking pay-in-lieu
option for Ford Park. The pay-in-lieu concept has been floated as a possibility for the
Alpine Garden Foundation which seeks to build an educational center near the soccer
field. IVavas said she wanted to go on record in opposition to the parking pay-in-lieu
option.
Even6ng Session Br6efs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
With Councilman Paul Johnston providing an overview of its history and purpose, the
annual Vail Youth Award was presented to Alissa Ferri of Vail Mountain School and
. Chad Sewell of Battle Mountain High School. Both are juniors and will be invited to
spend the summer in Mt. Buller, Australia, as part of the sister city program sponsored
by the Vail Valley Exchange and funded by the Town of Vail.
--Ordinance fVo. 7, Annual Elevator Inspection Fee
The Council voted 6-0 on first reading to approve an ordinance amending the Municipal
Code to provide for the adoption of an annual elevator inspection fee. The ordinance
enables future elevator inspection fee increases to be adopted by resolution. The
inspection program is managed by the IVorthwest Colorado Council of Governments.
For more information, contact Dan Stanek in the Community Development Department
at 479-2321.
--Ordinance IVo. 8, Proof of Insurance
The Council voted 6-0 on first reading to approve an ordinance establishing failure to
provide a certificate of insurance as a municipal traffic offense. The ordinance allows
violators to be cited in municipal court rather than county court. Municipal Judge Buck
Allen and Vail Police Chief Greg Morrison had recommended the action. For more
(more)
.
TOV Council Highlights/Add 3
information, contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2107.
--Ford Park Management Plan Resolution
After ironing out final details during the afternoon work session, the Council voted 6-0 to
approve a resolution approving and adopting the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan.
The action follows a two-year process involving leaseholders, community members and
other users of the park. For more information, contact Todd Oppenheimer, park
superintendent, at 479-2161. .
--Liquor Board Appointment
The Council appointed William F. (Bill) Bishop to the Local Licensing Authority. The
appointment will fill an unexpired term ending January 1998.
--Art In Public Places Board Appointment
The Council appointed Cathy Zaden and reappointed Jim Cotter to the Art in Public
Places Board. Both are three year terms to expire in February 2000.
--Seibert Circle Art Piece
At the suggestion of Town Manager Bob McLaurin, the Council tabled action on the
Seibert Circle art piece to allow time to explore options that would maintain the integrity
of the selection process initiated by the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP) and respect
the wishes of Vail founder Pete Seibert, for whom the circle is named. During
yesterday's meeting, AIPP representatives provided a detailed summary of the
selection process, which included creation of goals, specific criteria and a national call
to artists for creation of an art piece that would draw upon the area's natural beauty and
history, and would serve as a popular gathering place. Following more than 700
inquires, over 80 proposals were submitted from across the country. A selection jury
eventually narrowed the field to four semi-finalists. Then, following presentations on
March 20, the jury and AIPP Board yesterday presented its recommendation: pursue a
design development with Jesus Bautista Moroles and Design Workshop (not the design
as specifically presented). Jim Morter, a local architect who served on the jury, said the -
group's recommendation is to work with the design team in collaboration with the
community to produce a strong visual landmark and a meaningful tribute to Peter
Seibert. But there's a dilemma, he said, which diminishes the group's enthusiasm:
Pete Seibert doesn't agree with the recommendation and his criteria has changed from
what the jury had previously understood it to be. In respecting what Pete has meant to
Vail, Morter said the jury and AIPP Board would never try to push a design that Pete
didn't endorse. On the other hand, Morter said, the selection process should be
honored. Otherwise, Vail's credibility will suffer. As a result, Morter said the issue
extends beyond the arena of art and into the arena of a policy decision for the Town
Council. In addressing the Council, Pete Seibert acknowledged he'd been asked to
serve on the selection jury but had declined; his son, Calvin, served at Pete's request.
Pete said his interest from the beginning was to remain open to various artist
interpretations of what would be a fitting tribute for the circle. He said he hoped
something would come of the process; however, the results have been disappointing.
He said the art pieces, as proposed, are contemporary and better suited for Lionshead.
Warren Miller, Pepi Gramshammer and Joe Staufer urged the Council to support a
(more)
p Q
TOV Council Highlights/Add 4
more traditional design that would tell the story of Vail's history. The three also
criticized the artists for failing to make contact with Seibert during the design
development to learn more about him. Jim Slevin expressed respect for honoring Pete
Seibert, but said he would hate to see a bronze figure as the solution. Seibert said he
wasn't interested in a bronze or a statue. He said the circle should be a warm, friendly,
nicely landscaped gathering place that represents the spirit of Vail and the spirit of
skiing. Artist Elaine Calzolari, one of the semi-finalists in the competition, expressed
disappointment in the latest developments. She said her colleagues spent hundreds of hours preparing for the competition because they thought it was a clear and fair -
process. Usirig the Vietnam Memorial as an example (the popularity of the wall vs. a
figurative sculpture nearby), she said figurative art doesn't work well as a gathering
point or a beacon in a public space. She offered several suggestions. First, leave
selection of the Seibert Circle art piece in the hands of the AIPP and look for another
site for a more traditional tribute to Pete Seibert, perhaps on top of Vail Mountain. Or,
allow a fifth Seibert Circle proposal to be presented to the AIPP Board and jury for
similar evaluation, or a possible public vote. And finally, if there's interest in using
Lionshead as a possible site for the AIPP selection, she suggested allowing the finalists
to reconfigure their works to address specific sites. Jim Lamont of the East Village
Homeowners Association said he was very appreciative of the efforts of the AIPP and
challenged the community to work together to find a solution to the issues at hand. Bob
McLaurin agreed to help facilitate those discussions. Bob Armour and Kevin Foley also
complimented the selection jury and AIPP for following through with the project in a
professional and thorough manner. For more information, contact Nancy Sweeney,
AIPP coordinator, at 479-2344.
--Appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission Front Setback Variance at 1034
Homestake Circle
The Council voted 5-0-1 (Ford recused himself) to overturn a front setback variance
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in February. The PEC had
granted the variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed at 10324
Homestake Circle, the home of Art and Elaine Kelton. Diana Donovan, a neighbor, had
appealed the decision, noting the variance had not meet the criteria and findings of the
town's code and constituted a grant of special privilege. Town staff also had
recommended overturning the PEC decision. For more information, contact Dirk Mason
in the Community Development Department at 479-2150.
--Town Council Call-Up of a Planning and Environmental Commission Approval of a
Major Exterior Alteration at the Creekside Building, 229 Gore Creek Drive
The Council voted 5-1 (Ford against) to uphold PEC approval of a major exterior
alteration at the Creekside Building. The alteration will allow for 1,050 sq. ft. of an
existing deck area to be enclosed for year-round use. The alteration application was
filed by Michael Ditch, who will operate a restaurant at the site. The PEC had added
three conditions to its approval; the application now goes to the Design Review Board
for additional action. For more information, contact Lauren Waterton in the Community
Development Department at 479-2454.
(more)
.
~
TOV Council Highlights/Add 5
--Town Manager's Report
In addition to his written report, Bob McLaurin distributed a final draft of the 1997
Community Survey and asked for Council comments. McLaurin also presented the
Council with a proposed budget for the West Vail roundabout and asked Council to
authorize him to enter into a contract with the low bidder, Duckles Construction of
Steamboat Springs for the $5.37 million project. The Council approved by a vote of
6-0.
- UPCOCV9ING DISCUSSION TOPBCS
April 8 Work Session
DRB Review
USFS Burn Update
Information Update
Council Reports
Site Visit and Discussion of Swiss Chalet Parking
April 15 Work Session
PEC Review
97 Housing Work Plan
Review of Proposed Rules of Procedure
Austria Haus Special District
April 15 Evening Meeting
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 4, Austria Haus
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 7, Elevator Inspection Fees
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 8, Proof of Insurance
GRFA Decision
April 22 Work Session
- DRB Review
Lionshead Stage 2
Report on Vail Tomorrow Conference
Year-end Financial Report
Eagle County Housing Policies
Review Sound Ordinance
European Slide Show/Loading & Delivery
_ # # #
,
dd
e4
~OWN OF v~IL .
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney
vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
DATE: April 3, 1997
RE: Town Council Rules and Procedures
Attached you will find a preliminary draft of proposed Council Procedure, Code of Conduct, and
Miscellaneous Provisions. These documents have been developed after review of provisions
from various cities and towns througfiout Colorado.
Pam Brandmeyer, Bob McLaurin and I have had a meeting with Rob Ford to explain that we are
hoping to memorialize those procedures that in most part are currently being followed by Town
Council on a regular basis. You will notice that the procedures do for the first time, put in place
a process for the Town Council to have greater control over the presentations made by
interested parties and the public.
This is not being scheduled for a Council work session before April 15th, 1997. It is hopeful that
this will allow adequate time for initial review of the material and meaningful discourse
preliminary to the work session.
I will be happy to answer all questions and meet as necessary to review these documents.
Thank you.
RTM/aw
xc: Department Directors
Robert W. McLaurin
Pam Brandmeyer
t?~~ RECYCLEDPAPER
C]
cCOiJNCIL PROCEDURE
This procedure is intended to govern the actions of the Town Council in the general conduct of
its business and to serve as a reference in settling parliamentary disputes. In handling routine
business, the Council may by general consent use a more informal procedure than that set forth
in this procedure.
This procedure may be suspended at any time by vote of five Council members or of two-thirds
of the Council members present, whichever is greater.
CONDUCT O]F COUNCII, iVIEETINGS
1. Pa-esidiang Off cea-: Mayor.
The Mayor, as chair of the Council, is responsible for conducting its meetings in an
orderly and democratic manner and assuring that minority opinion may be expressed and that the
majority is allowed to rule. At the same time, the Mayor retains all of the prerogatives of a duly
elected council member; the Mayor may make and second motions and take part in discussions
and must vote on all matters not involving the Mayor's personal financial interest or the Mayor's
official conduct.
II. A eaada.
A. Items are placed on the agenda by the staff with consultation and approval of the
Mayor. Council members who have items for the agenda should present agenda requests at work
sessions or regular meetings. A consensus of the majority of the members present at the work
session is necessary to place a matter on the agenda.
B. Consent items, urgent items time budget and order of a e~nda. The staff, in
consultation with the Mayor, will designate potential consent items, so that they can be dealt with
in a summary fashion. Although consent items are separately listed on the agenda, the Mayor
asks for any objection from the Town Council, and, hearing none, declares the item approved.
The staff and Mayor will also designate urgent items, for which delay is not possible or
inadvisable, so that the Town Council can deal with such items prior to adjournment. The staff
in consultation with the Mayor, will set the order of the agenda, which, as established in Section
2.04.050 of the Municipal Code shall be generally as follows:
a. Call to order by the Mayor;
b. Determination of quorum;
c. Minutes of preceding meetings;
1
d. Citizens Participation (3 minute limit per person, on a first come, first
served basis). Citizen Participation is a time set aside for citizens to
address the Council concerning Town business not otherwise on the
agenda for public hearing. The Council's goal is to begin Citizen
Participation at 7:30 p.m. and end not later than 8:00 p.m. Citizen
Participation lasts 30 minutes or such lesser time as is required to
accommodate all persons signing up to speak. When Citizen Participation
is closed prior to all persons signed up having an opportunity to speak,
such persons are accommodated, if possible, after the last public hearing
item on the agenda or given priority at the next Citizen Participation,
usually two weeks later. The Council reviews Citizen Participation and
assures that an appropriate response is given if the Council determines that
a response is required. Such review is usually immediately following the
Citizen Participation. Staff and Council responses are discouraged at the
meeting, except for referral to the staff for further analysis and reports and
ultimate Council decisions on a future agenda;
e. Consideration of Ordinances, Resolutions, and Motions. Expected
substantial public comment items are generally placed first on the agenda,
but critical short items or items of extreme public interest may be placed
first when deemed appropriate by the Mayor.
Although second readings of ordinances are generally calendared last on
the agenda, the Town Manager may request that a particular first reading
be scheduled earlier on the agenda when Council/public/staff interaction
on the item is important on second reading;
f. Consideration of other matters on the agenda;
g. Reports from Town Manager and Town Attorney;
h. Statements, observations, and inquiries by the Mayor and Councilmen. At
this point, any Council member may place before the Council matters
which are not included in the formal agenda. This item is generally
limited to responses to Citizen Participation, appointments to boards and
commissions, sharing of information, and requests for advice concerning
matters pending before other bodies, call-ups, requests for staff work, and
requests for scheduling future agenda items. Matters requiring a formal
Council vote, such as motions to sponsor an event or to allocate funds, are
normally placed on the agenda through the regular agenda review process,
rather than dealt with under this item;
i. Concluding statement by the Mayor;
2
k. Adjournment. The Council's goal is that all meetings be adjourned by
10:30 p.m. An agenda check will be conducted at or about 10:00 p.m.,
and no later than at the end of the first item finished after 10:00 p.m.
Generally, absent a deadline which the Council cannot effect, no new
substantial item will be addressed after 10:30 p.m. No new item shall be
introduced after 10:30 p.m. unless two-thirds of the Council members in
attendance at that time agree. All Council meetings shall be adjourned at
or before 11:00 p.m. Items not completed prior to adjournment will
generally be taken up at a special meeting at 7:30 p.m. on the following
Tuesday evening.
III. RUL1ES OF SPEAK][NG
A. To obtain the floor, a Council member or staff inember addresses the Mayor.
B. To assign the floor, the Mayor recognizes by calling out the person's name. Only
one person may have the floor at a time. A person shall not speak while another
has the floor. The Mayor generally next recognizes the person who first asks for
the floor after it has been relinquished.
C. During Citizen Participation or public hearings, members of the public are
recognized by the Mayor. No person shall make a presentation (not including
Council questions) longer than 3 minutes, unless given permission by the Mayor
before beginning to speak.
D. Speakers will not generally be permitted to "pool" their time. Permission may be
granted if the Mayor determines that substantial time can be saved thereby and
issues better addressed in order to facilitate public participation in Council
decision making. Speakers desiring to pool their time will not be granted the full
pooled total, but a proportion determined by the Mayor, in light of the complexity
of the issues to be addressed and the projected time saved from the pooling. All
persons wishing to pool their time must be present at the meeting in order for the
Mayor to recognize pooled time. No pooled time presentation will be permitted
to exceed 10 minutes total.
E. Proponents of an agenda item, especially in a quasi judicial proceeding, may
request additional time, as reasonably required to present their case. In response,
the Mayor may designate a longer time period for proponents, generally not to
exceed 15 minutes and to occur immediately upon the opening of the public
hearing, in order to give the public an opportunity to respond. Additional support
from proponents positions should come from individual witnesses.
3
F. All Council members, staff inembers, and members of the public are requested to
direct their remarks to the Council action that they are requesting. Speakers
engaging in personal attacks may be interrupted by the Mayor.
G. The staff and the Mayor will attempt to focus discussion of agenda items in
accordance with the materials which should contain a proposed outline of
decisions. Staff presentations are generally limited to a 3 minute summary of
packet material and issues for Council decision. New information, large graphics,
and any presentation authorized by Council are exceptions to this rule.
H. Council members should minimize debate prior to public hearings and use the
period prior to public hearings to ask questions for clarification rather than to
lecture, give speeches, score debating points, or ask rhetorical questions. The
Mayor may intervene to avoid extended debate prior to public hearings.
I. Tabling motions are generally discussed before they are made, in order to allow
for a reasonable amount of Council discussion prior to making a nondebatable
motion.
J. Council members will when possible give early warning to the Mayor and the
Town Manager whenever substantial opposition is anticipated to an agenda item,
so that an appropriate staff and Council response can be prepared.
K. Questions axe rotated so that to the extent practicable, different Council members
are given the lead on each agenda item and questions are grouped by subject
matter whenever it is practicable to do so.
L. The Mayor may intervene in Council debate in order to determine whether
Council wishes to postpone Council action if more information or staff work
appears warranted to facilitate a Council decision.
IV. PROC~DURE ][N ]El[ANDY,gNG MOTIO1VS.
A. A Council member, after obtaining the floor, makes a motion. (If long or
involved, it should be in writing.) The Council member may state reasons briefly
before making the motion; but may argue the motion only after it has been
seconded; and having spoken once may not speak again until everyone who
wishes to be heard has had the opportunity to speak, except to answer questions
asked by other Council members. Having made a motion, a Council member may
neither speak against it nor vote against it.
4
B. Another Council member seconds the motion. All motions require a second, to
indicate that more than one member is interested in discussing the question. The
seconder does not, however, have to favor the motion in order to second it, and
may both speak and vote against it. If there is no second, the Mayor shall not
recognize the motion.
C. The Mayor states the motion and asks for discussion.
D. General debate and discussion follow, if desired. Council members, the Town
Manager, or the Town Attorney, when wishing to speak, follow the rules of
speaking outlined above. The speaker's position on the motion should be stated
directly: "I favor this motion because...." "I am opposed to this because....", etc.
Remarks should be addressed to the Mayor.
E. The Mayor restates the motion and puts the question. Negative as well as
affirmative votes are taken.
1. If the Mayor is in doubt of the result of a voice vote, the Mayor may call
for raising of hands or a roll call vote.
2. If any Council member is in doubt of the result of a voice vote, the
Council member may obtain a vote by raising of hands or by roll call by
calling for it (without need to be recognized by the Mayor).
3. In case of a tie vote, the motion is lost.
F. The Mayor announces the result. The motion is not completed until the result is
announced.
V. PYtOCEDYJRE ][N HANDLING ORDINANCES. RESOI,U'I'IO1VS AND
ffMPORTANT MOTBOllTS.
A. All ordinances, with the exception of an emergency ordinance, require at least two
readings, and the Town Charter requires seven days' advance publication in final
form. The Mayor, after consultation with staff, may require similar publication of
complex or import motions and resolutions, in order to assure informed citizen
participation.
B. On first and second reading, the Mayor reads the title of the item set forth on the
agenda, followed by the staff presentation, and then the Council has an
opportunity to ask questions of the staff. Thereafter, the Mayor opens a public
hearing and supervises the public hearing. If any Council member wishes,
questions may be asked of persons testifying. The Mayor then requests an
5
appropriate motion. Once seconded, the Mayor restates the question, followed by
discussion by the Council, the Town Manager, and the Town Attorney and
dialogue with staff in response to questions raised by the Council, followed by
debate, proposal of amendments, if any, in consideration thereof in the form of
motions. After debate, the Mayor restates the question and requests a vote. After
the conclusion of the vote, the Mayor declares the ordinance adopted or defeated.
C. Resolutions are handled in the same manner as the reading of an ordinance.
J
VI. VOTING.
Voting ultimately decides all questions. The Council may use any one of the following
ways of voting:
A. Voice vote. All in favor say "aye", and all opposed say "no". The Mayor rules on
whether the "ayes" or the "nos" predominate, and the question is so decided.
B. Raising of hands. All in favor raise their hands, and then all opposed raise their
hands. The Mayor decides which side predominates and notes dissents for the
record.
C. Roll call. The Clerk calls the roll of the Council members, and each member
present votes "aye" or "no" as each name is called. The roll is called in
alphabetical order, with the following special provision: on the first roll call vote
of the meeting, the Clerk shall begin with the first name on the list; on the second
vote, the Clerk shall begin with the second and end with the first; and so on,
continuing thus to rotate the order. This rotation shall continue from meeting to
meeting.
VII. 1lTOMINATIONS AN~ ELECTIONS.
A. Nominations for Mayor and acting Mayor (generally referred to as Mayor Pro-
Tem) and for an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Council are made orally. No
second is required, but the consent of the nominee should have been obtained in
advance. Any person so nominated may at this time withdraw his or her name
from nomination. Silence by the nominee shall be interpreted as acceptance of
candidacy.
B. A motion then is made and seconded to close the nominations and acted on as any
motion. The voting is accomplished by raising of hands unless there is only one
nomination and a unanimous vote for the candidate. The names shall be called in
alphabetical order or reverse alphabetical order depending upon a flip of a coin by
6
. the Clerk, who shall thereafter alternate the order for all further election ballots
during the same meeting.
C. If it is the desire of the Council to use paper ballots rather than a voice vote, such
a procedure is proper.
D. If any of the candidates nominated receives five votes on the first ballot, such
person is declared elected. If none of the candidates receives five votes on the
first ballot, the candidate (plus ties) receiving the lowest number of votes is
dropped as a candidate unless this elimination would leave one candidate or less
for the office. If this elimination would leave one candidate or less for the office,
another vote is taken, and once again the candidate (plus ties) receiving the lowest
number of votes is dropped as a candidate unless this elimination would leave one
candidate or less for the office. In the event that one candidate or less is left for
the office after the second vote, a flip of a coin shall be used in order to eliminate
all but two candidates for the office.
E. In the event that none of the two final candidates receives five votes on the first
ballot on which there are only two candidates, another vote shall be taken. If no
candidate receives five votes on the second such ballot, the candidate who
receives the votes of a majority of the Council members present shall be declared
elected. If no candidate receives such a majority of votes, the meeting shall be
adjourned for a period not to exceed twenty-four hours, and new nominations and
new ballots shall be taken. If no candidate receives five votes on the first ballot at
the adjourned meeting on which there are only two candidates, another vote shall
be taken. If no candidate receives five votes on the second such ballot, the
candidate who receives the votes of a majority of the Council members present
shall be declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority vote on the second
such ballot at the adjourned meeting, a flip of a coin shall be used to determine
which of the two final candidates shall be declared elected as Mayor or Mayor
Pro-Tem. The Charter requires a majority vote to fill a vacancy on the Council.
F. Elections to fill positions on boards or commissions shall be conducted in the
same manner. However, a majority of the Council members present rather than a
majority of the full Council is sufficient to decide an election of this nature. Each
board or commission vacancy shall be voted on separately.
VIII. RIESEARCH AND STUDY SESSgONS.
A. Information/Research Requests. Requests far information should be directed to
the Town Manager or the Town Attorney. Requests for a briefing should be
directed to the Town Manager or the Town Attorney. A single Council member
may require the Town Manager or the Town Attorney to provide available
7
information at any time or to answer any question concerning an agenda item.
The concurrence of three Council members is required to assign a matter for
research by staff. For staff to spend more time than the Town Manager or the
Town Attorney considers reasonable in light of other staff time commitments, the
concurrence of five Council members is required. In such case, the Manager or
Attorney shall report the results of the preliminary research and an estimate of the
time required to complete the task as the Manager or Attorney proposes. In any
case, a vote shall be taken at a Council meeting, but work may proceed in an
emergency pending such vote. The Council shall be informed of any such
emergency work.
B. Work Sessions. Materials for work sessions generally will be made available to
the Council and the public at least ten days before the date of the work session.
Notice will be given as for other Council meetings. Written comments received
by staff prior to noon on the Thursday preceding work session will be forwarded
to all Council members. Testimony of persons other than staff is not permitted at
wark sessions unless a majority of the Council members present votes to suspend
this rule. The Council will give direction to staff at work sessions for the
presentation of action items at future regular Council meetings. Summaries of
work sessions are placed on the Council agenda for approval, including the
direction given, any remaining issues, and any staff reaction or proposed work
plan in response to the work session.
IX. PI20C~DURE ffN HANDg,ING 1VYA.TOR CAPITAL IlVIPItOVE11VIEI`TT P1tO,TEC'I'S.
Prior to a development review decision by the Planning and Environmental Commission
or the Design Review Board, and whenever possible at the time of the Council's review of the
community environmental assessment relating to a project to be constructed by the Town or a
related improvement district, the Council will determine by motion whether it wishes, as the
owner of the project, to review the project prior to the development review. If so, the Mayor will
schedule a public hearing and consideration of a motion directing staff concerning (1) the
program and (2) the conceptual design of the project. At such time, the Council will deal only
indirectly with the factors which may ultimately be entailed in a development review application
as it may be later called upon to adjudicate such questions on a call-up of a Planning and
Environmental Commission or a Design Review Board decision.
X. COUNCIg, Cf11[.ENDAR.
The Assistant Town Manager, or other staff person designated by the Town Manager,
maintains and sends at least weekly to Council members a calendar of hearings set by Town staff
and boards and commissions and events at which the Mayor or any Council member will have a
ceremonial or a substantive role. Any Council member may attend such hearings and events, but
8
Council members may not testify at a board or commission hearing and may be dis-invited from
ceremonial events by the host. Council members are responsible for notifying the Assistant
Town Manager of hearings and events for which they are the liaison to the Council.
XI. ~OUNCIL lC,][AISONS.
evaittations, , . ilowever,
uyyviu*i iiuioviis iivtti amotig t 1'^"^ T _ eotmitittees _ d _ _
nmetAal , stteh tts the Golorftdo Mtmieipftl 1:;eagtte Poliey Gotricatittee, the
> >
Steepitig , .
aetivity, ~
~
~
rity appoimm r,..._ ..;i appoiftts - tnem+-~er
,
e
IPARLgAMENTARY PROCEDiJRE
Except as otherwise provided herein, all matters of procedure are governed by Robert's
Rules of Order Newlv Revised (1990).
POIt,YCY STAT'EIVIEN'g'
CONCERNING
DEC]C,ARATIOIVS.
1PROCZL.AMATgONS.
AND RESOI,UTIOIVS
1. All matters proposed for Council or mayoral action which commemorate a period
of time or commend the actions of a person or a group or endorse a position or an
idea not directly related to the affairs of the Town shall be screened by the Mayor.
2. If a group with substantial local support requests such action, and the Mayor
determines that there is no substantial political issue concerning such action, the
mayor may issue a declaration for the action. Such declaration shall be forwarded
to a binder kept for such purpose in the office of the Town Manager but shall not
be placed on the agenda unless the Council determines at a meeting by majority
9
vote of the Council members present to call-up the matter, in which case the
action shall be revoked upon the passage of the call-up motion, pending further
action by the Council at its next regular meeting.
3. In extraordinary circumstances, if the group supporting the action determines that
it wishes Council action rather than a mayoral declaration, and the action
otherwise meets the criteria set forth above, the Mayor may, if the Mayor
considers such action appropriate in light of the importance of the action and the
additional business on the Council agenda, place a proclamation or a resolution on
the agenda for Council action.
4. A resolution is a legislative action reserved for legislative concerns, including
without limitation conveyances of positions or ideas to other legislative and
administrative bodies.
5. In the event that a substantial political issue is determined to be presented by a
proposed declaration or proclamation, the Mayor shall not act or place the matter
on the agenda, but instead will inform the group supporting the action that the
matter will be placed on the agenda only if a majority of the Council members
present at the meeting of the Council so directs. The burden shall be on such
group to present the issue to the Council. The Mayor may request Council advice
at any time concerning proposed mayoral or Council action.
6. Council shall not act on a foreign policy or national policy issue on which no prior
official Town policy has been established by the Council or the people, unless
sufficient time and resources can be allocated to assure a full presentation of the
issue.
7. Publicity for fund raising efforts and community events will be deemed
inappropriate for Council action, although major efforts and events may be
commemorated if the majority of the Council members present at a meeting of the
Council so directs.
c:\wuncil.pro
10
CODE OF CONDUCT
1. ]Puarpose aaad Decflaratnon of lPolacy.
There is hereby enacted these "rules of behavior and standards of conduct," which may
hereafter be referred to as the "code of conduct." The purpose of the code of conduct is to
implement a practical and uniform guide for the conduct of officers of the Town of Vail in the
performance of their official duties, consistent with the requirements of Colorado State law.
11. Def aantnoaas.
As used in this Code, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless it is
apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended.
Board means any appointive body, board, commission, or autharity of the Town which
the Town appoints the entire membership and which is empowered by delegation from the Town
Council or ordinance to exercise a governmental function. "Board" shall specifically include the
Town Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, the Local Licensing
Authority, and Housing Authority, but shall not include advisory or ad hoc committees except to
the extent a board member is otherwise a Town officer.
Board Member means a regular or alternate member of a board irrespective of election or
appointment to such board.
Business Entity means any corporation, general or limited partnership, sole proprietorship
(including a private consultant operation), joint venture, unincorporated association or firm,
institution, trust, foundation, or other organization, whether organized for profit or not.
Town means the incorporated home rule Town of Vail, Colorado.
Town Council means the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado.
Confidential Information means all information which may lawfully be designated
confidential, whether verbal, written, or electronically recorded, which is at the time not available
to the general public under applicable laws, ordinances and regulations, or which has otherwise
been designated as confidential by the Town Council, the Town Manager, or the Town Attorney.
Confidential information subsequently disclosed, without violating this Code, to outside parties
shall no longer be confidential information. The Town may adopt rules and a policy pertaining
to confidential information discussed or distributed at executive sessions.
Conflict of Interest means an incompatibility or interference between the private interest
of an officer and those obligations and duties arising from or out of his or her position as a public
officer.
1
Councilmember means any member of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado.
Disclose means to bring to the attention or to make known a financial interest or conflict
of interest.
Disinterested Third Person shall mean a person who possess the experience and
qualifications to investigate and/or conduct a determination process pursuant to this article and
who has no current personal or business association with the Town, individual(s) making a
complaint or allegation under this article, the officer subject to an allegation under this article or
any other officer of the Town.
Employee means a person who labors or provides services for the Town and who is paid a
wage or salary for such labor or services, but does not include any member of Town Council or
any person appointed by the Town Council to serve on any Town board, commission, committee,
agency, or authority.
Family means an officer's spouse; natural, step, or adopted child; mother, father, sister,
brother, grandparent, mother-in-law, father-in-law; or any other relative or dependent residing in
the same household as the officer.
Financial Interest means a pecuniary interest, the nature of which is either:
(1) Ownership interest in a business entity;
(2) Creditor interest in a business entity;
(3) An employment or prospective employment for which negotiations have begun;
(4) Ownership in real or personal property;
(5) A loan or any other debtor interest; or
(6) A directorship or officership in a business entity.
Governmental Function means participation by discussion, vote, or other action as a
member of a board, whether in a quasi judicial, legislative, rulemaking or administrative action.
Interest means a direct substantial pecuniary (which shall include real and personal
property and cash) benefit accruing to an officer as a result of that officer's official participation
in a governmental function except for such actions which by their terms or the substance of their
provisions confer an opportunity or right to realize the accrual of a similar benefit generally to all
other persons or property similarly situated.
2
Malfeasance shall mean conduct by an officer in the course of his or her official duties
which is unlawFul and against the interests of the Town.
Misconduct shall mean any willful and unlawful behavior by an officer in relation to the
duties of his or her office.
Nonfeasance shall mean the willful nonperformance of some official act lawfully
required of an officer, or the total neglect of the lawful duties of an officer.
Officer means any person who is elected to office or appointed by Town council,
including board members, the Town Manager, Town Attorney and Municipal Judge.
Official Body means the Town Council and any appointive body empowered by
delegation from Town council or ordinance to exercise a governmental function including;
Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, Local Licensing Authority,
and Housing Authority.
Order or Directive shall mean, when used within the context of Town Council to Town
employees interaction, to instruct a Town employee to take some action within the scope of their
employment. Requests and similar inquiries of department heads made within the provisions of
the Town Charter or any other employee as may be delegated by the Town Manager shall not be
interpreted as orders or directives.
Person means a singular or plural of any natural person, entity, corporation, partnership,
association or authorized agent thereof.
Pecuniary Benefit means a benefit in the form of money, property, or commercial
interests.
Substantial means and includes a situation where, considering all the circumstances, a
reasonably prudent person would expect a marked tendency to make a decision other than an
objective decision.
111. COIIIlIlplIlance wIltIlIl Othe1C laYVS.
The requirements of this Code shall be in addition to the applicable requirements of the
laws of the State of Colorado. To the extent that any conflict exists between requirements of this
article and any other provisions of the Vail Town Code the requirements of this Code shall apply
for the purposes of any enforcement by the Town. This Code shall not create any private rights
of action.
3
gV. Cofladuct Constatuatnang Ma9feasanee ancd 1Vlisconduct gn Offiee.
An officer shall not commit malfeasance or misconduct in office. An officer shall be
subject to removal from office in the event of any of the following:
A. Conviction of or an entry of judgment in any Colorado Court upon a charge of
malfeasance or misconduct in office as provided in C.R.S. Section 24-18-103
(Public Trust-Breach of Fiduciary Duty) and C.R.S. Section 24-18-109 (Rules of
Conduct for Local Government Officials and Employees), as amended.
B. Conviction of or any entry of judgment in any Colorado Court upon a charge of
abuse of public office as provided in C.R.S. Section 18-8-401, et sea, as amended.
V. Staandards of Coaadlaact.
A. In conducting their official duties, and to the extent that private interests conflict
with public duties, all officers shall in good faith, observe the following
limitations on conduct. Violations of said limitations on conduct, as set forth in
this section, in and of themselves, shall not constitute misconduct or malfeasance
in office.
(1) An officer shall not knowingly fail to make disclosure of a conflict of
interest.
(2) An officer shall not knowingly disclose information he or she knows to be,
or reasonably should know to be, confidential.
(3) No officer, in his or her official capacity, shall on behalf of any private
interest other than himself/herself, a spouse or minor children or business
in which he or she has substantial financial interest, shall appear before
any board. An officer may appear before Town Council or any board on
behalf of the electorate in the course of their duties as a representative of
the electorate or in the performance of public or civic duties.
(4) An officer shall not knowingly use Town property or services for personal
gain or profit except when the same property or services are available to
the general public or authorized in the furtherance of official business. No
officer shall be deemed to have violated this section if their use of Town
property is incidental to the performance of their official business. An
officer in compliance with C.R.S. Section 24-18-109(4)(a) and (b), as
amended (Rules of Conduct for Local Government Officials and
Employees), shall be presumed to be in compliance with this section.
Town Council may approve policies and procedures concerning the use of
4
Town services and resources in accordance with C.R.S. Section 1-45-116
(Colorado Campaign Reform Act).
(5) An officer shall take reasonable precautions to prevent or avoid ex parte
communication with any party in interest or their attorney when such party
in interest or attorney is appearing before a board or commission upon
which the officer sits, and said officer is acting in a quasi judicial capacity.
Nothing herein shall prohibit the officer from obtaining legal advice or
counsel from the Town Attorney.
(6) An officer shall not vote upon any questions of his/her own conduct.
(7) An officer shall not use his or her official position to seek special
treatment or consideration for the officer, or for a member of the officers
family, or for an entity ar enterprise in which the officer has a substantial
personal or financial interest to the exclusion or disadvantage of the public
generally.
(8) An officer shall not knowingly and willfully refrain from performing the
duties lawfully required of his or her office.
B. In all official matters, officers of the Town shall conduct themselves in a manner
so as not to bring disrespect or disrepute to the office held, or to the town. During
sessions of the official body officers shall treat their fellow officers, the public and
Town employees with courtesy and respect. Violations of this section by
Councilmembers which occur during sessions of the Town Council may be
punishable as follows. An allegation of a violation of this section shall be brought
to the attention of the presiding officer before the meeting adjourns. If an
allegation is brought to the attention of the presiding officer, the Town Council
shall proceed to determine the matter prior to adjourning. The procedure for
hearing the matter shall be set forth in the Town Council rules. A violation of this
section shall be punishable by an oral reprimand made on the record.
C. Upon its own motion, an official body may hear and determine violations of
Section V. The Town Council may develop procedural rules for the investigation
and enforcement of violations of Section V which shall be binding upon all
official bodies.
D. An officer shall not be liable for criminal or civil penalties if such officer
discloses an ex parte contact or a conflict of interest.
5
VI. Coaaflacg off Iant¢rest Dascflosure; Stepping dovvn Pa-ocedaaa-es; Couanea9megnbers or
Board IVIembeu-s.
A. An officer who knows of a conflict of interest in any matter proposed or pending
before the official body shall disclose the conflict of interest to the official body
upon which they sit prior to action of the official body on such matter and shall
not vote thereon and shall refrain from attempting to influence the other members
of the official body voting on the matter.
B. An officer shall be excused from voting on any matter which he or she has a
conflict of interest.
C. The provision of this section concerning disclosure or stepping down shall be in
addition to any requirement of state law.
VII. ]Eaaffoircement.
A. The Town Council shall have the responsibility and authority to adopt procedures
to investigate, hear and determine violations of the code of conduct.
B. This code shall not create any private rights of action or right to sue the Town or
individual officer or any other person.
C. The Town Attorney and/or the Town Manager are authorized to receive written
allegations concerning an officer of any criminal violations of local, federal, or
state law and violations of state or federal discrimination and employment law
and are authorized to refer such allegations to the appropriate law enforcement or
regulatory agencies for investigation. In the event an allegation fails to state facts
supporting substantive violations of criminal or employment discrimination laws,
such written allegations shall be returned to the person(s) who submitted the same
advising such person(s) that the allegations will not be investigated. If in the best
professional judgment of the Town Attorney and/or the Town Manager, as may be
appropriate under the totality of the circumstances, information concerning the
complaint or allegation cannot be revealed generally to Town Council without
impugning the credibility or validity of the investigation, or otherwise destroying
or revealing confidential information or evidence required for the investigation,
then the mayor, or if the mayor is otherwise disqualified or unavailable, then the
mayor pro-tem and one other Councilmember, or if not disqualified, any two
other Councilmembers shall be informed. The mayor or the mayor pro-tem or
such Town Councilmember shall be authorized in such circumstance to provide
direction to the Town Attorney and/or Town Manager until such time as Town
Council may take action. Remaining members of the Town Council shall be
informed of the matter and developments as soon as the mayor, or Town
6
Manager, and Town Attorney determine that the credibility or validity of the
investigation will not be compromised by the release of information.
(D) No officer shall interfere with or attempt to influence any criminal, civil or
administrative investigation performed pursuant to the Town Charter or this Code.
To the extent consistent with individual civil and legal rights of all officers, each
shall have an affirmative responsibility to cooperate fully in any authorized
investigation.
(E) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Town Council may direct the
Town Attorney, or if the Town Attorney is disqualified, the Town Manager, to
initiate and prosecute any appropriate civil action for the recovery of property, a
violation of fiduciary duty resulting in gain or any other appropriate civil action
against an officer or employee for conduct which may also be a violation of this
article.
(F) To the applicable extent of federal and state law the Town shall maintain the
confidentiality of any records pertaining to allegations of violations of this code
and any subsequent investigation and disposition.
Vlff 1. Hearnngs.
A. Except as to allegations of violations of Section V or criminal allegations in
addition to any other rules of procedure adopted by the Town Council, the
following shall apply when the Town Council, or a person delegated by the Town
council, is the official body determining whether a violation of this code has
occurred.
(1) The hearing shall be conducted in a judicial or quasi judicial forum. The
allegations shall be presented on behalf of the Town, by special counsel
selected by the Town Council.
(2) The Town shall have the burden of proof which shall be by clear and
convincing evidence.
(3) The parties shall have the following rights:
a. Present testimony.
b. Produce evidence.
c. Cross examine witnesses.
d. Be represented by legal counsel.
e. Raise any statutory privilege.
7
B. The officer against whom the allegations are raised shall receive a notice briefly
stating the substance of the allegation and notice of all hearings pertaining thereto.
8
C. Matters referred to a disinterested third person for determination shall be heard in
accardance with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and the Uniform
Arbitration Act C.R.S. Section 13-22-201.
IX. VllOflatIlOffiS; ]Penaflty.
A. Upon a conviction, arbitration award or entry of judgment by a court, disinterested
third party or Town council of malfeasance or misconduct the Town Council shall
cause a hearing to be held at which time it shall be determined if the officer shall
be removed from office.
(1) If the matter has been referred to a disinterested third person for an
arbitration award, such person shall present written findings and a
determination of whether a violation of this article, the Town Charter or
other instance of malfeasance or misconduct has occurred to the Town
Council for final action. If the matter was referred to a court for
determination, the Town Attorney shall obtain a copy of the courts final
order and present it to the Town Council.
(2) The Town Clerk shall cause notice of the matter to be published and
written notice to be delivered to the officer who is the subject of the
complaint. The Town Council shall deliberate in public. The officer shall
have the opportunity to make a statement in his or her behalf prior to the
Council's decision.
(3) The proceedings shall be recorded and shall constitute final governmental
action for purposes of appeal.
(4) A determination by the Town Council to remove the officer shall require a
unanimous vote of the Town Council eligible to vote thereon.
(5) If the Town Council votes to remove the officer, the officer may ask for a
reconsideration upon filing a written request within 48 hours of Council's
announcement of the penalty. A reconsideration may be considered only
in the event new evidence, not known or available to the officer at the time
of the hearing, is set forth in the request for reconsideration.
(6) Town Council shall announce any penalty within 48 hours of announcing
its decision. Any penalty shall be stayed until expiration of the
reconsideration period.
(7) If the Town Council imposes the penalty of forfeiture of office said
penalty shall not take affect unti131 days after Council has announced the
9
penalty. During this period the penalty shall be stayed and the
Councilmember shall remain in office. Upon expiration of the thirty-one-
day period the Council shall proceed to fill the Council person's seat.
B. Upon a conviction, arbitration award or entry of judgment by a court or
disinterested third person or determination by Town Council as provided herein of
a violation of Section V, not otherwise constituting malfeasance or misconduct,
the Town Council by a 2/3 vote of the members of Town Council entitled to vote
thereon may impose the following penalties:
(1) If the violation was unintentional or an oversight, the Town Council shall
issue a verbal admonition which shall be part of the record of proceedings.
(2) If the conduct was negligent, the Town Council shall issue an official
written reprimand which shall be part of the record of proceedings.
(3) If the conduct was intentional, the Town Council may, censure the officer,
impose a penalty of a fine equivalent to up to one month of the officer's
pay which they receive as a board member, or remove such board member.
(4) Each repeat violation for which provisions (1) and (2) above apply, shall
also be punishable by impositions of a fine not to exceed one month of the
officer's pay which they receive as a board member.
(5) The penalties provided for in this section shall not foreclose the
application of any other cause of action, or right of action arising under the
Vail Town Code, Town Charter or other applicable Colorado law.
(6) A conviction, arbitration, or entry of judgment by a court or disinterested
third person of a violation of Section V not otherwise constituting
malfeasance or misconduct shall not be grounds for removal pursuant to
this code.
X. Eldvnsony Opaannons.
A. Before engaging in any conduct which may raise a conflict of interest or possible
violation of this article an officer of the Town may require in writing an advisory
opinion with respect to this code or any provision of the Town Charter or Town
Code concerning possible conflicts of interest or questions regarding the
interpretation of this code.
B. Except as provided herein, all advisory opinion(s) as to any potential violation of
this code or the Town Charter or other conflict of interest provision, shall be given
10
by the Town Attorney. The advisory opinion so provided shall be in writing
unless required immediately at a recorded and official Council meeting, and may
require that all or portions of the opinion remain confidential. Such opinion may
be designated as attorney-client privilege and shall generally be provided to the
official within 24 to 48 hours or within a reasonable length of time depending
upon the complexity of the issue after receipt of the Town Attorney's office.
C. If a potential conflict or allegation or complaint creates a conflict of interest, or
ethical consideration, or otherwise alleges impropriety on the part of the Town
Attorney, then an advisory opinion may be solicited from outside counsel. Town
Council, or the Town Manager, shall select a disinterested third party attorney
who shall not currently or previously have represented any member of Council, or
the Town Manager or Town Attorney to provide such advisary opinion.
D. The advisory opinion shall, in the best legal judgment of the advisor, opine as to
the legal implications of a situation or contemplated course of action. The
advisory opinion shall not be offered for the purpose of determining policy
direction except as to its legal validity.
E. Officers shall be entitled to reply upon advisory opinion issued for purposes of
determining adherence to or violation of this code. No officer shall be disciplined
under the provisions of this code and no officer shall be deemed to have violated
any provision of this code if, in good faith, the officer or employee has acted in
accordance and compliance with the terms of an authorized advisory opinion
issued as described herein above.
X][. ]F'aflse Repoa-tnang.
Any person who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly gives false or misleading
information or who malces any false statement concerning any allegation of a violation of this
code or in the course of an investigation of any allegation of a violation of this code shall be
subject to prosecution.
11
lOZisceYlaneous Provisioms
The Town Council may by resolution, when necessary, change the time and place of the regular
meeting. The resolution shall set forth the circumstances necessitating such change. Such
resolution shall be published once in the Town official newspaper(s) at least 24 hours prior to the
meeting to be held pursuant to such change, the Town Clerk shall give each member written
notice, personally or by registered mail, of any change from the meeting days established by this
section.
Every member desiring to speak shall address the chair and upon recognition by the presiding
officer, shall confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding all personal attacks and
indecorous language.
The Councilmember moving the adoption of an ordinance or resolution shall have the privilege
of closing the debate.
Unless a member of the Council states that he is not voting, his silence in failing to respond to a
roll call shall be recorded as an affirmative vote.
(A) The Chief of Police, or such member or members of the Police Department as he may
designate, shall be Sergeant at Arms at the Council meetings. He, or they, shall carry out
all orders of instructions given by the presiding officer for the purposes of maintaining
order and decorum at the Council meeting.
(B) Upon instructions of the Presiding Officer, it shall be the duty of the Sergeant at Arms, or
any of them present, to place any person who violates the order and decorum of the
meeting under arrest, and cause them to be prosecuted under the provisions of this code,
the complaint to be signed by the presiding officer.
Any Councilmember shall have the right to have the reasons for his dissent from, or protest
against, any action of the Council entered in the minutes.
All ordinances shall be prepared by the Town Attorney and presented to the Council only in
printed or typewritten form. No ordinance shall be prepared for presentation to the Council
unless ordered by a majority vote of the Council, or requested in writing by the Town Manager,
or prepared by the Town Attorney on his own initiative.
No Town Councilmember shall be a party, or by him or herself or through a firm appear on
behalf of such a party, in a civil lawsuit wherein the Town is also a party without the consent of
the Town Council being first requested and obtained.
1
"Town Official" means and includes any member of a board, authority, commission or other
body appointed by the Town Council and the Municipal Court Judge. "Town Official" does not
mean or include any employee of the Town with the exception of the Municipal Court Judge.
(A) A Town Official may contract with the Town including a contract wherein the Town is to
pay out money for personal services.
(B) A Town Official may appear on his or her own behalf or by him or herself or through a
firm representing another on a Town transaction before any board, commission, or
authority of the Town with the exception of the board of which he or she is a member. A
Town Official may appear on his or her own behalf before the board of which he or she is
a member provided he or she declares his or her interest and removes him or herself from
a position of influence over the transaction, including abstention from voting thereon. A
Town Official may be a member of a firm which appears on behalf of another on a Town
transaction before the board of which he or she is a member, provided he or she does not
personally appear on behalf of the client, declares his or her interest, and removes him or
herself from a position of influence over the transaction, including abstention from voting
thereon. A Town Official may appear on his or her own behalf or through a firm
representing another on a Town transaction before the Town Council, provided he or she
does not personally appear on behalf of the client.
(C) A Town Official with the exception of the Municipal Court Judge may appear for himself
or on behalf of another in Municipal Court.
(D) No Town Official shall be a party, or by him or herself or through a firm appear on behalf
of such a party, in a civil lawsuit wherein the Town is also a party without the consent of
the Town Council being first requested and obtained.
(Exceptions) The following shall not be deemed to be precluded by this ordinance:
(A) A Town Councilmember or Town Official appearing before a Town board including the
Council in urging an argument concerning Town issues and policies.
(B) A Town Councilmember or Town Official exercising his or her constitutional right of
free speech.
(C) The Town Council dealing with the Town as the board of directors of a general
improvement district or in another similar capacity.)
In the event of the absence or disability of both the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem which prevents
them from attending or participating in any meeting of the Council, the Town Clerk shall call
such meeting to order and shall call the roll. The Council shall then proceed to elect, by a
majority vote of those present, a temporary chair of the meeting. A similar procedure shall be
2
followed if both the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem are prohibited from participating in a portion of
a Council meeting due to conflicts of interest.
The Temporary Chair shall serve a presiding officer until the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro-
Tem or until such time as the Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem shall be allowed to participate in such
meetings, at which time the Temporary Chair shall relinquish the chair upon conclusion of the
business immediately before the Council.
Any plat or similar document which requires the written approval of the Town Council may be
executed by the Mayor, or in the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, by the Mayor Pro-Tem. In
the event that both the Mayor and the Mayor Pro-Tem are absent from the Town or are
incapacitated at the same time, any member of the Town Council may lawfully sign a plat or
similar document in the capacity of Assistant Mayor Pro-Tem.
Any act required to be performed by the Town Clerk under these procedures and rules of order
may also be performed by the Clerk's designee, or such other person as may be approved by the
Council.
Any Councilmember has the right to change his or her vote up to the time the vote is announced
by the presiding officer; after that, a member may change his or her vote only by permission of
the Council, which can be given by general consent, or by the adoption of a motion to grant
permission, which motion is undebatable.
No Councilmember shall be permitted to explain his or her vote during voting or after the vote is
announced.
Public Hearings-Procedures
Public hearings will be conducted in accordance with the following guideline procedures:
1. The presiding officer, in the order indicated, will:
a. Declare the public hearing open;
b. Announce the public hearing procedure to be followed;
c. Establish, when determined to be necessary, reasonable time limits for the hearing
and reasonable time allocations to be established therein, with consent of the
Council;
d. Ask for an introductory presentation by the Town Manager or staff, if appropriate;
e. Ask for the petitioner's presentation, if appropriate;
f. Ask for any presentation by those who are in favor of the matter;
g. Ask for any presentation by those who are opposed to the matter.
2. Each side of an issue will be given an opportunity to be heard and to present its case.
3
3. At any point in the hearing, either side may question any witnesses who have made
presentations, but the time for such questions shall be included within the original time
allotted for each side. Any person desiring to question any witness must first be
appropriately recognized by the Presiding Officer before proceeding to ask his or her
questions.
4. Following the presentations of those in favor and those opposed, opportunity will be
given for rebuttal. Any person speaking or presenting any information at the hearing may
be questioned by the Town Council and/or by the Town Manager, Town Attorney or
staff.
5. Following rebuttal, the presiding officer will ask if any member of Council has any
questions of, or desires any additional information from, anyone who has spoken or has
presented information during the hearing. If such is the case, a member of Council may
direct the question and/or request through the Presiding Officer to such individual and the
response will be limited to the answer of the question, as stated.
6. Following questions from Council, the Presiding Officer will declare the public hearing
closed and the matter will be remanded to the Council for consideration.
Any person who desires to appear before and address the Town Council may be scheduled to
appear by advising, in writing, the Town Manager of such request not later than 5:00 p.m on the
seventh day preceding a regular Council meeting. The request shall be in writing, shall outline
the subject matter desired to be presented, shall be signed and dated by the person making the
request and shall show the address of the person submitting the request. When this procedure is
followed, the person's name and subject matter desired to be discussed will be listed on the
agenda.
Written communications to the Council are permitted; however, unsigned communications will
not be forwarded to the Council. A copy of any unsigned written communication to the Council
which touches upon a quasi judicial matter pending before the planning commission, or other
Town agency or board, shall be provided to the planning commission, agency or board, as well
as to any applicant or other person whose rights might be directly affected by the matters raised
in such written communication.
(A) Each person addressing the Council shall give his or her name and address for the record,
shall state the subject he or she wishes to address, and shall limit the address to a
reasonable time.
(B) In consideration of the number of business items that normally come before Council
meetings, the Presiding Officer may specifically set the allotted time for and limit any
and all addresses with the general consent of the Council.
4
~
If nominations are closed with no more candidates being nominated than there are positions to
filled, the candidate(s) nominated shall thereby be appointed and no balloting shall be required.
An emergency meeting of the Council may be called in the event of an emergency that requires
the immediate action of the Council in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare of
the residents of the Town. At such emergency meeting, any action within the police power of the
Council that is necessary for the immediate protection of the public health, safety and welfare
may be taken; provided, however, any action taken at an emergency meeting shall be effective
only until the first to occur of (i) the next regular meeting of the Council, or (ii) the next special
meeting of the Council at which the emergency issue is on the public notice of the meeting. At
such subsequent meeting the Council may ratify any emergency action taken. If any emergency
action taken is not ratified by the conclusion of the next regular meeting, then such action shall
be deemed rescinded. As used in this section, the term emergency shall mean an unforeseen
combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action. (Lewis v.
Town of Nederland, 20 Brief Times Reporter 1205 (Colo. App. 1996)).
All work sessions and regular, special or emergency meetings of the Council shall be open to the
public and citizens shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard as provided by these
Procedures and Rules Of Order; provided, however, that the Council, upon the announcement to
the public of the topic for discussion in the executive session and the affirmative vote of two-
thirds of the quorum present, after such announcement, may go into executive session for the
purpose of considering any of the following matters:
5
x e.e,:~~~~!~&..Q.' • ` _ ' . ; .
`4 ~ •'t, , z;
• : Tg ` . , . • r . f' ' ~ .
LVail, Dally llVednesday,: Aprll 2; 9.997--Page.5 ~ir!
- _ . . • , : . , r.;r:, . .
BC
PeSeplift-th 0
11s ,
111~V~
q[F" ° , ~V K ~S ~pY*~ ~ ~
• - ~ . ?rr ~R _ ~ ~in~~~~ ~ =ti ~r ~~~~s~. , µ s : e,~ k ~
- yq
CenirajL da~l Beaver Cr mation on,;.' ~ode bn
D fce handles ~nfdi :I
enve~esencaUbits ~ll ~k= auline g~ 8 trans o .
F~ o=j t~ckets ~ P rtation,..
do ~ tased'offi~e rhi ~d lift u llockets :
~.dnes ~~CoI£oXs~ I'e ~tie.f
Resciits ~~if.~e LM~ '~'~g $G~B~ICS?~,:?g~ ollcln"' •sb~r,~
f :.:..vtrleiger ij§rf ~ur :
p mah'~r,,, h , arnot~aid
nesj:a f•~ ina MOR,
mSS;the board`fo~'~¢
rvaUOns .'i
our gesortsfor4 ~ s§j1 °fbur op . _e proVen at
nities..and a.` of, fhe ~om ~~'u~ alloh+ o cut'ca11 tiKeystone
mong all of the;~ m~ s~ alfoW~~~'ot ~ m~s, w~11 ~
proPerties,saidChr1sT gbbok~in greater ef~clencies inY'~
I
tor'=~of. ya~l , arnof, d r . g gue5ts inzo :~lo~ked
Beaver,, C'reek irec
Ce ~~lable lodgi
Res7~~t - nUal
eivaUons ng ~nven . and
Vail,~a release w3 1ow `us k tre torY
Associates , Andwjll
mendous
,tral ese moved ttie ' cen~~exibility in bookin uh`f'F~t~
Jul 4 n'a~o~`o~ce to.D ~ lnto "D'enver g,alr travel.bot}~~ -
a'~ = enver ~ ` Internat~dn~lA
t
and
A _(Ea le
kthe
the' time, .yq said it W`_S~.: r 4~~ipo~~ ;g CountY Regio~] ~~rti'~~~I
~1ir 1
tile workf ~Ce because.of a mov ~ ; . `V1ttinate
force,andch orestg n our
videfhe ~Y,
~ ~ - eaper facilihes ~ uests best serv~ce pos5ible fo j ut ~ f ~
asapq~,•.w~~~w 9p
1
. . . .
e .
1 i , ast Va 'ei a i p V
listed i an adi 1 al b i 1 din pe, e
a 1 parture times listed V
pa
WEST VAIL GREEN EAST VAIL WEST VA1L E
RED
AM bus departure times:
6:30A-(7:30A)-8:30A-10:30A 7:10A-(S:10A)-9: 1 OA-11:1 OA 7:50A-(8:50A)-9:50A-11:50A T
12:30P 1:10P
PM bus departure times: ¦ ¦
~ 2:30P-(3:30P)-4:30P-(5:30P)- 3:10P-(4:10P)-5:10P-(6:10P) 1:50P-3:50P-(4:50P)-5:50P- E
6:30P-8:30P 7:10P (6:50P) -7:50P
IlATE bus departure times:
(10:30P last WVG run) 9:10P -(11:10P `ast EV run) 9:50P -(11:50P last WVR run) F
ransportation Center(depart) :30 fans oltation Centef (de 81t) :10 ransportation Center (depart) :50
ail Municipal Building :32 spen Lane ;15 andstoneSchool ;53 R
oncert Hall Plaza :34 ooth Fells 16 imber Ridge :56
ascade Crossing ;36 alls At Vail ;18 ostOffice :57 E
ascade Vlllage ;gg itkin Creek ;20 est Vall Mall :00
Matterhorn :41 upine/Bighorn Road ;21 hamonix :03 E ;
tarmi an olumbine/Bighorn Road ;22 "~PeSS :05
9 :43
treamside Circle ntermountain ;07 ,
Underpass :45 ~23 eadow Creek
imber Falls ;24 :09 ~
Intermountain :47 eCquet Club .25 nderpass ;11 Meadow Creek :49 ighorn Park ,26 pruce Creek ;12 u
Underpass :51 eedoW Lene East .27 atterhorn ;14
hamonix :53 eadoW D~IVe .28 artnigan ;16
est Vail Lodge :55 ain Gore/Juniper .29 pruce Creek :17 S•-
ail Das Schone ;56 ain Gore/Bighorn _30 asca de V l l lage :19
Bufiehr Creek :57 aCquet Club ToWnhomes ,31 ascade Crossing ;20
oncert Hall Plaza ;22
imber Ridge :00 treamside EasUBighorn Road :32
olumbine/Bi h unicipal Bullding ;24
andstone School :02 g orn :33 ransportation Center (arrive) :30
ransportation Center (arrive) :10 ei) East Condos :34
itkin Creek Park :35
USE THE FItEE BUS! alls At Vall :36 BUS STOPS AT DESIGNATED
Avoid parking hassles, traffic congestion and the OOth FeIIS .37
_ high cost of driving by riding with us every day BUS STOPS ON~.Y~
ald Mountain Road ;38
ransportation Center (arrive) :50 Please use "stop request"
OLF COUR
Departure Tlmes from the TRC: Useful Information:
7:30A-8:30A-9:30A-11:30A-1:30P- • Be early to your stop.
3:30P-4:30P-5:30P-6:30P-7:30P- • Therc is no charge to ride the bus.
9:30P-(12:30A last run) A , O ? Pleasc do not stand in front of the yellow line.
rans ortation Center (de art) :30 ? On outlying routes pull the stop request cord or
olden p~k h Road :31 Departure Times frorn theTRC• press the yellow strip be/~ore your stop.
.32 7:10A-8:10A-9:10A-11:10A-1:10P ~ ? Gather all of your belongings before exiting the bas.
occerField :33 3:90P-4:1013-5:1 OP-6:10P-7:1013-9:1 OP-
tarml an West :34 (11:30P last run) • Thank you for riding the bus!
4armi an East :35
1448 Vail Valle Drive .36 rans ortation Center (deparl) ;1p
1610 Sunburst andstone School
:37 :13 8e early to your stop, watches
lub House .39 ed Sandstone Road ;15 1610 Sunburst :40 afl Vlew/Red Sandstone Road ;17 may vary. Buses use:
1448 Vail Valle Drive ;qp andstone Creek Club :19 FGreenwiCh Mean Time: 303~
tarmigan East ;qg imba Run ;20 499-71 1 ~
tarmigan West ;qq ail Run :21 Actual arrival times may vary due
occer Field :45 andstone School ;23 olden Peak :47 rans ortation Center (arrive) ;gp to traffic, construction or weather
orlaufer ;qg CD/1dlf%OnS.
rans ortation Center arrive) :00
xa': (
/ ^ -
Maki or~n .
qg C echons
with the Intown shuttle:
The Intown (Vail Village/Lionshead) shuttle is running - BUS SCHEDULE
on a schedule so that riders can more easfly plan ~
connections between outlying and intown buses. The ~ 1QQ7
schedule is posted in the menu boards at the top of the J~
Transportation Center, at the Covered Bridge; and at Apri121 - June 1 Lionshead. We hope that this will improve our service ;
to our riders. For comments or questions regarding ;
the Vail Village/ Lionshead schedule please stop by ~
our offices on the third level of the Vail Transportation
Center or call the bus supervisor's office at 479-2358 ; -
or the Operations Manager's office at 479-2174. -
.._.,...r..~....;.__~_....~._,.~.....,v__:..~...,.~....:._.~...~.:.~...,~......,~...~.~.~... *EAST VAIL*GOLF COURSE*
WEST VAIL*SANDSTONE
~ BIKES 0101 BUSES: Bike racks are provided on the front of
outlying vans and buses. Two bikcs can
fit on a rack. Bikes are not permitted ~
inside vans or buses exccpt after dark. Bikes are nnt
allowed on the Vail Village/I:ionshead vans or buses.
BUS SCHEI)ULE
INFORMATION
24 hr. Bus Information: 328-8143
Lost & Found: 479-2358
Lost & Found (after hours) 479-2208
Supervisor's Office 479-2358
Operation's Manager 479-2174
Internet: http://www.vail.net/transportation
With 24 hour notice the Town Of Vail
operates a wheelchair lift equipped
v ~ paratransit service for those who are
unable to use the fixed route buses.
Contact us on the intemet at: For more informaHon call: 479-2358 or
http://www,vail.net/transportation TDD 479-2825.
RECEIVED P~AR 3 1 1997
Y~K ~
19 Canterbury Road, 1/VE D"' a r~ A•
Jamestown NY 14701
iViarch 26, 1997 .
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage IRoad
Vail CO 81657
Re: Lodge Properfies, Inc. Request for Amendments fo the Town of Vail
Land Use Plan and Vail Village Niaster Plan
Gentlemen:
Vail Resorf has a reputafion fior quality and beauty known around fhe
world. You and fhose before you who worked so hard deserve a great deal
of credif.
The design of fihe area is excellent and with fevv exceptions (i.e. the
High Rise International Lodge Tower) the blend of mountain and village is
well done. VVe urge you not fo begin.crowding up the mountain side. Don't
give in to those of greed who vvould destroy the open area and encroach
upon the mountain.
The project will bring more trucks, more crowding and block the views
of many units at the Tovuer-and Riva Ridge South. That in turn, vuill reduce our values. This is nof fair to we vuho frusted in Vail when we invested and
came to enjoy.
Please keep Vail a class resort and don't destroy the open land.
Please vote no on this issue. Good luck - I'm sure the pressure will be hard
to resist.
Sincerely
~
Alle . ah
1ce
Y-50
cc: Town Council iViembers
ea
e4t T0WN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
VAIL POLICE DEPARTIVIENT COMIIAUR9ITV ALEFiT
Date of Release: April 3, 1997 ,
Contact Person: Lt. Joe Russell, (970) 479-2329
Pager, (970) 949-2250
Date and Time of Incident: April 2, between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m.
Location of Incident: Booth Falls Road at the intersection of Booth Falls Court
The Vail Police Department is seeking help from the community in locating two
suspects and a vehicle involved in an attempted second degree kidnaping incident.
Suspect #1:
White male, 25-30 years old. Approximately 5'8" tall; dark brown hair.
Suspect #2:
White female; blonde hair.
Suspect Vehicle:
A dark-colored four-door vehicle, possibly a Jeep Cherokee, with possibly a white
license plate. The vehicle was described as being dirty with scratches.
Svnopsis of.Events:
At approximately 5:15 p.m. yesterday, the Vail Public Safety Communications Center
. received a call from an individual reporting an attempted abduction. Vail Police officers
were immediately dispatched to the area of Bald Mountain Road and Booth Falls Court.
There, officers were told that between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m., a 10-year-old child was
approached by two suspects in a dark-colored vehicle. The driver of the vehicle asked
the child if he'd like to go for a ride. When the victim said no, the driver then stated that
he would give the child some money if he got into the car. The victim then ran away
and sought help.
The Vail Police Department is asking for help from the community in locating or
identifying the vehicle and suspects in this case. If you have information, please call
the Vail Police Department at (970) 479-2200 or Eagle County Crime Stoppers at (970)
328-7007.
For more information, contact Lt. Joe Russell at (970) 479-2329.
# # #
RECYCLEDPAPER
N~
From: 68 CommiQQee Yo: Yown of Vail DaRe: 4l7J97 Time: 14:46:05 Page 2 04 2
X C . ~tvt~i.e-
The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
WATER QUAI.,ITY AND QUAN"fITY CONIN[ITTEE
ILE Gff SILA Tff VE UPD ATE
Apri12, 1997
4/ UPDATE -
In the 3/27/97 QQ Update we said that SB 47 was going to be on the Governor's desk by yesterday. Due
to unforeseen circumstances, the scenario has changed. The Senate decided to reject all of the House
amendments to the bill which means that it now goes to conference committee. The House is in the middle
of the budget process so the earliest it would be able to appoint conferees is on Friday. This change has
added at least a couple of weeks to the bill's timeline before it reaches the Governor. We believe that this
development is a good one as what comes out of conference committee will likely be worse than what we
had before, malcing it more likely that Governor Romer will veto the bill. So...please llaold off oaa veto
fletkers go Govemor Romer until the bill has come out of conference committee and has been voted on by
both the House and the Senate so we know how the bill has changed. Please continue to talk to yoear
represeaetateves and senatons and urge them to vote against SB 47. We will continue to keep you
updated on the evolution of this bill and let you know when your veto letters are needed.
V OTHIER ~ILL5 OF III`4'I['ERESB' TO QD:
~
d Bill: BB 1093 (Dyer) Local Govemment Master Plans - A bill concerning affordable housing that had
amendments added to it which state that the master plan of a town or county is advisory only and cannot be used for
the purpose of denying any specific land use application.
Status: On the Senate floor and calendared for a second reading, probably sometime this week.
Position: QQ has not adopted a fonnal position on this bill. We have been working with the bill's sponsor to have
the language removed that says that.a master plan is advisory and cannot be used for the pucpose of denying any _
specific land use application. So far, the sponsor has agreed-to remove the second half of the sentence but we are
working on removing the entire amendment.
e/Bill: HB Il 15Fi (Hagedom) Expedited judicial review of landuse decisions.
Status: On the Governor's desk. He is expected to sign the bill.
Position: SUPPO]R"d'. The Governor's signature on this bill may make it easier for him to veto SB 47 when it comes
along.
e/Bill: HB 1312 (McPherson) Vested Rights
Status: On the Senate floor, expected to be heard this week, gerhaps tomorrow.
Position: OPPOS]E -Please ca91 yovr senator and eerge him/her to voQe agaisesf 4his bi1V.
Please call Monique or Lane if you have any questions or need any further information at (970) 468-0295
ext. 117, 116. Thanks!
' Eagle County EmeW EI!!ED APR 3 1997 14"
Management Agency
~ PO. Box 650 G 00 A?M0~~9iC F-agled CO .81631
. n T N
wa eR
o ~ COLO O
z 2 = °
~ ~ EVERE WEATHER
G 4, ~q ~q 1"
AWARENESS dtlEEK
ENT Of 8~PRIZ9 13° 190 e e o~ 99/ O rRN ~ p6
Governor Roy Romer will proclaim the week of Apri1 13-19, 1997, as
Severe Weather P,wareness Week in Colorado. The National Weather Service
Offices in Denver, Pueblo, Grand Junction, and Goodland, KS along urith
the Colorado Office of Emergency Management ask your help in spreading
severe weather safety infonnation to the public. Every summer the state
experiences thunderstorms which produce large hail, damaging lightning
and wind, tornadoes and flash flooding. Last year there were 98
tornadoes reported in Colorado; a new record. It is important to be
prepared for severe weather befor.e it strikes.
Severe Weather Awareness week allows all of us to concentrate our safety
education efforts into one week. This packet is intended to provide
emergency managers and media with information that you can pass along to
the public. All the warnings and watches do not accomplish anything if
the public does not know where to go for information, or how to respond
to a tornado, flood, or severe thunderstorm. •
The National Weather Service offices serving Colorado wi1l issue test
warnings on Wednesday, April 16. This will be an excellent time for
local emergency management officials to test their warning and response
systems, and work with local busiriesses .and schools to encourage safety
drills during the week. For more information on Severe Weather
Awareness week, and on severe weather safety, contact your local
National Weather Service Office and ask for the Warning Coordination
Meteorologist listed below.
Jim Pringle
792 Eagle Drive Dennis Hull
Grand Junction, CO 81506 920 Armory Road
970-243-7007 or 970-256-9463(unlisted) •913a899a2360 67735
Bob Glancy Tom Magnuson
10230 Smith Road 3 Eaton Way
Denver, CO 80239
303-361-0700 or 303-361-0661 Pueblo, CO 81001
719-948-9429
0
(Z)
,
SnTATCHES AND WARNINGS - ~
The National Weather Service uses specific terminology to relay the
weather -threat to the public. In the summer, there are a variety of
watches and warnings you need to understand in order to be prepared.
. Tornado Watch: Means that conditions are favorable for tornadoes to
develop. It is normally issued for a valid period of 4 to 6 hours, and
usually includes many counties. If you are in or near the tornado watch
area, stay informed via NOAA Weather Radio, commercial radio or
. television. Keep your eye on the sky, and be prepared to take cover at
, short notice, as tornadoes can occur with little or no warning.
. Tornado Waraing: Means that a tornado or funnel cloud has been sighted
by trained spotters or indicated on Doppler radar. A warning is
typically issued for a small area for less than an hour. If a tornado
warning is issued for your area...take cover immediately! '
. Severe Thunderstorm Watch: Means that conditions are favorable for
thunderstorms to produce wind gusts of 58 mph or stronger or hail to 3/4
inch or larger in the watch area. These watches are usual?y valid for
4 to 6 hours and for a number of counties. Stay informed, watch the sky,
and take cover if a severe thunderstorm approaches you.
. . Severe Thunderstorm Warning: Means that a severe thunderstonn has been
detected by radar, or by a trained spotter. Take cover if you are near
the severe thunderstorm.
. F1ash Flood Watch: Means that there is a threat of flash flooding due
to the possibility of heavy rain and/or a potential dam failure in or
near the watch area.
.Flash Flood Warning: Means that flash flooding in the warning area is
occurring or is imminent. Move to higher ground at once!
.IIrban and small stream flood advisory: Means that local flooding of
small streams, streets, or low lying areas such as railroad underpasses
is occurring or is imminent.
O
o °S1gnagicant Weather outlook: A product issued-by local Weather
Forecast Offices to discuss the significant weather of the day for use
by spotters and Emergency Managers.. This product will detail the type
of severe weather expected, timing and expected location of the severe
weather. The Grand Junction Weather Office issues this outlook as an
attachment to the western Colorado and eastern Utah area forecast
discussion by 5 o'clock every morning. If later information indicates
that we have underestimated conditions, we will then issue an updated
outlook using the special weather statement text product.
C~~~ ~ ~~CTS
As seen.in the graph below, the
number of reported tornadoes in In the past 10 years, there have
Colorado has been risin since been 580, tornadoes reported in
g Colorado, an average of 58
the 1970s. Increasing population,
improved communications, and tornadoes a year. P, record was
better trained spotters have all reached in 1996, with a total of
98 tornadoes reported.
resulted in more reported
tornadoes each decade. 1Vormally our tornadoes are weak,
and don't stay on the ground a
long time. 1996 was no
exception, with 92 weak
tornadoes. Six of the 1996
Colorado Tornadoes tornadoes were stronger,
1967 to 1996 comparable to the Limon tornado
100 of 1990 in strength; with winds
~~f I I~~ I I(i~ of 150 to 200 mph.
60 ~I I Tornadoes have been re orte
III I-I I ~ ~ P d 9
months of the year, and the peak
60 I I I i I~ I I I i I I season for tornadoes extends from
mid Ma y t h roug h mi d August. June
z I i I I I ; ~ is by far the month with the most
i r e c o r d e d torna does .
40 III I~ I ~ii
Tornadoes have occurred every
20 hour of the day, with over half
o f t hem develo
~ ping between 3pm
and 6 pm, and 88 percent occurring
o ! I ~ I i I I i ~ ~ between
. 1Pm and 9pm MDT. They
197019731 976 1979 19821985'1988 19911994
1967 ' ' also occur statewide, but the
Years largest number develo-: in eastern
Colorado, east of Interstate 25.
~
Since 1950, the two counties with the most tornadoes•have been Weld and Adams. In fact, Weld county has one of the highest frequencies of
tornadoes across the country. This is mainly due to the size of the
county. Weld is 2 to 3 times the size.of most counties.in the nation.The last tornado death in Colorado occurred on June 27, 1960 in Sedgwick
County. The most well known tornado outbreak occurred in metro Denver
on June 15, 1988. Five tornadoes resulted in seven injuries and damage
in excess of $15 million.
.
~os 103 1w
wariu i ~ '
20
2 2 1 25 177 ,yp '
rO.~iwr LT
G~~ rswrClO~ r ~ .
y A10 WCO w
9 42
I+s.ar ro
c..i++ ~
~ ~O
115
. cwsn~yj ~`~t '
1 13 60 I
~u.. '
NG~ A/A/M ~r '1 ~
~ I
47 48 55 56 ~
72
Yr.ae. ~ IGlltra ~ 31
1
4 I
~ y ~
..o.,.
- ( .~~.io ~a•o..~.r.
GV~w~ YC{Y61f[ L* 34 •
iM.MGr(1 . GYSTU 7 . ~
9
. 3 5
s.~
~ ....,..o c;p
i
17 19
_...T:..-..... 5 ;
I 2 7 ~ I
~r
2
i
5 15 44
» 2 .
ro+ loa lin lo.
1041
CONFIRMED TORNADOES IN COLORAD.O COTTNTIES 1950 TO 1996
~
~ORNADO SAFETY . '
Do you know what to do if a -
tornado is moving your wa ~ ~~~gg'~ ~o~S e
y. This .
page contains safety guidelines
to use at home, work,. at school ' Leave your mobile home and seek
or when traveling. Remember: the shelter in a sturdy building. If
greatest danger from tornadoes is . one is not available, crouch low
windblown debris! in a dry ditch, ravine or culvert
. and cover your head.
gN HOMES o .
~N-HIGH RISE BiTIT,DINGS a
> The safest spot is in your
basement, if you have one. Get > You may not have time to go to
under a sturdy workbench, table the lowest floor. So seek shelter
or under the staircase. Stay out in a hallway or small room at the
of the corners, as that is where center of the buildin
debris will collect. windows. Stay out of elevat rsom
> Always seek shelter in an IN NTJRSING $ONlLS a SCgg00LSo
interior small room or hallway of $OS~~TALSo AND SHDPPgNG
the basement or lowest floor if CENTERSo
there is no basement. Bathrooms
and closets are good examples of
rooms to use for shelter. ' GO to your pre-designated
shelter. Interior hallways or•
> Get away from your windows, small rooms on the lowest floor
Strong winds with a tornadic are usually your best choice. Be
thunderstorm can shatter your sure to stay away from large
windows and severely injure you. Windows.
I~T YO~TR ~~gg~g,~ a _ > Do not seek shelter in dining
- : halls, gyms or other large rooms,
>Abandon your vehicle. Seek building are us all Wartsr of a
shelter in a dry ditch, ravine or Y eake_.
low spot. Underneath an overpass Ag,g, AREASe
is another possible shelter.
Crouch low and cover your head
with your hands. > Prepare a tornado plan. Nlake
sure everyone knows where to go
> NEVER try to outrun a tornado in the event of a tornado.
with your vehicle. Some
tornadoes can travel at speeds up Learn where to get weather
to 60 mph! information, and the meaning of
tornado watches and warnings!
~
: LIGHTNING - THE UNDERRATED RILLER ;
Every thunderstorm has lightning. In fact, each year there are more
than 40 million lightning strikes in,the contiguous United States, with
nearly 100 fatalities and 300 injuries. In Colorado, lightning is the
number one weather related killer. During the past 10 years an average
of 3 deaths and 15 injuries were reported in.Colorado each year.
Lightning heats the surrounding air to 50,000 degrees. This causes a
. rapid expansion of the air which produces thunder. A lightning stroke
` contains enough electricity to supply power to several homes.for a_
month. Most lightning deaths and injuries occur when people are
outdoors. Lightning also causes many fires.
KEEPING YOURSELF SAFE FR.OM LIGHTNING
> Stay alert to changing weather thunderstorms develop. If caught
conditions. It does not have to in the mountains during a
be raining for lightning to be a thunderstorm, seek shelter in a
threat. Many people are struck deep cave, canyon, or below tree
before any rainfall occurs. line in a large group of trees.
But beware of flash flooding.
> Employ the "flash to bang"
principle. Sound travels about > In a thunderstorm, get away
one mile in 5 seconds. When you from metal fences. Drop metalsee lightning, count the seconds objects such as golf clubs, and
until you hear thunder. If 5 backpacks. Remember: metal is a
seconds elapse, the thunderstorm very good electrical conductor!
is one mile away. Ten seconds
equals two miles. And so forth. > Lightning may be ready to
- strike near you if you feel your
> What is the "safe" distance hair stand on end or your skin
from lightning? There, is no tingle. Crouch down or drop to
absolute ruie, but be aware that your knees, but do not lie flat
lightning can strike up to 10 on the ground.
miles away from the thunderstorm!
> The safest place from lightning
> Get off farm equipment, golf is inside a sturdy building. Get
carts or other open vehicles. A inside, but do not stand by open
hard top car with the windows windows, doors, or patios.
shut is a relatively safe refuge.
> Unplug unnecessary appliances.
> If hiking in the mountains, go Stay off the phone and out of the
early in the day, before shower during the storm.
Q
,
° ~~~~H FLOODS .
In the United States, flash floods are responsible for more deaths than
any other thunderstorm phenomena. In Colorado, only lightning is more
deadly on an annual average. Flash flooding is usually the result of
very heavy rains in a short period of time which cause small streams to
turn violent. The destructive potential of flash flooding was clear to
see after the Big Thompson Flood of July 31, 1976. That flood killed
145 people and destroyed 418 homes and 52 businesses. Survivors sPoke
of a wall of water, a very rapid rise in water level, ancl a loud r
No wonder flash floods are referred to as the "Awesome Power." oar:
Other flooding here in Colorado occurs in the spring when the mountain
snowpack begins to melt. Heavy rainfall coinciding with the runoff will
cause some rivers and streams to swell out of their banks.
Sometimes a dam failure will cause a flash flood. The damage resulting
from flash flooding in July 1982 following the Long Lake Dam failure is
preserved in Rocky Mountain National Park.
KEEP~~~ ~~~~ELF SAFE FROM FLASH FLOODING
> It does not have to be raining > Flooding is most frequent
at your location for flooding to during the evening hours, ge
occur! If you are along a very cautious aft.er dark when it
stream, be aware of thunderstorms
and rainfall at higher elevations is more difficult to recognize
upstream from your location. the flood dangers.
_ >,Get out of areas' subject to
> Never camp on low ground next flooding, including low spots,
to mountain streams. canyons, dry washes, etc.
> Do not cross flooded roadways > If local authorities advise you
in vehicles or on foot. It only to evacuate, do so immediately!
takes 6 to 12 inches of moving
water for most vehicles to become > Do not allow children to play
buoyant. Also, the road bed may near high water or storm drains.
be washed out under the water.
> Stay abreast of the latest
> If your vehicle -1t;talls, Weather information by listening
abandon.it immediately and move • to NOAA Weather Radio, commercial
to higher ground. radio and/or television.
V
NOAA WEATHER RADIO •
You can obtain the most recent weather updates from NOAA Weather Radio.
It is broadcast 24 hours a day byNational Weather Service offices
across the country. You will hear the latest weather conditions and
weather forecasts, including recreational forecasts and climatologicai
data. Severe weather (tornado, flash flood, and severe thunderstorm)
watches and warnings are broadcast immediately. Specially built
receivers can be set to audibly alarm when one of these warnings is
- broadcast. Weather Radios.can be purchased at many electronic stores. " NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) is the National Weather Service entry into the
new Emergency Alert System (EAS). Radio stations monitoring NWR will
receive and quickly broadcast the warnings, simultaneousiy sending the
warnings to other radio stations for further dissemination. A big
advantage of EAS is that it will allow for the broadcast of warnings by
radio stations that have been automated.
1JOAA Weather Radio Broadcast Frequencies
Vernal, UT 162.400 MHz Lake Powell, UT 162.550 MHz
Grand Junction, CO 162.550 MHz Farmington, NM 162.475 MHz
Alamosa, CO 162.475 MHz Mead/Longmont, CO 162.475 NHz
Colorado Springs,CO 162.475 NII3z Pueblo, CO 162.400 MHz
Denver, CO 162.550 NlHz Sterling, CO 162.400 MHz
Fort Collins, CO 162.450 MHz Cheyenne, WY 162.475 Ngiz
Greeley, CO 162.400 MHz Bethune, CO 162.525 MHz
- S P E C IAL WEATHER. S TATEMENTS
Special weather statements describe significant weather which is
occurring or expected to occur, usually within the next 24 hours.
Occasionally, special weather statements will be issued for weather
events anticipated beyond 24 hours.
SHORT TERM FORECASTS
Short term forecasts provide details of expected weather during the next
six hours, especially during significant weather. Along with special
weather statements, short term forecasts are broadcast on Weather Radio.
0
NWfl\u
Ne'ws.
,
Essue II, 1997 P1orQbeves4 Co9orado Council of Govereeme0ts Marc6, 1997
`IIAIATER QUALI PHOSPHATE DETEitGENT~
N0 LONGER . AND IIV COLORAD O
`1UANTITP (QQ)
COMM1TTEE UPDATE
As a resuit of a cooperative study done by the North-
west Colorado and Denver Regional Council of Govern-
Over the past several months, QQ has been involved in ments' water quality programs, high phosphate laundry
negotiations with Colorado Springs and Aurora regarding detergents are no longer available for sale in Colorado.
1041 regulations. These negotiations resulted out of a
process started at the September Colorado River Head- The study, titled "Elimination of High Phosphate De-
waters ForUm meeting. In short, Colorado Springs and tergents in Colorado - A Feasibility White Paper" was
Aurora agreed to lay off on any legislative attacks to 1041 funded, in parf, by US EPA through funds for regional wa-
for a couple of years while we assess whether or not we ter quality planning. The study, completed in 1996, was
can address their concems with HB 1041 internally. forvvarded to the Soap and Detergent ftAanufacturers As-
sociation. The Soap and Detergent AAanufactures Asso-
In October, Colorado Springs and Aurora submitted a let- ciation requested a meeting with DRCOG. At that
ter to QQ with their proposed changes to local 1041 regu- meeting the Association agreed to a voluntary ban on
lations. Barbara Green, QQ Staff, analyzed this proposal phosphate laundry detergents in Colorado.
and made recommendations to the QQ Board. QQ felt
comfortable with many of the suggesied changes. On the Phosphorus is a nutrient which can lead to water
other hand, some of the proposed language was quality degradation through enhancing algae growth. An
unacceptable. overabundance of algae can cause taste and odor prob-
lems in water supplies, cause fish kills, form unsightly
The process was continued at the February Headwaters floating mats on water surfaces, cover stream beds, and
Forum meeting, with a point by point discussion of the in some cases are toxic to wildlife.
proposed changes and the QQ response to these
changes. 14 was decided that QQ Staff would begin draft- Laundry detergents have been estimated to contrib-
ing a model 1041 regulation that addresses many of the ute 27% of the total phosphorus load to wastewater treat-
inconsistencies and weakness' in current local 1041 regu- ment plants (1990, Soap and Detergent Association).
lations, as well as acceptable changes proposed by Colo- The voluntary phosphate detergent ban by the Associa-
rado Springs and Aurora. Eventually, it is hoped that the tion will lead to a reduction of phosphorus to lakes and
model 1041 regulation would be adopted by all QQ coun- streams in our region, without any additional action or
4ies. cost on our part.
For more information on this process or QQ in general, The NWCCOG/DRCOG white paper documented wa-
please call either Monique Gilbert or Lane Wyatt, (970) ter quality problems caused by nutrients, phosphorus con-
468-0295 ext. 117, 116. trol programs in the state, phosphorus detergent ban
benefits identified in other states, performance of phos-
phate free detergents, and legislative research. If you
are interested in receiving the white paper, please contact
Robert Ray, VI/ater Quality Program Director, at
468-0295, extension 104.
ANIVOUNCEMENT& ~
CUT YOUR COPY COSTS '
Energy & Mineral Impact Grant. .
Deadline - Aaril 1. 1997 From time to time it's good to take another look at
Resources for main street and downtown develop - Your copy paper purchase agreements. Due to staff attri-
ment: The Colorado Community Revitalization tion, you can lose some of those bargains gained in times
Association, 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100, Denver, Past. To save money on your copy costs, consider using
CO. 80264 or contact Tim Bishop, 303-764-6000. A the Colorado State Bid purchase process. Local govem-
one year membership for business, associations or ments and non-profits can purchase recycled copy paper
govemment costs $75.00. for $1.99 per ream or $19.90 per case (standard letter
. size 8 1/2 x 11, 20#, 84 brightness). They also have spe- .
Fund for Rural America - USDA cialty paper such as three hole punch 'paper at the same .
Deadlines - Planning Grant, March 24, 9997 Price or $21.40 per case, recycled. Call Nationwide Pa-
Standard Grant. Aaril 28. 1997 per, 800-332-0204 or 303-388-6211, ask for Mike Yates
and give
To get an application packet call the USDA at (303) them price agreement #54500YYY35P. The
236-2842 or Flo Raitano at (970) 262-2073. only hang up is that shipping costs are prohibitive, you
will need to send a truck down to pick up your order.
The funds may be used for:
"Core Initiatives" - the programs encompassing the
one third of The Fund designated for research, education ,
and extension activities in the following areas: Environ- WEATNERIZATION
mental Stewardship and Rural Community Enhancement. RFP .
Colorado Rural Telecommunications Project RELEt4SED l~
Colorado Advanced Technoloav Institute -
Eligibility - Organizations proposing projects for rural
I:.`_-%\: -
service areas.
Funds Available - In FY 97 10 grants were awarded, for
amounts ranging from $14,000 to $34,000. On March 3, 1997, the Colorado Division of Purchas-. ,
Use of Funds - For planning or implementation activi- ing released the Office of Energy Conservation's (OEC)
ties leading to the application of existing or planned tele- Request for Proposals (RFP) for the restructured communications infrastructure for rural community or weatherization program. (In December of 1996 OEC had
economic development. announced its intentions to restructure the 19 Colorado
_ local administering agencies to 10; Colorado's Western
Due Date - May 16, 1997 Slope will be reduced from 5 agencies to 2).,...
For information call 1800-770-3570 or 303-620-4777. - The NWCCOG Weatherization program is currently.
negotiating with the Roaring Fork Energy Center(RFEC)
Colorado Department of Transportation in Carbondale, with the goal of submitting a joint applica-
• Section 5310 to assist with the purchase of capital tion in response to the RFP. The new territory will be
equipment (such as vehicles and radios) used to provide comprised of the following counties (current NWCCOG
counties in italics): Chaffee, Clear Creek, Eagle, Garfield,
transportation to elderly and disabled persons. Grand, Jackson, Lake, Moffat, Park, Pitkin, Rio Blanco,
Routt, and Summit The new territory includes just over
Public agencies must certify that there are no non profit 24,000 square miles.
service providers. The match ratio is 80% federal/10%
local. The local match must be cash. If you have comments or suggestions on how this
new territory could be best served, or have input on the
Section 5311 funding is available for the administra- current negotiations with RFEC, please contact Steve
tive, capital and operating expense of a regular and con- Getz, NWCCOG Energy Management Director at (970)
tinuing public transportation service in non urbanized 468-0295 ext. 103.
areas.
Application packets are available March 18, 1997. The .
due date for applications is May 2, 1997.
For more information call Pat Loose at 303-757-9769.
-There are four main ingredients needed to accom-
° plish a successful conversion of a mobile home park to
¦ I . . residential ownership: a local govemmen4 which has a strong affordable
housing policy which includes preservation of
mobile home parks;
* a willing seller;
0 a homeowrners' association; and
PRESERi/ING IVi0B9LE HONIE PAitK~ 0 financing.
AS AFFORDABLE HOUSItV~°a STOCi(
. V1/ith 4hese ingredients in place, the park may be pur-
• wrritten by Sandy Blaha chased by a local govemment and sold back to the, resi-
dents or a cooperative or homeowners association may
Colorado has 450 mobile home parks, providing buy the paric from 4he owner.
110,000 units of housing, approxima4ely 6% of the hous-
ing at the 4ime of 4he 1990 census. Nationwide 4here are ~
55,000 parlcs, 800 of which have been converted to home ~ Yhe Role Of Local Governmen4
owmership. The interest in presenra4ion of mobile home
parks as affordable housing stock has heated up as evi- The local government must have a strong housing
denced by the many recent inquiries from NUVCCOG policy and a willingness to preserve mobile home parcs.
members. Preservation of affordable housing is as im- This does no4 mean that local govemment is necessarily
portant as, and much more cost effective than, creating willing to create new mobile home parks but that it will act
new housing stock. As 4he value of land increases in re- to protect them as low cost housing and will become in-
sort communities, 4railer parks that do not have perma- volved in the buy out strategy and financing. Local gov-
nent mobile home zoning status are disappearing. emment comprehensive plans should reference
Residents of mobile home parks complain that controlling preservation of mobile home parks as part of the afford-
4heir costs is becoming an increasing problem as their able housing strategy. Aspen and Pitkin County have fa-
rentals escalate. V1/hat was once affordable is slipping cilitated the purchase of three mobile home parks,
away. Smuggler Park, Lazy Glen and Aspen Village. The buy
out of these thre2 parks preserved 300 un;ls of affordable
In Eagle County, there are 1,426 mobile home housing. The community is working on the conversion of
spaces in 43 parks. The recent demise of the Lone Pines a fourth park to home ownership at this time.
flHobile Home Park in Eagle County resulted in the loss of
39 units of affordable housing. And from time to time, it The first step for Aspen/Pitkin County was revision of
is rumored one of the larger parks is under contract for their mobile home park zoning code to include high stan-
sale. Once a partc is sold, residents have six months to dards for lot size, infrastructure and amenities. Mobile
relocate. However if one's mobile home is not up to stan- home parks which could not or would not conform were
dards, there is no place to take it. left in a difficult situation where they were not allowed to
re-let a space upon a vacatiDn by a current tenant. This
How can this happen? AHobile home parks are sub- situation not only increased the security of current tenants
ject to sale if they are not permanently zoned as mobile of the park but put a premium on zoning conformance
home parlcs and there is not a homeowner's association and bringing parks up to minimum standards. A period of
agreement guaranteeing a right of first refusal. The lack time was offered to mobile home parks to allow them to
of both facilita4es the conversion of use. come into conformance with the revised regulations.
This allows an opportunity for negotiation between the lo-
Trailer parks were once thought of as unsightly and r,al govemment and the mobile home park which can re-
undesirable. Today they deserve a second look as their sult in improved conditions, including subdivision. Under
preservation contributes significantly 4o cost effective the Aspen Pitkin County housing authority guidelines a
conservation of existing affordable housing. park owner could apply for an expedited subdivision in
the resident occupant category (a working resident as op-
V1/hat is required to preserve mobile home parks and posed to a second homeowner).
to convert them to home ownership? These are ques-
tions that will be explored in this article. With the help of The local govemment may work through its local
Tim Whitsitt, an attomey who has worked on conversion housing authority to implement a buy out. Housing
of trailer parks 4o home ownership, and guidance from authorities can help arrange financing. In the Roaring
fiHick Ireland, Pitkin County Commissioner, I have de- Fork Valley, a consortium of banks were persuaded to ful-
scribed some of the main steps in converting trailer parks fill their Community Reinvestment Act requirements in
to home ownership. I urge you to call the experts refer- providing financing for the deal. Properties were ap-
enced in this article for further guidance. praised on reasonable current values. VVithin a year of
the county's purchase oi the property, 4he park was subdi=
vided, deed restricted and mortgages were in place for
the majority of the residents.
. The local government may also choose to condemn NIOBILE HOME PARK
the property through its power of imminent domain. This
provides certain beneficial tax advantages to the seller. RESOURCES
~ Role Of The Seller Colorado Attorneys Expecienced in
Mobile Home Buy Outs:
The second ingredient is a willing seller. The owner Tim Whitsitt, 970-925-2211
must agree to convey the property to the local govern- Brooke Peterson, 970-925-1866
ment or a non profit agency. The local govemment and Tom Smith, 970-925-2600
housing authority are essential to this process as they can
_ • provide considerable support to the sales contract nego- .
_ tiation, can arrange fnancing and support development Buy Out Financing:
of the homeowners association.
' Deane Sargent - 415-268-2200
TRI Financial and National Foundation of
The Role of the Homeowner's Associa4ion Manufactured Homeowners
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Dept.: 970-920-5000
Mobile home park tenants should organize a core Mobile Home Park Code - 3-270.
group of homeowners to obtain permanent zoning and
the right of first refusal from the park owner. Aspen and
Pitkin County provided considerable support to the forma-
tion of their mobile home park homeowne?'s associations
by fronting the soft costs, in particular providing legal as-
sistance and the technical assistance of housing authority
staff.
Oraanizina and Financina
~ '°WBiERE DO 1 GO TO...?"
A buy out should accomplish a mortgage that is equal Daily requests such as resource questions, founda-
to the previous rent paid by the mobile home park resi- tion resource research, grant writing assistance for
. dent. To accomplish this, Deane Sargent, a volunteer GOCO, OEC, Energy and Mineral Impact grants and re-
with the National Foundation of Manufactured Homeown- quests for meeting facilitation can be directed to Sandy
ers, provides information and support to a public-private Blaha (970) 468-0295 ext. 110. For data center informa-
partnership, such as Habitat for Humanity, a Housing tion please contact Linda Venturoni, ext. 109.
Authority or a town or county, to set up a resident owned
cooperative corporation that can buy the park, securing
the purchase of the property. Dick can help arrange to
bond the property and make needed improvements to the DID YOU KNOW?
park. To accomplish improvements he sells stock to the
50% or more of mobile home owners who generally buy
into the corporation, and then loans them back 95% of
the stock value. They can use this money to make a All NWCCOG Board meetings are open to the public
down payment on the property. Next he a oanges for and are held from 1:00pm to 4:00pm on the last Thursday
FHA, 207M financing, which provides a 90 /o loan to
value, 8% fxed rate loan for a 40 year term. The FHA of January, March, May, July, September and Decem-
notes are guaranteed and AAA rated. ber. The next Board meeting will be held in Walden at
the Wattenberg Center on March 27th.
Deane recommends that in the Colorado resort mar- For information and locations of upcoming meetings,
ket that all purchases be deed restricted, including caps Please call (970) 468-0295 extension 100.
on appreciation values, to prevent the conversion from
escalating out of affordable ranges once the deal is com-
plete. Pitkin County recommends deed restriction and
working resident criteria.
a 0
N~~THWEe3T @~~~ORADO COUNVIL oF VoMGRNMGNT`7 .
phon@ Q970? 468-0295 fax (970) 468m1208
EXECUTIVE BOARD STAFF
Eagle County: Johnnette Phillips Co-Execu4ive Directors: Sandy Blaha
Sybil Rfavas Linda Venturoni
Granc9 County: Bob Anderson ProaPams & Direc4ors
Paul Ohri Skyline Six AAA Linda Venturoni x109
Jackson County: Tony RAartin, Sec./Treasurer Community Development Sandy Blaha x110
, Dennis Brinker Energy Management Steve Getz x103
. P¢46cin County: Leslie Lamont VVater G2uality Robert Ray x104 •
Shellie Harper Elevator Inspection Rick Payne x108 Roust4 County: Dan Ellison Nancy Stahoviak Associated Proarams & Directors
Summig County: Gary Linds4rom, Chairman Water QualitylC2uantity Lane Wyatt x116
Bill UVallace fVlonique Gilbert x117
Ag fl..aPge: Peg Toft, Vice-Chariman Northwest Loan Fund June Walters x119
Sybil Navas
Support S4aff
SSAAA Admin. Assistant Pat Rappe x106
Office Administration Tracey Cerami x100
Energy Mgt. Inspector Rob Castor x103
Elevator Inspector Frank Kilian x108
Fiscal Officer Mike Kurth x112
General Counsel Barbara Green
oethwest Colorado Coaanci0 of Governments Bulk Rate
st Office Bax 2308 o 249 Warren Avenue US Postage Paid
16verthorne, C08~rad0 80498 Permit No. 17
Dillon, CO 80435
PDease CircuPatele TItank Youaooe .
Town of Vail
75 S. Fron4age Rd./Vail CO 81657
H
n This Issue:
Energy & Mineral Impact Grant Deadline
Presenring Trailer Parks as Affordable Housing
QQ Update
• ~ wf~ G~ ?
, , . .
• • il(~f~,t~~
. : . To~~~~ VArL
• . In~t/Inquary Fespvaise Recvrd •
The ateached con=ents wege recently geceived by the Towat of VaiI, ~e encourage V4
residents and guests to give tgs stach irt~t and we stdve for timeg
A.DDKFSS T~~ESE COI~~S y+~ ~ y~OFIC~1G DAYS A~a~RErLUW s THiS
_ CONIPLETM FORVI T°O Pt1lvt BRAND -
. . ;
_ DEFAR b ~,To ~~t,~ ~QUIRy ~ C~rnw~ ~ ±2LaL,~--
d . .
INDrVM vAL To r-ALNDr.E INQUIRY
` DAT°E T'OV ItECEVED Z0jr/INQUjRy y: y_q`1 .
, • ZYr'F OF TN-ilT i i°/TVO TTRY•
PFiOIV c CALI. ('iridicate date} . . .
. Lt: t.: (at:ached) G~v-~- 4. -~9-0'~c-~-e-- (t'Y' ~G~ ~ • `A ?~d-~(c,Al-,
~t (s-t.c,ti l~' S ~(~1(~tf~ ~5 ~ u ~g • ti 7 '
ILE: i ONSE C. (
~D attac,ed)
l
. =F OF R ~POFV~ L;~ne): . I.ET'I'EcZ (attach copy)
. PHQIVE CAI.L. (iaYtdicate date) . . B ED-= SLTtiLi~f~IZY OF R PONSF (7R A7VS4~ ~'~i ~rn~rr~v< • 1
DA ~ c 0 F RE P ONSC FOR:tiiD BY DEPAIZT iNIENT TO P?uM BR~iM¢Ya.
' A =oy oi t4iy irtquiry and Eoren will eemain oft H1e ac t,F:e i17 V Ccmrstmyity Relations ofBer- ,qa imn as this fQcm is retyn"d b?=
• 2mndmeyer, thia in4cciry ;vil! be cnsid¢ted c'esed.
.
i:~.'ti,V<'CCUit':`R'!CC.'Z.~ =T'~va.:~L'L~'C.^.Fi:s~~,~ revnC,rv_~~.-e~~vr•r-c-~-•,,;e a-.__. -
~
:
Richard A Conn ,~ECEIVti~ MAR 3 1 1991
Orie Lincoln Plaza New York, New York 10023
March 27, 1997
Mr. Bob Armour
Mayor of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Armour:
I enclose a copy of my letter to William A. Wood, District Ranger, regarding the pro- '
posed burn which affects the Booth Creek area where we have.a residence (2425 Bald
Mountain Road).
I do not know the first thing about land erosion, burns, fires, etc. I do know that
our residence is in a section where we had mudslides not too long ago. We were lucky
to escape damage.
In discussion with Tom Johnston of the Forest Service, he could not give me 100% assur-
ance that something could go amiss in this project and damage could be done. Frankly,
I am not interested in having to go against either the Forest Service or the U.S.
Government. • • - I don't know the position of the town council on this project. I was not happy with the
idea that notification was a letter placed under my door rather than by direct mail to
my permanent residence.
I would like to know the position of the Town Council on this project.
I attended the meeting that you were at in New York City in which there were discussions
about being responsive to second home owners.
I would appreciate hearing from you the town's position on this project and in particular,
answers to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Richard Conn
mcnard H. (-onn
a
One Lincoln Plaza
~ New York, Uew York I0023
b
March 27, 1997
Mr. William A. Wood
District Ranger
Holy Cross Ranger District
. ' P.O. Box 190 ,
Minturn, Colorado 81645
RE: PROPOSED PRESCRIBED BURN in the
BOOTH CREEK AREA
(Sections 1-6 T.SS, R.80W)
Dear Mr. Wood:
I spoke with Tom Johnston at the Forest Service office on April 24th concerning the
proposed burn. He was kind enough to fill me in as to the plan and how it would affect
my property on Bald Mountain Road. I appreciate very much the time he spent talking
with me. I am most concerned about the possibility of land erosion and another mud-
slide occurring.
Obviously, the Forest Service would do everything in its power.to assure the residence
on Bald Mountain Road that this would not occur. Further, Mr. Jonnston told me that
sheuld there be any problem with landslides, or damage to our homes, provisions would
be made for claims against the Forest Service of U.S. Government.
This idea is not very comforting to me as a resident who had to have his home boarded
with plywood during the last mudslide. With the heavy snows that we had this winter
and the early spring thaw, I have additional concerns.
. I wish to be counted as a property owner against this project. The only reason I did
not communicate with you sooner was that the le.tter dated February 5, 1997 was placed _
under my door and not sent to me at my.residence in New York.
Sincerely,
Richard Conn .
To: Town Council Niembers Town of Vail From:
000000000000000000000000000000oooo8mo00mooooooooo0mmomoooaooo80mooooo0
0 0
0 0
0
0
° o
0
~ o
o • o
° Communic-latio-11J.- o
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 o
0 o
,14
0 0
° V IL VILLA E °
o .
. o
- ~ E C~IAN`T .o
0-
0 0
0 0
° ASS CIATIC~l~T °
0 0
0
o
0 0
o ~
0
o
,
ont~i ly 1lileetin 0
~
~ o
0 0
o Weclnesclay, April 9 0
o 8:30 A~1I ~
0
0
0 Coloraclo Ski 1Vluseuyn o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
Agendao °
0
0
o - Discussion & planning of ]une special events °
0
0
o 0 0 - Update on adding benches in Vail `Iillage o
0 0
0
o - ~Iote on ~/Iay meeting o
. 0
o
o ~ Finalization of objectives for '97/ °98 0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
° le se atte d s e can plan for ~
0 0
0
0
o 0 0 scc ssf ul stxmxrter seasor~! o
0
0
~ *Addit~onal a encla iterns r~ay be aclcied ~
0 0
0
0 0
° at t e meetingo ~
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
o o
0
00000000000000000000oooooaoooooooaoeo0oooooo0oooo8moomom000oo000000000
RECEI1lED MAR 3 1 1997
~ 4~'~G u.S'So v ec
~ Public °
° ce~ . P~ ~c ~~ice
C pany of Colorado
, _ • P.O. Box 840
fViarch 25, 1997 Denver,coso2o1-oaao
Mr. Bob Armour
Mayor
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
. Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Armour:
I am pleased to report an important step has been reached in the pending merger between
Public Seroice Company of Colorado and Southwestern Public Service Company. It is a step
woilLh c2lebrating dvith community leaders like you, our custcmers, and our sharehclders.
On fVlarch 12, 1997, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved our merger, clearing
the way for New Century Energies (NCE) to begin operating in May. We expect our final
. hurdle, approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission, to be reached quickly and
favorably.
For our customers, the merger means they will continue to enjoy some of the lowest energy
prices in the nation. Combining operations helps keep costs down by eliminating redundant
and inefficient practices, and as a result, vve expect to save $770 million over the next ten
years. These savings vvill be reflected in lower energy bills for our customers, including an
electricity rate freeze over the next five years. And, customers will continue to do business with
Public Service Company of Colorado. We vvill continue to deliver. reliable service and work to
improve the service we provide.
For our communities, the merger provides such benefits as remaining locally controlled with a
vested interest in our neighbors. This is particularly important when communities have unique
economic development, environmental, and other needs.
0 Our companies have been behind the scenes of nearly every major economic development
project, looking for ways to contribute. By delivering lower energy prices to area
, businesses, we help keep local enterprises competitive and secure businesses that can
choose to locate anywhere-all of which ensures more jobs and the vibrant economy that
we now enjoy.
0 We take the quality of our environment seriously and we listen when organizations and
citizens speak out on the environment. We are working hard for solutions that balance our
customers' demand for economical energy with our stewardship of the environment. In
recent years, we have worked with our customers to install more than 30 solar power
projects throughout the state, including the largest one in Colorado at Cherry Creek
Resenroir, and we are about to begin building Colorado's largest wind power resource.
Mr. Bob Armour
March 25, 1997
Page Two
• We work to improve the quality of life for all of our stakeholders through dollars, employee
volunteer hours, and in-kind goods and services to our community. From tree-planting
grants and computers for schools, to our employee food drive, to funding for eldercare
education, we.will continue to invest in all the communities we serve.
For our shareholders, this merger secures their investment in New Century Energies' future as _
. the competitive, marketplace for electricity and natural gas continues to evolve. ' The;companies
that provide low-cost reliable service will survive. New Century Energies offers a way to
leverage the strengths, reduce the weaknesses and move ahead as a leaner and more
competitive player in the new market, with the ability to tackle new challenges.
Gne of ti-lese chaiienges is how tne eieciricity industry wilf be resiruciured in a compeiiiive
environment. We firmly support customer choice when it comes to choosing an energy
provider. In fact, in February 1997, we filed comments with the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission, urging that all customers be allowed to choose their natural gas supplier.
However, we advise careful thought in making the transition to. competition. We strongly.
believe consideration must be given to the foltowing concerns: • All customers, not just large ones, should benefit from a competitive market;
• All energy providers should follow the same regulations and standards, especially
with regard to protecting the environment; `
• All customers should be confident that any changes will not compromise their ability
to depend on a highly reliable electric and natural gas system; and -
• All energy companies should provide customer choice simultaneously. . x-
A competitive environment will be a significant change. We hope that competition and
responses to it, such as our merger, will be as positive for you as they are for us. We see a
bright future, one with tough decisions, but also with exciting challenges. And, it is a future in
which we will continue to work with you to improve the quality of life in the communities in which
we live, work, and play.
Thank you for your support, your ideas, and vour leadership. We look forward ta working with
you in the future. _
Very truly yours,
Wayne H. Brunetti
President and Chief Executive Officer
Public Service Company of Colorado
- RECEIVEO MAR 3 1 1WLf
` YJnited States Forest 69hite River P.O. Box 948
Department of Service Ydational Glen.sood Springs,
- Agriculture Forest Colorado 81602
.
970-945-2521
TTY 970-945-3255
FAX 970-945-3266
Reply to: 1950/1570
Date: March 25, 1997
X C : C&r,t:c,C,
, 7~-
Dear Reader:
Previously, you had asked to receive a copy of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (Final EIS) for the Vail Category III project, or its Summary.
Alternatively, you may have requested that you be kept apprised of the status
of this project. Consequently, enclosed please find a copy of the Draft
Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS. Through this Draft Supplement
we are soliciting further public input regarding proposed amendments to the
White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for
the Vail Ski Area.
My decision on the Vail Category III Ski Area Development was the subject of an
administrative appeal on October 7, 1996. On November 26, and again on
December 20, 1996, the Regional Appeal Deciding Officer supported most elements
of the analysis and my approval. However, he directed that further off-site
cumulative effects analysis be completed and that additional steps be
undertaken in amending the Forest Plan in the manner proposed in my earlier
decision. On February 25, 1997, 2 completed my review of the off-site analysis
and affirmed my earlier decision. This Draft Supplement focuses on fulfilling
the remaining part of the Appeal Deciding Officer's direction, analysis for
proposed Forest Plan amendements.
In his rnling, the Appeal Deciding Officer determined that certain steps had
not been completed in the Forest Plan amendment process. Specifically, this
included a consideration of the significance of adopting the proposed
amendments in the context of the Forest Plan for the entire White River
National Forest. The enclosed Draft Supplement documents this required
assessment and includes a significance finding.
The purpose of distributing this Draft Supplement is to allow the public the
opportunity to provide comment on the merits of these amendments and the
significance analysis. Following review of this input, a Final Supplement and
an amended Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued. The amended ROD will
document the decision whether or not to adopt the Forest Plan amendments
described in this document. A 45-day appeal period will follow release of the
amended ROD before the Forest Plan changes would take effect. If you provide
comment on this Draft Supplement, or complete the enclosed mail-in fozm, you
will receive a copy of the Final Supplement and amended ROD.
- Dear Reader Page 2
Thank you for your interest in the Vail Categoxy III project. Please note that
we must receive your comments by A3av 19, 1997. Please direct questions to:
Loren Kroenke - Project Manager
White River National Forest " . ,
Holy Cross Ranger District
. P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81654
Ph. (970) 827-5715
Sincerely,
~
f ,
, VETO J. LASALLE
Forest Supervisor
Enclosures 2.
.
, - . . _ _ ; _ -
°
. . ~ . . . - ~ . - . . . . , •T'' .
~i '
Holy Cross Ran ee Di
- PO Box 190 ~ :
t:
~ Minttrn, CO S1645 .
. Place.
stamp
lieae ~
TO: ,
- I,oren Kroenke - EIS Project Man - ` .
Holy Cross Ranger District ager r... _
. . vVhite Itiver National Forest .
Po Box 190 i
Min4urn, CO i1645
E
.
~
Dear Reader:
~
1~sil-en Re.sponse Foem ~
° Yes, i am interested in
Vail Category YII Final E'~d ~ended R~ oFinal Supplement to the. ~
though d did not provide an d of Dec~s~on, even
(T'hose who proyide writte c mments on ~e ~n the Draf} Supplement.
•
automatically receiye these documents.) ~ SuPp~ement will
-Please print carefully.
Name
~ Address
Address
City, State an d Zip Code ~
Must be resefived by AI2y 19, fl 997.
. ,
`4i
.
, SUPPLE NT TO THE
~ .lC' 111V AL ENV IRONMENTAL IWACT STA!1 E N~
VAIL CATIEGORY gII SKI AREA DE`IELOPMEN°T
r0ftE95ERVq -
~
'~'MEENTOFA6
USDA-Forest Service
Holy Cross Ranger District
VVhite River National Forest
Eagle County, Colorado
Responsab9~ OfficflaBo Forest Supervisor -White River 1Vational Forest
March 1997
Prepared for the White River Alational Forest by:
, Pioneer Environmental Services, Inc.
980 West 1 800 South
Logan, UT 84321
Draft Supplerneng tm t?ae
IFnnall Envermnmental Impact Statemeng
_ Vanll Ca~~~ory III Ska Area Developanent
]Proposed Actiom and 1Location: Vail Ski Area
- Holy Cross Ranger District ` White River National Forest
Eagle County, Colorado _
1Lead Agency: USDA-Forest Service Cooperating .a.gency: Department of the Army
White River National Forest Corps of Engineers
900 Grand Avenue Western Colorado Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 948 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Grand Junction, CO 81501
Responsible Of9icial: Forest Supervisor
White River National Forest
For &'urther Ilntormation: Loren M. Kroenke, Project Manager
White River National Forest
Holy Cross Ranger District
P. O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81645
(970) 827-5715
Abstract: The attached document is a Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Ski Area Development Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). This Draft Suppiement was preceded by Draft and Final EISs for this project which were prepared
over a two and one-half year period beginning in early 1994. These were completed consistent with Section 102 (2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969, as amended). The Draft and Final EISs provided a detailed analysis of the
environmental impacts of implementing four alternatives for development of the Category III area at Vail Ski Area, near Vail,
Colorado. On August 16, 1996, the Final EIS and Record of Decision were issued approving development of the area.
Following an administrative appeal of the decision, the Appeal Deciding Officer for the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S.
Forest Service remanded a portion of the decision. This ruling required that the significance of amending the White River
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) be analyzed and made available for public comment, as
directed by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and applicable regulations (36 CFR 219.10 (f)), before full
implementation begins.
Under NFMA, the Forest Service is required to consider whether proposed amendments would result in a significant change
in the long-range goods, services, or outputs projected under an approved forest plan. This document focuses on an analysis
of the significance of adopting the Forest Plan amendments described in this Draft Supplement for the Vail Ski Area. This
Draft Supplement also contains background' information about the purpose and need for the project, alternatives to the
proposal, and its environmental impacts. This background is included only to provide a brief context for the amendments;
it does not in any way change the information included in the Final EIS for the Category III project. Following consideration
of public comments on the merits of these amendments or the significance analysis, a Final Supplement to the Category III
Final EIS will be prepared. This Final Supplement, together with an amended ROD, will be disuibuted to all who have
requested that they be notified. The amended ROD will document the Forest Supervisor's decision regarding the proposed
Forest Plan amendments.
The United States Departrnent of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service is a diverse organization committed to equal opportunity
in employment and program delivery. USDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion,
_ sex or disability, familial status, or political affiliation. Persons believing they have been discriminated against should contact
the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250 or call (202) 720-7327 (voice), or (202) 720-1127
(TDD).
CommeaYs rreust be received by May 19, 1997.
Abbreviations
ABB TIONS AlVD ACR0 S .
ACOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CDPHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CDOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colorado Department of Transportation
CDOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colorado Division of Wildlife
CFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Code of Federal Regulations
EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Impact Statement-
~ ' . Forest Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
FSH * U.S. Forest Service Handbook -
FSM U.S. Forest Service Manual
FWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
LA .Landscape Area
NEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA National Forest Management Act
PA . . . . . . . . Project Area
R2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Forest Service Region 2 (Rocky Mountain Region)
RA RegionalArea
ROD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Record of Decision
USDA-FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Deparhnent of Agriculture - Forest Service
USDI-FWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
VQO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visual Quality Objective
Abbreviations and Acronyms v
Summary
SUMMAlZY AND L1SER9S GLJIDE
This document is a Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Vail Category.ID Ski
-Area Development As such, it provides additional information which was not included in the Final EIS and Record of
I?ecision (ROD) which were released on August 16,1996. Following an administraTive apgeal ofthis decision, the Appeal
Deciding Officer for the Rocky Mountain Region of the U.S. Forest Service substantially affirmed the Forest
• Supervisor's decision to approve the Category M project~ but directed the White River National Forest to undertake
further steps to analyze the significance of amending the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan) in the manner proposed in the ROD before full implementation could begin.
This Draft Supplement has been prepared to document the significance analysis for these amendments under provisions
of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and applicable agency policies. Consistent witfi the instructions of the
Appeal Deciding Officer, this document does not reconsider the alternatives, analysis, assumptions, mitigation
measures, or other items which are a part ofthe earlier Final EIS. Foilowing public review and comment on the merits
of the proposed amendments or the significance analysis, a Final Supplement to the Category III Final EIS and an
amended ROD will be issued which will address whether, and describe how, the amendments detailed in this Draft
Supplement have been adopted. A 45{iay administra2ive appeal period will follow issuance ofthe amended ROD before
any amendments would take effect.
This Draft Supplement has been organized much like a full EIS in that it contains all ofthe sections required under
NEPA regulations. Following this summary, a Table of Contents is provided. Chapter 1 summazizes pertinent
information from the Category III Final EIS regarding the purpose and need for action. Chapter 2 provides an synopsis
ofthe altematives that were considered in the Final EIS and outlines important elements that were part ofthe August
1996, ROD. The Affected Environment and Environmental Corisequences ofimplementing the Category III progosal and
alternatives to it are summazized in Chapter 3. The most important part ofthis Draft Supplement, an analysis ofthe
significance of adopting the proposed amendments, is the focus of Chapter 4. This chapter concludes that, based on
the criteria contained in agency policy and NFMA, the amendments proposed in this Draft Supplement would constitute
a non-significant amendment ofthe Forest Plan. Peisons who participated in the preparation ofthis Draft Supplement
are listed in Chapter 5. Coordination with other agencies, organizations, or persons which occurred as the Category
ID Final EIS or this Draft Supplement was prepared is detailed in Chapter 6. Finally, this Draft Supplement closes
with a list of references, Glossary, and key word index.
Summary and User's Guide vii
Table of Content
T1BLE OF CONTEN1L S
Page
ABBREVIATIONS ,4ND ACRONYIVIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
SUMMARY AND USER'S GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
CHAPTER 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................1-1 ~
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 ~
' 1.2.1 Purpose of the proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.2.2 Need for the Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
13 Issues ................................................................1-5
CHAPTER 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATNES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1.1 Alternative A: No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.2 Alternative B: Center Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.3 Alternative C: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.1.4 Alternative D: Master Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.2 The Category III Record of Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.. 3- 1
3.1 Lynx ................................................................3-I
3.2 Reliable Skiing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.3 Intermediate Ski Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.4 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.5 Roadless Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
CHAPTER 4. SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Forest plan Amendment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - I
4.2 Post-Decision Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
_ 4.2.1 Patton Edge-Shape Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . 4-2
4.2.2 Optimal Structural Stage Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
~ 42.3 Maximum Size of Treated Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.2.4 Regional Acceptable Work Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3 Proposed Category III Forest Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3.1 Standards and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.3.2 Management Area Prescriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.4 Significance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.4.1 Amendments to Standards and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4.4.2 Amendments to Management Area Prescriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4.4.3 Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
CHAPTER 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 Pioneer Environmental Services, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Table of Contents ix
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
CHAPTER 6.0 LIST OF COORDINATION, CONSULTATION AND DISTRIBUTION 6-1
-
6.1 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 Consultation ..........................................................6-2
6.2.1 Federal .......................................................6-3
6.2.2 State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
.
6.2.3 County .......................................................6-3
6.2.4 Local ........................................................6-3
63 Distribution ...........................................................6-3 ~
6.3.1 Federal, State, Counry, and Municipal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
- ' . 63.2 Groups/Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6.3.3 Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
GLOSSARY G -1
INDEX I-1
APPENDIX A - PROJECTED FOREST PLAN OUTPUTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 2
x Table of Contents
Table of Content
~ LES
Page
Table 1. Summary of other issues and concerns identified during scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 6
~ Table 2. Comparison of common elements in the project area by action alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1
Table 3. Category III authorized master development plan components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Table 4. Compazison of potential impacts to lynx denning habitat within the PA and LA. 3-3
Table 5. Comparison of additional skiable terrain by alternative (acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Table 6. Comparison of intermediate trail capacity added by alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Table 7. Summary of the habitat block analysis for the Category III area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 5
Table 8. Category III areas providing backcountry recreation opportunities by alternative (acres) 3-6
Table 9. Percent of Potential Habitat by Diversity Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Table lO.Proposed Changes in Acreage for Management Area Arescriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
b,IST OF FIGIJRES
Page
Figure 1. Depiction of the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 3
Figure 2. Depiction of elements associated with Alternative A: No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Figure 3. Depiction of elements associated with Alternative B: Center Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Figure 4. Depiction of elements associated with Alternative C: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Figure 5. Depiction of elements associated with Alternative D: Master Development Plan . 2-9
Figure 6. Selected Master Development Plan components and temporary timber road 2- 10
Figure 7. Proposed Forest Plan Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Table of Contents Xi
Chapter 1.0 Purpose and Need
CHAPTER 1.0 P¢lJ OSE AND 1'dEED
1.1 INTRODu.1 CTION
This document is a Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Vai( Category III Ski Area Development Over atwo and one-halfyear period beginning in early 1994, Draft and Final EISs were preparod in response to a proposal from Vail Associates, Inc. to develop a portion of the Category III and Tea Cup Bowl areas ' of Vail Ski Area on the White River National Forest abaut 90 miles west of Denver in Eagle County, Colorado. The Final
EIS was released on August 16, 1996, along with a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD was the subject of an
adminishative appeal on October 7,1396 (CEC 1996). In a niling by the Regional Appeal I?eciding Officer on November
26, 1996, the White River National Forest was directed to: (1) complete further analyses regarding off-site
cumulative impacts, and (2) undertake certain steps in amending the White River Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan).
NEPA requires that supplements to EISs be prepared when there is a substantial change in the proposed action, or when
significant new information or circumstances with a bearing on environmental concems become known before a project
is implemented (40 CFR 1502.9(c)). The review ofcumulative impacts was completed on Febniary 25,1997 and concluded
that these conditions did not exist and that sufficient information was in the Final EIS to have made the Category III
decision in August of 1996. While the cumulative effects analysis did not merit preparation of a Draft Supplement,
one has been prepared in order to comply with the Appeal Deciding Officer's direction for completing an analysis of
the significance of certain Forest Plan amendments and for making this information available for public review and
comment in an environmental document. While a separate Environmental Assessment could have also satisfied this
requirement, this Draft Supplement to the Final EIS is a more efficient and understandable vehicle with which to
document this information.
T'his g?mflt Suppleenent is ffocaasec9 on ffie analysis $'or mnending the Foeest P9an anal ffie derision to be rnade s wheffieror
¢eot to adopt the Forest Plan aanendQaeecets describec? en this document. Public comment is being solicited on the merits
ofthese proposed amendments, the clarification that is provided describing why several amendments are unnecessary, and the significance analysis. Consistent with the instructions of the Appeal Deciding Officer, this document does
not reconsider the alternatives, analyses, assumptions, mitigation measures, or other items which are a part ofthe
earlier Final EIS.
The need to amend a Forest P1an may arise from several sounces, inctuding findings that existing or proposed permits,
contracts, cooperative agreements and other instruments authorizing occupancy and use aze not consistent with the
Forest Plan, but should be approved (FSH 1922.5(2)). In addition, Forest Secvice regulations require that an
assessment be made ofthe relative significance of forest plan amendments, in the context of the entire National
Forest, before they are adopted (36 CFR 219.10(f)). In this case, the ROD identified seven Forest Plan standards and
guidelines (hereafter, standards) that appeared to need modification. In addition, the ROD attempted to change the
land management allocation on about 4,615 acres of lands sunounding the Category ID area to emphasize wildlife
- values. A significance finding is included in Chapter 4 of this Draft Supplement.
To document the background and setting for amending the Forest Plan, a synopsis ofthe Category III Final EIS and ROD
is pmvided in this Draft Supplement The infomiation m the Draft EIS (LJSDA-FS 1995), Final EIS (iJSDA-FS 1996a), ROD
(L]SDA-FS 1996b) and associated documents are incorporated by reference in this Draft Supplement. In addition, this
Draft Supplement is tiered to the Vail Category III Final EIS (40 CFR 1508.28). .
1.1 Introduction 1 - 1
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS •
The Category III Draft and Final EISs contain extensive and detailed information about the potential environmental
impacts ofthe project In preparing the EIS, 38 public meetings were held, 25 meetings took place between the Forest
Service and other agencies, and 12 meetings were held with enviranmental groups and the Forest Service. In addition,
221 written comments on the Draft EIS were receivad and 225 individuaLs, organizations, and agencies were sent copies
of the Final EIS and ROD. As a part of preparation of this I?raft Supplement, additional opportunity for public input -
is being provided. Comments received during the period indicated on the cover sheet of this document will be
considered in preparing the Final Supplementto the Final EIS and amended ROD. The Final Supplement and amended ROD
will be sent to all who received a copy of this Draft Supplement and who indicate that they wish to be kept informed.
A 45-day administrative appeal period will follow release ofthe amended ROD before any Forest Plan amendments would
, take effect. -
. The 4,100-acre Category III area, an undeveloped portion of the existing special use permit area, has a long history
of consideration for ski azea development. A large part of this area was included in the original special use permit
issued for Vail Ski Area in 1962. In addition, this area was placed in the highest priority class for future
devebpment swdy inthe 1983 and 1992 versions ofthe R+ocky Mountain Reganal Guide(USDA-FS 1992a and USDA-F5 1983).
The 1984 Forest Plan Final EIS and ROD allocated lands in the Category III area to management emphasizing future
downhill ski area uses. In 1986, an Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice enlarged the area under permit to
what are the current boundaries of the Category III area This decision withheld development of the Category III area
pending submission of a detailed development proposal by the permit holder and completion of a site-specific
environmental analysis. On Febniary 18,1994, Vail Associates, Inc. submitted a detailed proposal (Proposed Action)
for the Category III area The proposal would have added approximately 1,000 acres of mostly intermediate-level,
lift-accessed ski tenain to Vail Ski Area. The project area relative to the existing Vail Ski Area is depicted in
Figure l. A summary ofthe Proposed Action and altematives to it which were considered in the Final EIS is provided
in Chapter 2 of this Draft Supplement. In addition, Section 2.2 includes a brief description of pertinent items
approved in the ROD in August of 1996.
Like the Final EIS, this I?raft Supplement is not a decision document. Its main purpose is to document the significance
of undertaking the Forest P(an amendments described in Chapter 4 ofthis Draft Supplement This Draft Supplement
provides both public disclosure and sufficient analysis for the Forest Service decision. The Responsible Official's
decision regarding amendment of the Forest Plan will be made public in an amended ROD.
1.2 PLTRPOSE AND NEED IFOR THE PROPOS]ED ACTION
The following information has been excerpted from the Category III Final EIS.
The objectives of the Proposed Action were outlined in a proposal from Vail Associates, Inc. to the Forest Service.
Prior to accepting the proposal and agreeing to move forward with it into a NEPA analysis, the proposal was reviewed
by the Forest Service using available information. Based on this review, it was determined that:
1. The proposal was consistent with the land allocation decision in the White River National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and the concept considered and appmved in the 1986 Environmental
Assessment and Decision Notice. .
2. There were no apparent significant new circumstances or changed conditions that indicated that the Forest
Plan allocation for the Category III area should be changed. -
3. The proposal included reasonable efforts to minimize resource impacts.
1-2 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Vall Posa
. I-70
4.0 mibe
~-p041 Vail Ski Area
Category III Development
~ w/ w n i 7 E R i v E R Draft Supplement to the EIS
J ~ .NATIO NAL FOREST M-h 1897
Ski lift
a P
Project Area
9M r ~ t ~ F
/ ~ ti=a~ s , ; ~ s3
\ a CRMei-A-nA-a ~YE~B s s . ~ L
-Si
1 :4 r y'y. .F ~ V :r :
. _ : ie ~~5~~ ° ' G 1
f ?
/J21~ ~t ~~TG Cta7' v _ - !~~o
~ Y 0 N C 0 L I A Q
J~~
,;g aoa~ CAT IIAr ea~ 1¢5
5 I B E R 1 A ~ '='f~"~' ~ O~
t, B 0 W L #17 : ' = I
WHITE RIVF~R
C N I N A
9
~ ' .
/ 4O N A L F O R E 5 T
o d L S P ~ N A
~.~..e... e o w L
suN ooeH 6`.
y N'AIL i eoaL
, y.~ + : ~ •p-~ e~'~ i ~ ! #23 MOUKTAIN-i
~ _ •L ,lf24 ~ ;,~''a~.~.:ffl~P o +.n.m
,#14, 6~es,«<:_~~ot.~~~ •
' ' jr._f i ~ r~\~ •
I va~mnc-. ~o
_BENCHNARK ~ Fo~ni
p BOWL , MUSMROON ~ i ~e qyE pRDf~~ 0
eONL .#4 #3% . w ~ ~7
c'_. a. I ~ ~
~ i. ~iA•
Northe0lt
Bwl %
A Alid Voil f.`~,
~~AT 1, L~rea < ati,~ ~ 'Aw ~r,, o
e
~ :o':.` ~~i 1 ~ip•. #6 fi R
6_E:: g
.~-f,.,M.:.,,,.,,,', • 1,° pr
~n~~%
rE-' ~R'..,,"'~ i.e,_ i
9#fl8 u
~ ~ a o
~•i;~;S _Mell_ C N
reck i6"''
..Geci6i~'`
.~ee~ ~ o
W H 1 T E R I V E R .q
._._L.:
r w.~ r'_ i'-a ii •m
NATIONAL POR E5T ' O• i._ rl /f811
? BO,,~ 41\ ~ ; 11 ~ Y ~~e~a~
o
_ ~ ~ ~ ; :Yo
~ EaSf Vail o °
~ 6 ~ i #20`~ u
~ , ~ .r nnaneenueen9em..el~•,-~.~~
'c~o 1 Ay121
~ \ ~n\ ~ 0 ~ ~811 0
.eevavoy,'oevoeevoeeevod
••,.r~or .
, ,~~oc. - -r°~ ~ i`~.~-"
x
10,
Town Of '1.linturn
Eagles Nest Voil 3.5 milen
Wilderness w H i r e R I v E R
I.__.~ .
NI 'A T I O N A L F O R E S i Figure 1. Depiction of the Project Area.
1-3
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
4. Ifapproved and constructed, the Category III area would function as arr.effective addition to Vail Ski Area
Consequently, the proposal was accepted and adopted by the Forest Service as the Proposed Acrion and the EIS process
was initiated. This step simply triggered the formal NEPA process, but made no decisions regarding approval for the
Category III proposal. _
1.2.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAI, -
The objectives (purposes) of the Proposed Action are outlined below as they appeared in the Final EIS.
1. Enhance the quality of skiing opportunities within the existing special use permit at Vail Ski Area by the
following means:
? Offering more reliable and consistent skiing conditions, especially early in the season, without
creating additional snow-making demands.
? Improving skier distribution throughout the entire ski area.
? Providing additional intermediate ski terrain.
? Improving skier distribution and utili7ation of China, Tea Cup, and Sun Up bowls and providing a more
direct end-0f-day egress route fi-om China and Tea Cup bowls and the Category III areas to Vail Village
and the Lionshead base area.
? Providing backup lift service for Tea Cup, China, Mongolia, and Siberia bowls and the Category III area,
for access from and to the front side of Vail Ski Area.
2. Make more efficient use of existing local and on-mountain infrastructure at Vail Ski-Area during
traditionally low periods of use.
3. Support community and ski area efforts to stabilize seasonal economic fluctuations and build annual
skier visitation at Vail Ski Area without increasing peak-day skier numbers.
- 1.2.2 NEED FOR THE PROPOSAL
The agency policy and direction which provided a framework for the need for action were described in the Final EIS as
follows:
1. To respond to a proposal which has the potential for offering more effective recreation utilization of public
lands without creating additional demands and impacts on off-site lands and communities.
2. To help to achieve Forest Service goals by providing high-quality recreational experiences for visitors to
the National Forest, specifically within the Vail Ski Area permit area.
3. To fulfill the broad management goals of the Forest Plan.
The 1992 Rocky Mountain Regional Guide addresses the role of the Forest Service in providing quality recreational
opportunities as follows:
1-4 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Chapter 1.0 Purpose and Need
"National Forests play a significant role in the development and administration of the recreation resort
indusUy in the Racky Mountain Region, especially downhill (alpine) skiing, and help to maintain the national and international image of the Region as one of the world's premier winter recreation destinations."
The Final EIS concluded that the Proposed Action was consistent with the land allocation decision in the Forest Plan
and the Master Development Plan for Vail Ski Area.
1>3 IS5UES
NEPA requires that the public and other agencies be involved in agency decision making. Scoping is an important part
of this involvement. It is a process for determining the "scope of the issues to be addressed and for identifying the
significant issues related to a proposed action" (40 CFR 1501.7). Public and agency scoping for this EIS began in
February 1994 when an information summary was sent to solicit comment from approximately 300 individuals,
organizations, and agencies on the project mailing list. Public involvement continued in various forms through
preparation of both the Draft and Final EISs.
NEPA regulations direct agencies preparing EISs to determine the significant issues which require in-depth analysis.
Criteria used to determine significance include both the context of the action and the relative intensity of the
impacts (40 CFR 1508.27).
In the case of this project, a complete list of issues identified during scoping was reviewed by the interdisciplinary
team artd, using the criteria above, evaluated for significance. The significant issues which were analyzed in the
EIS are the following:
1. The effects on lynx and its habitat.
2. The need for more reliable skiing conditions during eazly portions of the ski season and when adverse
visibility or snow conditions limit use of the Back Bowls.
3. The availability of intermediate terrain relative to the ability level of Vail Ski Area's clientele.
4. The impacts to biodiversity.on a landscape scale, including species diversity, habitat connectivity,
structural diversiry, old-growth forests, and rare or special habitats.
5. The effect of alpine skiing development on the roadless character of the Category III area.
Many othertopics, concems, and viewpoints were identified during scoping. Those that related to specific concems
about the impacts to the biological, physical, or human environment were "issues" in the NEPA process and were
summarized in Table 1. Concerns about the technical feasibility ofthe proposal, the NEPA process, or about suggested
alternatives are valid questions but were not considered issues. Regardless of their status, issues and questions
raised during scoping were addressed in the appropriate sections of the EIS.
13 Issues 1-5
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category lII Final EIS
Table 1. . Summary of other issues and concerns identified during scoping.
VEGETATION
? Introduction of non-native plants • ,
? Threatened, endangeced, or sensitive plant species
? Potential incompatibiliry with grazing allotments
TIMBER RESOURCES •
? Utilization of forest products
? Impacts on wildlife and other resources associated with logging roads/haul routes WILDLIFE -
? Elk calving, migration, and summer use
? Small mammals and associated predators
? Special interest species, such as mountain lion and black bear
Wildlife species that depend on interior forest habitats
AQUATIC ]RESOURCES
? Aquatic life, including trout populations
WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS
? Potential impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands, riparian areas, and streams
? Water quality, quantity, chemistry, temperature, timing of flow, and stream channel stability
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
? Soil erosion and revegetation
0 Geologic hazards
AIR QUALITY
? Air qualiry, both in the immediate area and in adjacent Wildernesses
VISUAL RESOURCES
? Potential visual impacts as seen from the top of Vail Mountain, Two Elk Trail, and Commando Run Trail
HERITAGE RESOURCES
? Cultural (heritage) resources
RECREA7'ION
1. User experiences on the Two Elk National Recreation Trail and Commando Run Trail
° ? Opportunities for semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation
? Access and opportunities for big game hunting -
ALPINE SKIIING ? General quality of skiing at Vail Ski Area, including skier densities at key locations on the front side of the ski area
? Public benefits in terms of increased numbers of visitors enjoying public lands and returns to the U.S. Treasury
? Out-of-area skiing and potential hazards
PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION
? Available parking in the Town of Vail
? Levels of traffic and patterns on roads, streets, and highways
0 Mass transportation systems
SOCIOECONOMICS
? Demand for community services such as housing, sewage, water, health care, welfare, landfills, police and fire .
protection, emergency medical services, schools, etc.
? Lifes les and the uali of life in the Vail Vallev
1-6 1.3 Issues
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Action and Altematives
C PTER 2.0 PROPOSED AC'TION ANI) AI,TE ATIV]ES
This chapter summarizes the discussion of the alternatives which were considered in the Category III Final EIS.
Section 2.2 provides a brief discussion of important elements contained in the ROD.
2011 ALTERNATIYES .
' During the scoping process, a number of ahernatives to the Proposed Action were suggested. Four ofthese alternatives .
, were considered, but not selected for detailed analysis for different reasons, primarily because they did not meet
the purpose and need for the proposal, or because they could be implemented through selection ofthe No Action
Alternative. These were:
4 The "Conservation Biology Altemative," which called for more development ofthe Category I and II areas and
closure of the Category III azea to ski area development.
0 The alternative of permitting only those elements of the proposal occurring in Tea Cup Bowl.
4 The alternative of limiting skier access to the Category III area to snowcats use and not allowing lifts or
ski trails to be developed .
4 The altemative of developing terrain outside of the existing permit boundary, rather than the Category ID
area.
The EIS analyzed four alternatives in detail. These alternatives included many elements of those not considered in
detail. The first is Alternative A: No Action, which would occur if no agency action were taken regarding the
proposal. It is the baseline, status quo alternative required by NEPA regulations, against which all other
alternatives are compared. The action alternatives are Alternative B: Center Ridge, Altemative C: Proposed Action,
and Altemative D: Master Development Plan. These alternatives involve various levels of development within the
Category ID area They shaze a number of elements, as indicated in Table 2. Their individual features aze discussed
under subsequent headings.
;ub . ~om arison of common elements in the ro'ecY area b action alteroative.
Action ~.Iternatives
evelopment
Center Itidge t~Iaster Developmen4
ABternative Proposed Action Plan Alternative
of II~ifts 3 4 5
ls 545 acres 885 acres 1,259 acres
~toa ds 6.4 miles 11.1 miles 18.2 miles
0 miles 1.1 miles 2.4 miles
of ~ridges 3 4 5
Ski 1Pa4ro1 Build'engs 1 2 2
Picnic gDecks 1 2 2
Restaurant p 1 1
2.1 Alternatives 2-1
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
2.1.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION
Under this altemative, no development would occur in the Category III area or Tea Cup Bowl. Instead, the area would
continue to offer semi-primitive, non-motorized recreational opportunities. Livestock grazing would continue at its .
current level and the existing patterns and trends in dispersed recreation use would continue in the area. No
vegetation management activities, including timber harvest, would occur. Over the long term, vegetation would be
affected primarily by natural forces.
" Outside the Category III area all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, assumed that previously analyzed
and approved actions will eventually be implemented. Approximately 130 acres of previously approved trail
development oppbrtunities exist within the Category I portion of the ski azea. In addition, a number of lift
installations and upgrades on other portions of Vail Ski Area are anticipated or have been recently completed based
on previous approvals. They include:
? Lift 22 (Mongolia Bowl) ? Lionshead Gondola (Lift 19)
? Lift 6(Golden Peak) ? Lift 9(Eagle's Nest)
? Lift 10 (Northeast Bowl) ? Sheer Terror Lift
? Mushroom Bowl Lift
. Consistent with Forest Service po(icy, the construction plans for these projects would be reviewed for any significant
new cincumstances or changed conditions before implementation would be allowed. A finding of changed circumstances
could necessitate further formal NEPA review. While the EIS included an evaluation of these previously approved
developments as cumulative effects, it is not within its scope to revisit these decisions. Other existing facilities
would also be renovated and expanded under this alternative. For example, the Eagle's Nest building and Mid-Vail
Restaurant could be remodeled and enlarged under the No Action Altemative. Both the lift improvements and restaurant
expansions would require additional employees for operation.
Maintenance and annual operations in the Category I and II portions ofthe ski area would continue under the No Action
Alternative. This involves operation of downhill skiing facilities as well as the cunent offering of summer
recreation programs such as biking and hiking. It also includes activities such as regrading roads; maintaining bike
and pedestrian trails; maintaining lifts; installing signs; and cleaning and maintaining waterbars, culverts, and
other facilities under normal operating procedures. This alternative also assumed that the seasonal wildlife c(osure in the Back Bowls would continue. Finally, the No Action Altemative assumed that the general pattern of rapid
residential and cammercial growth and development in the Vail Valley would continue.
A graphic representation of the No Action Alternative is included as Figure 2.
2.1.2 ALTERNATIVE B: CENTER RIDGE
This altemative was developed to explore ways to further reduce potential impacts to wetlands and old-growth forest
and associated species and to limit impacts to a smaller geographic azea. It also concentrates development primarily
in areas which have been a part ofthe ski area special use permit since 1962, i.e., Super Bowl and western Pete's Bowl.
Under this altemative, Super Bowl, Ridge, and Tea Cup Bowl lifts would be buih and appmxirnately 545 acres of skiable
terrain would be made available. About 63 percent would be naturally open or gladed skiing. The remaining ski terrain
would be conventional trails cleared through more densely forested areas. This alternative would provide about 38 -
acres of beginner, 265 acres of intermediate, and 242 acres of advanced-level skiable terrain. Upper Super Bowl
includes a large area of naturally gladed, intermediate-level slopes, while the Center Ridge area would primarily
2-2 2.1 Alternatives
+ + -f- + 711
W H I T E R I V E R Vall Snl Area
N n r I 0 N A L F 0 R E S T Category III Development
Draft Supplement to the EIS
f- . ? ,..w
,P ~J ~ (Pore~t Gw~~) ~r S U P E NO Action
orq ~'•~l~= ~ e o w Alternative
March 1997
~ KEY: I- p, r,~"'~ / - + ? ~ 0. ~
(v,,..
C x cam~ ~ ~ ~i ~ .
~ Two Elk Creek ~~-j ~~Jv i I C . ~ ~ •
& other drainages 0 500 2000
• \J C~'•ui r rtn)
P lE T' E ~q,
I51DO~:, ~~B ~G W . ~FOrn t Core.) ~ H
7
M / ~ ~ (iwesl C var) i_ d,a - ~ \ Nota:
/D~ ~ ( ~ `r ow w xaw a m.P. .a r«nxy w~auo~n ao
°p~) • (ans~>~ ~.j~ ~ ' ' ~~~'~.n,-~. C . ~ ~ \ roproe«ieww ane nut m moo- o¦aee wcotlo~m.
~ ~ m g ~ ~ V - ` _ _ _ ~ ~ c~ C\rJ~ E ~ ~ ' e ' ` .
~~CENTER p~
~ + _..,~a , n`~ ~P . ° • ; emce +
S U E R
B p L
~ V t t (vo.ese ca,e') w s i W H 1 T E R I V E R
I. (vd~ cr~,~ ! Q~.
a i
19
n ~ t Aa r ~i
O N A T I 0 N A L F O R E 5 T
Q7 I C O tl Y A M U 0 ~ Py~a~N L ~S (7~ e ~ ' + p•~ /
B 0 w L~.... FS „ 1~ (FOre~t Cav~r) l..y ~
cFo,..
~ C-a ,
tra t cP,p> S ' 'U-~'~`' - ~°'~'jr • ` .m
i 1 ~,tlx~ i-•!~~i:s_ ".TV ,~r c...e,~~«~~`
~ ! S7
~;u)
7ooe~~~
~
~
~c2l> S, i
/,ro~e,c c~.+er) ,r .
,p `9~ , ~ o~s. y ~ • ~py ~ -+.:~t' ~ Cs , I a~ ~ ~ ~ ~I`~~ • nJ _
E N"
cD Tv.p~ ~ ( y~;,u~,• . ~2s co.q) . G\.
~...~I• d,
+
'q,J`~~'"~ ~ ~ A C\U P (FOait Cover)
S ~ .
eowL /
O ~ N 0 N C 0 L k~.~ ~ A: (NOWraI Oqnin9) ~ ~(Nalurol Opening) ~ ~
~ B 0 VI .P ~ l 2. ~ ~ J (NMurul ffieninq)
2 ,P I Sf \ X ~t
• :0- (Nolur~l Openln0) r.: `oc'(1'i r.~ J ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ll ~0~ ~ y \
~ W H I T E R I V E R 4~ ~IBBOEI' R ~ q aE c.h "f i n~ , ~ ~ ~ 1(Fanrt) Bo
/ (Foraat) a.(Natura~Opening)
p N A T I 0 N A L F O E S T L
jt
uN u v
aia'a'a
~ f ~ ~0 e o w ~ 1 ~
e o w!L J ~
N
_r .
u N o o a~ N
~rt o a ~
p
F• ~ (N turvl Opening) ~'~Zm ^w (Natural Op~nlnQ)
~ + + • + ea,~ . l~ a . ~ s'~ - `~'q cro,an c~er> ~ ~.,,~J
~OUNTAIN +
N oE1k~0
W i ...p+ O • rq
~R YU9INOOM j J GYIE pifIX ~
~R WNL
w
saw,
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
offer skiing on conventional trails. An important part of this alternative is that it facilitates access to the
naturally open and gladed slopes of Super Bowl and the upper portion of Pete's Bowl.
Two bridges would span Two Elk Creek, witfi another bridge requirod to cross a trnbutary of Two Ellc Creek on Super Bowl
Skiway/Road. The total length of skiway/roads under this alternative is 6.4 miles. Ofthis, 2.5 miles would support
occasional motorized equipment use for maintenance of lifts and other facilities after construction is completed.
'Ihe main skiways included in this altemative would include the Intertie Skiway along Two Elk Creek and the Super Bowl
Skiway/Road extending to the top of the Super Bowl Lift. ,
, There would be no restaurants under this alternative. Instead, one picnic deck would be built in Super Bowl and there
would be one ski patrol headquarters and one set of public warming facilities construc,ted near the top the Super Bowl
Lift. This alternative is depicted in Figure 3.
2.1.3 AI.TERNATIVE C: PROPOSED ACTION This alternative is the site-specific proposal submitted to the Forest Service by Vail Associates, Inc. It was
developed after consideration ofseveral years oftechnical studies in the Category III area as well as coordination
among ski area personnel, the Forest Service, and other government agencies. One of the primary objectives of this
process was the evaluation of various locations for lift terminals, bridges, food service facilities, and placement
of ski trails to reduce potential impacts to wetlands, old-growth forest, and important wildlife habitat.
In addition to the Tea Cup Lift, three other lifts would be constructed under this alternative. These would include
the Pete's Bowl, Super Bowl, and Ridge lifts. Approximately 885 acres of skiable terrain would be offered under this
alternative. Of this, 63 percent would be naturally open or gladed skiing. The remaining ski tetrain would be
conventional trails cleared through more densely forested areas. This alternative would provide about 56 acres of
beginner, 460 acres of intermediate, and 369 acres of advanced-level skiable terrain.
Pete's Ridge/Top Road would be the only road required under this alternative. It would be needed to provide
construction and maintenance access for the top terminal of the Pete's Bowl Lift. It is approximately 7,100 feet long
(1.3 miles) and traverses relatively gentle terrain along the ridge above Lime Creek and Pete's Bowl. Skiways would
provide adequate access for construction and maintenance of the remaining facilities.
The total length ofskiway/roads underthis alternative would be 113 miles. Most ofthese would support.occasional
- motorized equipment use fot maintenance of lift5 and other facilities after construction is completed. The primary
skiway/roads for this alternative include Pete's Bowl Skiway, the Intertie (along Two Elk Geek), and Super BowL
Three bridges crossing Two Elk Creek and a smaller structure spanning a tributary of Two Elk Creek on the Super Bowl
Skiway/Road would be required.
There would be one restaurant under this altemative, coupled with two picnic decks, one in Pete's Bowl and one in
Super Bowl. Two sets of ski patrol and public warming facilities would be developed near the top terminals of the
Pete's Bowl and Super Bowl lifts. The Proposed Action is depicted in Figure 4.
2.1.4 AL.TERNATNE D:IVIASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This alternative most closely resembled the plan of development for the Category III azea conceptually analyzed and
approved in 1986; however, specific ski trail alignments were not developed for this previous analysis. Using the
1986 lift configuration, this alternative was developed to examine more complete utilization ofthe Category III area
and to be most responsive within the range of alternatives in addressing the issue of loss of skiing opportunity when
the Back Bowls are not available.
2-4 2.1 Alternatives
+ + + + . + + + + +
_
Vail Ski Area
W H I 1 E R I V E R
N A 7 I O N'A L F 0 R E S T Category III Development
0
-Proposed Skl Li1t ~;~,,,..•~v ,~S ~ JA . Draft Supplement to the EIS
~ r.,...•
~ -Proposad Skl Trall y9
~ s : U P E N Center Ridge
" a.p a a w L Alternative
-ProPoaed Skiwar/Rood , A
0 `Je -Y 3 zf ~ ~ ~ '
~ O-Proposed 8rldge Site Alarch 1997
tse 7' Ey ~
ti r • > o s
.
+
co .4-,. ~ ~ o.
W -Two Elk Creek
' k other drainoges 0 500 2000
\ ~
d ~
~M ~ : <<<~4? I ~ °°o i
%PlE T~E ~
'B W N
L~= 1C ' ;
~1Npp ~ ~ . , ~ ~ 9 ` . • ?
~ Af- Deck`..
y
O
Duo to aob o1 map. aMl IacORy bcaUono aro
O % j o^'' `~'ti .,~_y~ .,1 •~_i i ; ` ~ : \ rovrwo~tau.o ana rwt 1. tned .xt wcauem.
.,,E , , _ . r 9 F . o ~ • ' .
~ + ` J o 8
10
cp O, g i 5 U\P E N OZ`
~ ~V ~ ~ ~ '~e C,~-' l ti- w ~ 1!5 t W H I T E R 1 V E R
o
1 •d; ~ ~
A N A T I 0 N A L F 0 R E S T
T I ' 1.'? ` Bfldpp~~.P.°,~~••" J ' ~ l G `
u ' . • . . ~ i
p 1 C e o w i~H o o eFOTr L 1 ! t' ~ Pj _._.i , ~
..e . . .n l
~
.n.. ..s-{
e:
di4
p~ . ~ . -
e'* ' I ~ . ' " ! ` ! • ' ~t s+lB..,df*,.,. ~ .o E~~~-..
lD I:1 i:, 5 ~m,~~.4.. `HM.R,. ~ml~~. ~y~.._..~...-~.~ ~ .a
a ,
, ~ ~ ..~w... >••-m<^ , ~
~ . ~ ~ , , va~a: ~ o ~ i ~
4
~
e. ~ ° ; ~
~ 13 I '---rG'rc "~'°'i. a° e,w. i~~ ~ ~ t ~ ' ~fi . , . . .:s A
(y. ~x d.~i' a=m'"l~.;._:~~
d ' 0 ~ • . .
no ow ' ,4 _ v, ~ `
Pa..r; ~ ~ ~ P _ ~ ;i -•--•-e
r c • cV v'~ . ~
MONOOIIA aoaLs
B~. W L
~ ~ „//,`ti pQ~ a" ~ ~g B ~ ~ ? ? a \
p W H I T E R I\V E R 5 1 B E R I A!~ go
~ N A T 1 0 N A L F~OR ENp ST BOwI I
y \ 21 11~ i~
CiN I NIA B ~ 5 B 0 q L ~
~,B 0 qiL 0 V . , .
5 U N D 0 W N I
D O W L
ne ~ ~ t /i
~ g°~ndo
-f- -f- . m. ti ~ ~ + + WL _i-
~ MO[7NTAIN . q-t-
i~ Reetowant ~ 0 405
0 ,d T.o Elk </h „
ILA BENCMWRK YU9IAOOY J ~ CMIE CREEK \
lm apML I \ . / BO'NL
/
+ + + -i + • + +
N KEY: '
V81I Ski Area
~ ~
W H I T E R I V E R
p~ "b -Proposed Ski Ufl ! N A i I .0 N A L F 0 R E 5 T Category III Development
~
~-Propos~d Ski rran ~N ";k ~ j t~ Draft Supplement to the EIS
'
-Propossd Skiway/Road 1„0 i s o P E a Proposed Action
i
~ a o W ~ Alternative
-Proposed Road
s ~
~~oe~
~ ~~~ii~y'~'~ ; March 1997 '
~ O-Proposed Bridge Slle ~ ~ • ~ ~ - : ? " ' y ~ ~
s
-f- ; ~ Q,,eo.~r` . : . i ~ ~ i ?
~P r~ ~P~~ vP"~.:'• °4~~, i ~ ~
-Two Elk Creek
~ ' dc other drainages • 411, 0 S00 2000
p~ ~g+`o' ,;...a' i.vtE TjE / 6 'f~`? ( ~ ~ ~i cac~0.0
M ~ 44~N00 ''B ~J w ~ _ a asi ~ ~ ,s J , ~ N
' . " : _
-I_ ~I i ~ t
O ~ • ' i ~ s i ` !
.i•:.... e;
~
O A' ~ JL °V! ~..L11 'g Nole:
Due WftaA of map. kl iacllly IoeaOone an
~ ~ ' ,s' „a `E' ~ ~'~~~s• , 4 ~,~~q9°k .,~R,~g ' 1 ~ ` d ,.p~..«naa,,o ane i i~ cn.i, ..xi wcan-
o ~ . . , ..E , . L !
p
~ \
E
(D +
~p 5 U~P E R
~ B 0 M L
we l9 i \ W H I T E R I V E R
`K W , ~ . ~ . ~ ; ~ •
~ ~ . . ^
~ i ~ ~ ^ Brldq~'-P.;',,,.:• , - t ~ ~ N A T I 0 N A L F 0 R E$ T
O I COYYAM00 ~ [t •~3 ' ~ . . ~
B o w Lx... 2\
~ '
~
I-
e+
. ,ww
r,
~D . ~ . \ ~ ~ ~0...~:' ~ I W ' tC ?R'•o.~.:~;~., 0~,4 ~i..Z ~ .nr
p, • ~ . . ~ a. r. ee ~~y.,w, ~NSr.7i. .',l.•. • m r. .
. , .
. ~ ~ .
.I g . ~ c.~j; 0 ~'•?s.w -:~iy - , ~
..,~y~
. t,,. ..Q . , . " `
~ • . a..raury o,,~:f.r'•, ; erido• r g
~e
. _.._.L .I. C , 1 ~ ' < ` ' y
4E
GT' ''L' ~ ~ ~ ' . ~•:~.~..,......N~ 0. r. ' \
+ ~ ~.w ' . . j . rldp.
~ V G~': y ~ ! ~ ' ~ • ` ~
~ 1~ ~'I.' -TC'~~~''-~,~.' a' ~ jr~ . i ! ~ i~ ~!i . . . ~ ~'f~/ A • . ~n\
!1 ' L.~~
&6 - - A
a• va..
fD 'a ~~~I•
~ r [ ? c •
3:' ~ P
e o w L ?
~ MOMCOLtA : a=? e . , ~
$ 9owL a^ p• "v$.`' i j
1
O N
'd W H I T E R I~ V E R ~ ~ry 5 I B E R I A A
O r B 0 W L i i,.•~ o
~ N A T I 0 N A L F 0 R E S T % v _ ~Z,y p, I~ O m yP' •e `~~.o \
c.N r'N%A S a o w ~ v
c'ai -r..B' a w; L
/
~ - i ~ f.+~~ SUN DOWN I
p B 0 W L
~ m
,s
+ + • ~^^m + -f- + IL ~ I- • -I- • Y0 -I
v.N.o. MONTAIN
TWO Elk~=
~ /l~
...m I ..w ~ ...m. Reetaurant
BFNtlIWRK MVSNNOOY 'r it \
BJNL ~p~, , J fJJIE CREEK
. / \ . , / BOYIL
Chapter 2.0 Proposed Action and Altematives
- In addition to the Tea Cup Lift, four other lifts would be constrvcted under this alternative. These would include
the Conurmndo Bowl, Super Bowl Lang Super Bowl West, and Lower Sun I1own Bowl lifts. This is tfie onty actim altemative
that would provide lift access into Commando Bowl, Lower Sun Down Bowl, and Super Bowl West.
Approximately 1,259 acres of skiable tetrain would be offered under this alternative. Of this, 56 percent would be
_ naturally open or gladed skiing. The remaining ski temain would be conventional trails cleared through more densely
forested areas, primarily in Commando Bowl and Super Bowl West This altemative would provide about 80 acres of
beginner, 491 acres of intermediate, and 688 acres of advanced-level skiable terrain.
Approximately 2.4 miles of road would be constructed under this alternative. The 13 miles of Pete's Ridge/Top Road
described under Alternative C would be part of Altemative D as well. In addition, a 1.3-mile temporary road .
- ' connection to Lime Creek would be constructed solely to facilitate commercial utilizaiion of timber during •
development. The total length of skiway/roads under this alternative is 18.2 miles, approximately 60 percent of which would support
occasional motorized equipment use for maintenance of lifts and other facilities after construction is completed.
In addition to containing a network of skiways similar to those in other action altematives, the Master Development
Plan Altemative also includes construction of about 5 miles of skiways along the upper and lower segments of Super
Bowl West. Four bridges crossing Two Ellc Creek and another crossing a tributajy ofTwo Elk Creek on the Super Bowl Skiway/Road
would be required. 'Ihe lower bridge location would connect skiway/roads at the confluence of Super Bowl West and Lower
Sun Down Bowl.
There would be one restaurant under this altemative as well as two picnic decks, one in Pete's Bowl and one in Super
Bowl. There would be three sets of ski patrot and public warming facilities, located near the top terminals of the
three lifts in the Category III area. This alternative is depicted in Figure 5.
2e2 'g'If-3[E CA'1[""IEGORY IIY RECORD OF I)ECISION
On August 16, 1996, a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Category III project was issued and distributed to the public.
It was 45 pages in length and detailed the Forest Supervisor.'s decision on the proposal. The ROD authorized a
development that resembled the Proposed Action - Altemative C, but that contained nearly 50 specialized mitigation
measures and conditions that would be required as a part of implementation. Among these were provisions for
substantially reducing grading and dozing, using native seed mixes in revegetation, reducing by nearly one-halfthe
amount of old-growth forest and lynx denning habitat that would be affected, and establishing a Forest Supervisor's
Closure to protect elk calving areas. The major elements of the facilities authorized in the decision are listed in
Tab(e 3 and generally depicted in Figure 6.
'Ihe ROD also included provisions for amending the Forest Plan. Seven standards and guidelines were to be amended and
the land management emphasis on about 4,615 acres of lands swrounding the Category ID area was to be changed in order
to emphasize wildlife values.
2.2 The Category III Record of Decision 2_ 7
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
Table 3. Cate o III authorized master develo ment lan com onents
Tea Cup Bowl Center Ridge Area
Tea Cup Bowl Lift Ridge Lift
Trails - 4C, 4D, 4E Trails, 1 A, 1 A', 1 B, 1 C, 1 D, 1 D', 1 E, 1 E', 1 H, l H', •
Tea Cup Skiway/Road (TC SWR) II, 1J, 1K, and 1Z.
Ridge Lift Skiway, Intertie Skiway, Bridges at Lift 21 _
Super Bowl and Tea Cup Bowl Super Bowl Lift
Trails - 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, and 2F Pete's Bowl
Super Bowl Skiway/Road (SB SWR), S2 SWR, Pete's Bowl Lift
' West Super Skiway, Cornice Skiway, (C SWR) Trails, 3A, 3A', 3B*, 3B', 3C, 3C', 3D, 313',
Mid-bowl Deck/Warming Bldg.. (-5,000 sq. ft.) and 3E - 30 Ridgetop Ski Patrol Bldg.. East Pete's Skiway (EPSW), P2, Pete's Bowl Skiway/
Ridgetop Warming/Restroom Structure Road, Pete's Ridge Road, and bridge
Restaurant along Two Elk Creek (-20,000 sq. ft.)
China Bowl Mid-bowl Deck/Warming Bldg.. (-5,000 sq. ft.)
Utility Corridor (Installation) Ridgetop Warming/Restroom Structure
CHI Skiway Ridgetop Ski Patrol Bldg..
*Upper Portion Only Timber Utilization Facilities
PE SWR, Tem ora Lime Creek Haul Road
In his decision, the Forest Supervisor also required utilization and removal of inerchantable timber that would be
cleared as a part of the development. T'o facilitate this, it was required that a temporary timber haul road be built,
connecting the Category III area to an existing road in the Lime Geek drainage. This route was analyzed in the Final
EIS as a part of Alternative D and is depicted in this Draft Supplement in Figures 5 and 6.
2-8 2.2 The Category III Record of Decision
+ + + -t- -F • +
KEY: ,i ~ ~ • ~ ` + ~ + +
A ' • ~ ~ Mln. ; . ~ . ~
, -Proposod Skl Llfl W H I T E R I V E R Vdil Skl Area
~@v N A 1 I 0 N A L F 0 R E S T ~,,..,..,•.••~•~•~••~,y;,...,..••••' ~ ~`~°,_a,+ ~ . Category III Development
~ -Propos d Skl Trail . ' . ..n
. . .
~ ~ Draft Supplement to the EIS
f''••.. -Pro od Skiwa Road ~'~0%\ ' .
~Pw r~ 41 4 U P E q fSa~~. Master Development Plan
a o w L
~ ~c~-Proposed Road o,'. ~p
e'~y
~ ` , `r ' ~ i Oo~J~ • n ;
Marcn 1997
O-Proposad Bridge Slle ~p
~ -F o,ODtbml U.S.i.S.
~ Lx- c...w
~ b Rooo
-Two Elk Creek
,
' Qc other drainages
0 500 2000
~ ~ i l .
'F9
%P~E 7`E r/
~e /J W LY ~ ~ N
. _ e • .
. „ ~ ;
O Dec OL~ ~
`
p /P ~~t`'r ` ~ i ~ ,G,1 ~ ~ • _ - ' ~ o
O ~
'7'•.~Mdp..~.,~ Note:
,p ~ y Duo to aab ol map, oW /ocAhy locatlono o~o
C ni~ K
.''•;3 reprwartlatlro anE 1 In 11ak oz«t bcaUOm.
':g
(b ~ ~y-~ „ e W' a~ as dr.~•~. ~,.~~•..i'^ a A'.~~' ~ ,G , ,
~ ~ (-eP, ~ av : F 4 i 1'
o . C' g 0 {
Oso;rea
~C.~ f . • . ,x ~ ~ i . ` ~ Q ~ 08 0.`p `
~v c ~s r ~
W H I T E R I V E R
rA . I . . . ~ A N ~A 1 I O N A L F 0 R E S T
•~s
n ..m I C
-I- • . , , . ~ . 1 1 ~ "'wr y,w oZ~ ~
o y
.,'.~...~......tr.~~. .
~ ~ ~ ~ J . .l ~ii ~ _ . ....~~^w `
:
y~ • .
w
L~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ . ~ . P ~ mt,•rty ~ t f~4..TmTi''"`.,Glva Brldqo
hisrra.
_
~ . ~ . ' ~ .
' i..~ ...•u ! O 1;'l d ~ ~
y . „
~ ~ i. .
C 1n J
4
~:.....,...,~H! e~ +a L; : { ,~C ~:a \
rldpe =y d '1 \
~ Iqq ' w.i~ O ~'v ~+$9:
~ 13 I~--°'~~ ~ C?0•'~ . p ! ~p..°d'b ' • ti'y, \
P w..r
ry . = i' ~ Trc~ ~ .._..9~ ~ 90 ~ . • i ! I i ~ ~ ' . . ~ ' 0 ~ ~+i'af A ` ~n \
.%.p ' ~i~ ?i 1 ~0 1 v,~ `j •`i' ~ o~
~ Too Eik
a• ve..o,.l Pt` ' 0 - ' . . ~ * ~'~~•-:e
1 l`:~ ~ G\
A C L F°r
T j
:'63.
~ N 0 N C 0 L I A B 0 W L,4' „m.+.
BOWL
ro ~ //~~ti J~ r., a ~ ' / . o ~ .•s ° ~ 1 ? , ' ~ ~''4
W H 1 T E R I \ V E R S I B E F I A J' j ~~I'•E / ~'A ,
Jn
j_
N A T I 0 N A L f' 0 R E S T B 0 w L
2
. `Y
~
to 5 U u v
~ }:•Ni ~
ti - af C. N
e,.e e o w L ?
S U N D 0 W X I
~ ~ n•* ~ t ~ 5'', ' `I , ? B o M L
Bp
-1- -f +
=t- .
StOUNTlilN
N
Tro Elk
Reetauront ~y ~ e ry 46
4
BE~K YUSIINOOM
9pw f'JJIE CREE1(
/ \ ' / BVML ~
-f- -i- -f- -f- + + +
q W H I T'E R I V E R ~ , • eai~u '
~ '¢Y` Vail Ski Area
8 ~-Propoaed $kl LI(1 Additional N A T I 0 NA L F 0 R E S T Category III Development
b C
Propoea losure Draft Supplement to the EIS
~ -d Skl Trall
~ -Propoeed Sklway/Road Selected MDP Components
S U P E R
e a w L
-Propoeed Road
Morch 1997
()-Propoeed Brldga SHs
~ ~ „ r - ! . O ` ~ ~ i
~ % ~ ~,,v a ..i , ~ r~~ :
Resfrlc}Ed 'L•~un.,~.nv ,.:~~i,~~ n= 's4 ? ~n . ~ •i~R '
Construcllon pe~ ? ~
n R vA" , . o ~~~•a B~~ ~I 0 500 2000
a . -Two Elk Creek
k other drainages p.e r'e ~ {
~y -o ~ .1N J i ~.B G W L~ ~ . . O ~ N
'
Q~ ~ ~ + . . ` ~ . ` • ~ 1
; 1
rA ot
~41 r i' n , ~ t~` Du. to roaN ol map,lJ focll IocWone an
p .
P F%....I'; :rooreewvtatl w and nol In ihdr~tiact beatlon.. ~
Jb ~ I Il~ck
~ ; .
a ~ ~ ~ ° ~ , ii 'v~e•r~• `T .P 4'_~'l
C ~ ~ . ~ ,yi.'• N f ..E ? ' I ~ ~1 . ~ ~t~` '
WH I T E R I V E R
%
~ r, s.u u t
b ~ "1t1 c 0 4
AT10 N A L FO R E S T
-
~ i ' ' F ? ` e-o °~e \ . ~BOMLa ~ .
i ! . ? - ~ ` ~Q''~if ` , ~ . M E ~ T
~
'o 0L ,i
N' i (n T rJ. '9 bI ~ °C Bridqe(~*,.::°~ . ~ . 7 ~
C O M Y A N D O ~ . EL`S ~l: A i ~ . - ` . . J,' . ° ~i
e a w L
7 -I-
~ k
~ ' ' ~o •"I.i J ~ S~la....,'~~., i~o p'y
g,w,y, Tro! c.vek -
~ a;'~ . 5...~.._.5=:c • .r
~
/ _ i . . . ~
, '
R. - - ' r • :
afapranl~i y y BrldQe ~ ;
R
b 1 \ O
O +
p a Ul J`~~.8~4 : % ~1 d ~ ~ . ..'`°~O . 'a•'
ts y 3 ~ ~N ^do~Y Y,~; F f ~ ~ , , . .
rA Gote9°~ i ~ , / ~e . . ~ . • ±O
43 Boundary
y~° ~ `~•;?a~ ; `
pS 4 `~1 ' _ . ~ ~ z'~~'~~'~~'~~• . .
f+ I TPark
tE. CU P ~ . ~
e* vt ~ •"~q~., 7 e o w L,A
4ONGOlI• n~
~ BO W L a
p • g ~ ~
~ W M I T E~ R 1 E R ~ ~M1M1 5 1 B E R I A/P
NATI ONAL FO E ST aowL ` ~ M d, ~a\
~ ..~z ~F , ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . r~. . Qi
~ ~Ht+O ~ yT C: M 1 N' A I 44 S B 0 M L v ,
0 WIL ~ . 00
i 1' 3 UN DOWN ~
fD ~ o w ~ .
I .
1
~ B~,\ \ * h, ~ ~lsor,s c os~r
~o + +.e~. + /fi`' °ry + + '
o vN.a
VML ' .
Final MoDPing and Ceo9raDhir.n1 Malysis: ga ~ .~~i~.. yOU~A~
Pion<er Environmenlal Service~ Inc. He~laurant R r 0?~
Logon,Ulan 1996 y' {
~MARSaurce of Oigilol 8- Map: Vail 4zsociotes. Inc. 1993 K ~~~V
• . no ~ , ~ y~ .7 ~ d1ME CNFEK
BOML BG1VL
\ / BONL
Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
CHAPTER 3.0 AFFECTEI) ENVIIZONMENT AIVD .
ENVIRON NTAI, CONSEQLJENCES
Chapter 3 of the Category III Final EIS established the baseline for the existing environment for the analysis and is
over ] 00 pages in length. Chapter 4 of the Final EIS is 175 pages and describes the environmental consequences of
implementing each of the four alternatives considered in detail. Rather than duplicate these chapters here, this
section summarizes important information from Chapters 3 and 4 of tfie Category III Final EIS and related documents
. , in order to provide the reader a context for the discussion which follows in Chapter 4 of this Draft Supplement
regarding the significance of proposed Forest Plan amendments. The information presented below is organized under
the headings for the five issues which were identified as significant during scoping for the EIS. As noted previously, ^
these estimates do not include a reduction in impacts that would occur through implementation of the mitigation
required in the ROD.
Note that three levels of analysis were used for assessment of impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and biodiversity.
The smallest is the project area (PA), which is the area subject to direct impacts as a result of the proposed
development. Analysis at the lazger landscape area (LA) scale was used to indicate how PA-level impacts could affect
abundance, distribution, viability, and cumulative impacts on individuals and communities of a given species. The
regional area (RA) analysis contributes to understanding ofcumulative, large-scale impacts such as changes in forest
types, herd sizes, and the juxtaposition of developed versus undeveloped habitats.
Though not listed in this Draft Supplement, both general and site-specific mitigation measures associated with the
potential impacts identified are addressed in the Final EIS. Legally required disclosures such as effects on prime
farmland, wetlands and flood plains, and minorities and women are also included in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS.
3.1 LYNX
This secaon summarizes imponant infomation fium the Final EIS (USDA-FS 1 g96a) and Biological Evaluabon (USDA-FS
1996c) concerning the project's potential impacts to lynx. Since confusion often arises concerning this issue, this
section begins with a brief discussion of the administrative status of lynx. -
The lynx as neferred to in this Draft Supplement has several common names, including North American lynx and Canada lynx. The lyrix cumently has no protection under the Endangered Species Act (1973, as amended), but is classified by
the FWS as a Species of Concern. Under authoriry of Colorado State law, the lynx is listed as an endangered species.
The Forest Service lists lyrix among its Sensitive Species, which requires the agency to provide habitat for a viable
population across a planning area. In this case, planning area is the White River National Forest. The potential
e$'ects ofthe Vail Category III development was addressad in the Dra$ and Final EIS, Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS
1996c), and in the ROD.
In order to understand the current status of the lynx, it is necessary to briefly review the conclusions of several
recent administrative processes. In August 1991, the lynx was the subject of a petition from several conservation
organizations requesting that the FWS list the lynx ofthe North Cascades ecosystem as an endangered species. This
petition was denied on October 6,1992. A second finding in July 1993 noted that the petition to list the lynx did not
present substantial information to warrant listing. Also in July 1993, the petitioners filed suit challenging the
finding that listing was not warraated. In a settlement to that suit, the FWS agreed to conduct a full status review
ofthe lynx throughout its lower 48 state range and to determine whether or not the lynx is endangered or threatened
3.1 Lynx 3 - 1
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. In February 1994, the FWS announced that it would continue its rangewide
status review for the lynx in the contiguous 48 United States. In April 1994, the FWS received another petition to
list the lynx`as threatened or endangered in this same geographic area. The FWS, in its notice of 90-day petition
finding, announced that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the requested action may be
warranted. On December 15,1994, the FWS issued its conclusion (USDI-FWS 1994) on the petition noting, "After •
carefully evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present and future
threats faced by this species, the service finds that listing of the Canada lynx in the contiguous U.S. is not _
warranted." This finding is the subject of an ongoing legal process. ,
, According to the infomlation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Canada lynx is a common animal thmughout : the northem boreal forests ofCanada and Alaska but was never a common animal in the contiguous U.S. because of lack
offavorable habitats. The lyrix is at its extreme southern limits along the U.SJCanada border widh the southem-most
extensions found in the Rocky Mountains. As noted in the Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 1996c) lynx are likely on
the fringe of its historic range in Colorado and may never have been common due to lack of suitable habitat. The FWS
findings explained that the historic range of lynx in the lower 48 states has generally been recognized as New
England, the Great Lakes, the Rocky Mountains (including Colorado), and tfie Northwest Region. Cyclic dispersaLs of
lynx from Canada during years of abundance resulted in increased lynx densities of resident populations along the
southem edge of their range.
Because of their relatively large home range size, it is most appropriate to discuss lynx habitat in terms of areas
the size of the LA and lazger. Lyrix have been known to use or travel through the LA. Tracking records suggest that
at least one lynx was present in the PA in March of 1989 and also along tt?e Vail Mountain ridgeline near the tops of Lift
10 and Lift 5 in 1990 and 1991. For the analysis in the Final EIS, the potential impacts to lynx and its habitat were
evaluated in terms of fragmentation and its attendant effects on the availability of suitable lynx foraging and
denning habitat.
Lynx foraging habitat is generally considered to be the most critical limiting factor to the distribution of the
species and is directly related to suitable habitat for its primary and preferred prey species, the snowshoe hare.
Secondary prey species (i.e., red squirrel, blue grouse, southern red-backed vole, and deer mice) for the lyrix are
more abundant than hare in the PA, but are not tfiought to compensate for the low abundance of snowshce hare. Snowshce
haze reach their greatest densities in early successional forests having dense understories and greater than 1,000-
2,000 stems per acre at breast height. In Colorado, these forests aze primarily comprised of spruce-fir, and mixed
. spruce-fir and lodgepole pine. During spring and summer, hazes forage on a wide variety of herbaceous vegetation.
An analysis ofthe potential snowshce hare hatiitat within the PA showed that 666 ofthe 2,409 acres (28 percent) of -
spruce-fir and lodgepole pine habitats have more than 1,000 stems per acre and aze thus suitable for snowshoe hare.
In the LA, approximately 4,776 acres out of 23,013 acres of potential habitat (21 percent) comprise suitable snowshce
hare/lynx foraging areas. The Final EIS estimated that implementation of the Proposed Action would impact
approximately 124 acres of suitable foraging habitat, which is about 19 and 3 percent of the suitable habitat in the
PA and LA, respectively. Fire suppression and the lack of eazly seral stages of forested habitat may be the main
reasons for the LA not having higher hare densities.
Denning habitat is also important but is of little consequence if foraging habitat is inadequate. Denning habitat
is found mainly in old-growth forests and is also a critical resource for lynx. There are approximately 722 acres
of suitable lynx denning habitat in the PA and approximately 4,417 acres in the LA. The amount of potential lynx
denning habitat that would be disturbed differs by alternative and the results are presented in Table 4. =
3-2 3.1 Lyrix
Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
'II'ab9e 4. Com areson of otential flm acts to nz dennin habitat witbin t6e PA and Y.A.
Center Itidge Alternative Proposed Action Master Development Plan
Alternative
Area Existing Habitat Impacted dtemaining Impacted Remaining Impacted Itemsining
LA 4,417 (100%) 38 (1%) 4,379 (99%) 90 (2%)' 4,327 (98%) 184 (44,233 (96%)
PA 722 (]00%) 38 (5%) 684 (95%) 90 12%) 632 88% 178 250/6) 544 (75%)
At a lazger scale, the Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 1996c) prepared in conjunction with the EIS concluded that
individual lynx could be adversely affected by implementing the proposed project, but that habitat for a viable
population across the planning area, the White River National Forest, would be maintained.. .
REL ~ SKHING CONDI'I'IONS
The south-facing Back Bowis comprise about two-thirds ofthe skiable acreage at Vail Ski Area. Historically, the Back
Bowls have proven to be somewhat undependable, especially during eazly and late portions of the ski season. However,
even mid-season weather or snow conditions can periodically close the Back Bowls or limit their use. Records indicate
that, due to snow conditions, the Back Bowls would have been closed or had marginal snow conditions 13 of the past 31
years during the holiday peak season. The consequences of the Back Bowls being unavailable during a peak period
represent a substantial threat to the quality of the skiing experience at Vail Ski Area because of the limited
remaining ski terrain.
Reliability of early and late season skiing is the most important ingredient in being able to build skier visitation
during off-peak periods. The high elevation and steep, north-facing slopes ofthe Category III area hold and maintain
early snow better than the Back Bowls. In addition, the more abundant tree cover ofthe Category III area provides
the visual reference necessary for safe skiing in adverse light and weather conditions, as compared to the more open
Back Bowls.
In general, development ofthe Category ID area would help to compensate for restricted use ofthe Back Bowls. The
current skiable terrain in the Back Bowls is approximately 2,713 acres. The additional terrain which would be
available to offset loss or limited use ofthe Back Bowls under adverse weather or snow conditions is presented in
_ Table 5 for each alternative. .
'II'able 5. Comip) ae-eson of additiona0 skiable terrain b a6terna8ive acres .
No Actnon Center YBicH ~e Pro osecfi Action NtasterI)evelo mentPlan
130 545 885 1,259
3e3 ~NT~ ~IC T~RRAIN
Increasing the availability of intermediate ski terrain is a primary focus of the Proposed Action. Reflecting a trend
in national and regional markets, a growing number of Vail skiers rate themselves at the intermediate ability level.
3.3 Intermediate Ski Terrain 3-3
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
Data from 1994/95 indicate that approximately 50 percent of Vail Ski Area's visitors fall in this category. However,
only about 36 percent of Vail's trail capacity is rated intermediate in difficulty, resulting in a deficit of roughly
14 percent. The Category IIl area development altematives would add considerably to the net trail capacity in this
category, as indicated in Table 6 below. This would substantially offset the intermediate terrain deficit, which can
become acute when the Back Bowls cannot be fully utilized.
Table 6. Comparison of intermediate trail capacity added by alternative. Intermediate Trail Percent Total Intermediate Trail
. t~lternative ~'a aci Added Increase Ca aci at Vail Ski Area
, No Action 90 1% 8,109
Center Ridge 927+90* =1,017 13% 9,036
Proposed Action 1,610+90* =1,700 21°/a 9,719
Master Development Pla 1,718+90* =1,808 23% 9,827
* The No Action Alternative ca aci is assumed to be develo ed under all other alternatives.
3.4 BIODIVERSI'TY
Biodiversity is a fundamental tenet of the Forest Service policy of ecosystem management. This policy emphasizes
sustaining or restoring species diversity and maintaining the future productivity ofNational Forest System lands.
Factors that are used to assess biodiversity include the total number of species, the abundance of rare or uncommon
habitats, connectivity between habitats, and structural diversity within stands. By its nature, analyzing impacts
to biodiversity requires a consideration of both temporal and spatial scales. Impacts that may be locally important
(e.g., construction of a specific ski trail), may be imperceptible at a regional scale, or over periods of several
hundred yeazs. This is largely the case with the Category III project. Potential impacts within the Project
Area (PA) from ski area development involve a substantial amount of habitat fragmentation resulting from the
conversion of forested to non-forested vegetation types. Even though Category III's impacts to biodiversity would
contrib"ute to cumulativ.e effects when one moves to the landscape, and especially the regional scale these impacts
become increasingly diluted by predominate ecological factors. At larger geographic scales and over longer periods
of time; physiography, climate, and disturbances such as avalanches and large scale wildfire become important
influences on 6iodiversity. Patterns of intensive human development, especially in valley and foothill areas, are
also an important influence on biodiversity at these larger spatial scales.
The Final EIS focused its quantitative analysis within the PA and addressed biodiversity qualitatively at larger
scales. The discussion which follows is a summary of more detailed information from the Final EIS. Diversity is often
gauged by the numbers of species and individuals present in an area.
Impacts on biodiversity wittdn the PA would result primarily from the fragmentation and subsequent loss of inedium-to-
large habitat blocks as well as the conversion of forested to non-forested habitat. Table 7 summarizes forest block
sizes under the various alternatives. The loss and fragmentation of spruce-fir old-growth forest is of major concem °
because it is a basic component of lynx denning habitat. The amounts of lynx denning habitat disturbed aze depicted
in Table 4(above) by altemative. The conversion of forested to non-forested habitat would result from removal of
trees and the subsequent increase in grassland and forest edge habitat. Increasing edge and grassland habitats could
benefit elk and deer; however, the fragmentation and reduction of forest blocks and forested habitat linkages would
adversely impact forest-interior and certain snag-dependent species.
3-4 3.4 Biodiversity
Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
Table 9. Sentmma off the habitat block anal sis for the Cate o III area.
AD.TERNA'H'Ii'E
Block
1N
Size o Action Center IIiidge Proposed Action IV[aster Development Plan
(Acres) # Blocks Acres # Blocks Acres # Blocks Acres # Blocks Acres
0-5 35 76 121 164 168 202 209 274
6-50 27 409 57 812 63 851 88 1,194
51-200 11 1,026 9 823 8 736 9 74hi
201-500 4 1,316 2 576 2 563 0 . W ithin the PA, the results of selecting either the No Action or Center Ridge alternatives would have notably lesser impact than implementation of either the Proposed Acrion or the Master Development Plan Altemative, especially in
terms of loss and fragmentation of old-growth forest stands.
Biodiversity was also analyzed on larger landscape (LA) and regional area (RA) scales. Fundamentally, the PA is
reflective of the LA in terms of species and habitat types and densities. It is, however, one of the primary
undisturbed tracts in the LA that has not been fragmented by the existing ski area, highways, and urban development
Reasonably foreseeable actions that are not part ofthis proposal but which could cumulatively contribute to the
impacts of development in the LA are also discussed in the Final EIS.
The RA is much larger than the PA and encompasses portions of largely undeveloped federal- and state-managed lands,
including two federally designated Wildernesses. While development of the Category III area would contribute to
cumulative effects on biodiversity at the regional scale, it would not, of itself, represent a major impact because
of its relatively small size and the current level of diversity in the area. Again, at the RA scale, biodiversity is
shaped by major ecological factors.
At the LA scale, the Category III area is one of the few remaining large blocks of land that has not been subject to
activities such as timber harvest, mining, road construction, ski area development, and urban growth. As a result,
the Category III area, together with the ?imber Creek drainage to the east and several other undeveloped areas to the
west, has been encincled by various highway and road systems and urban developments. Human activity, combined with
natural forest openings surrounding portions of the Category III area, have created a substantial degree of
fragmentation in the overall landscape and have probably resulted in adverse impacts to wildlife species which are
dependent on large, undeveloped areas for survival (e.g., lynx, wolverine, goshawk).
This fragmentation, together with naturally patchy habitat and the comparatively small size of the Category ID area,
render the suitability of Category III to function as a core reserve quite low. More likely is its potential to
function as a movement corridor or, more appropriately, a"stepping stone" enabling wildlife to move between areas
which probably do function as core reserves, the Holy Cross and Eagles Nest Wildernesses. Assuming a given species
is able to cross the Eagle River, Highway 24 and the railroad traclcs to the west, and I-70 to the east, the Category
III area could function in this capacity for that species. However, other than a limited amount of information on elk
use and movement through the area, there is little or no data to substantiate whether, and for which species, the PA
serves this function.
The question of whether a corridor actually exists aside, implementation of the Proposed Action or one of its
alternatives could adversely affect general wildlife movement. Depending on the alternative, this impact would
probably be short-term and last through construction activities in the Category III area. For example, following the
completion of construction associated with the Center Ridge Alternative (B), there would be little activity in the
PA during spring and fall, the major periods in which wildlife species are likely to be moving through the area.
Implementation of Ahemative B or C(Proposed Action) would ae unlikely to significantly impair the area's function
to provide for wildlife movement, since an animal that is able to travel through the natural and human-made barriers
3.4 Biodiversiry 3-5
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
on either side ofthe PA would likely not be deterred by developments within the Category ID area. Because ofthe larger azea affected, animal movement could be more restricted under the Master Development Plan Alternative.
3.5 ROADLESS RESOURCE
During public scoping, some members ofthe public expressed concern about how development of the Category III area -
• would affect the former Two Elk Roadless Area The term "roadless area" is one which has fi-equently been the cause
of confusion in public land management and would appear to be so in this case as well. The term has its origins in a
1970s Forest Service inventory and review of undeveloped, unroaded areas across the United States. In a Final
Environmental Statement (FES) in 1979, a112,919 of the individual areas identified were allocated to one of three
classes for future study or management: wilderness, multiple uses other than wilderness, or needing further study.
The Two Elk Roadless Area, which included the present-day Category III anea and the existing Back Bowis, was one of
the areas allocated to management for uses other than wilderness in the FES.
The 1979 FES did not actually designate areas as wildemess. In Colorado, the areas identified for wilderness in the
FES actually became designated wildemess via the Colorado Wildemess Bill of 1980 (P.L. 96-560). It was through dhis
act that the Holy Cross Wildemess was designated. In the Colorado Wilderness Bill, Congress noted that the Forest
Service would not be required to review the wilderness potential of the lands allocated to multiple use in the 1979
FES until revision of individual Forest Plans was undertaken. In 1984, the initial Forest Plan for the White River
National Forest was completed. In it, the former Two Elk Roadless Area was allocated to a variery of land-use
emphases, including timber management, non-motorized recreation, motorized recreation, and downhill skiing.
Since passage ofthe Colorado Wildemess Act, a series of legal cha(lenges have focused on the issue ofhow roadless
and undeveloped areas must be addressed in NEPA analyses and documenis. In some oftfiese cases the courts have held
that when agencies consider approving or building projecis in undeveloped and roadless amas, the action may be viewed
as a major federal action and require preparation of an EIS, versus simply an Environmental Assessment In response
to this, Forest Service policy has been refined to require that the impacts on the roadless resource be evaluated in
project-level NEPA documents such as the Category III EIS. Other than this policy for conducting environmental
analysis, roadless and undeveloped areas have no formal status or protection. Instead, the Forest Plan provides the
direction for inanagement of these areas. In the case of the Category ID area, the Forest Plan management emphasis
_ is for providing downhill skiing opportunities. Consistent with the policy which has evolved, the Category III EIS
includes an analysis ofthe impact ofthe Proposed Action and altematives on the roadless resource. This analysis .
is summarized below.
One ofthe values often associated with undeveloped azeas is its ability to offer opportunities for non-motorized,
backcountry recreation opportunities. No public motorized use of the Category ID azea is anticipated under any of
the alternatives. It would remain open to all of the same recreational activities as are currently pursued there, such
as hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. However, the setting in which these activities occur would be a more
developed one, containing ski lifts, roads, skiways, bridges, and food service facilities. To many, this would no
longer represent a backcountry recreation opportunity. Those portions ofthe Category III azea which could continue
to offer a backcountry recreation experience under the alternatives is provided in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Cate o III areas rovidin backcount recreation o ou-tunities b altermative acres
No Action Center Ridge Proposed Action Master Development Plan _
3,460 2,460 1,260 <500
3-6 3.5 Roadless Resource
Chapter 3.0 Aff'ected Enviromnent and Environmental Consequences
During public scoping, some expressed the view that high-elevation, forested ecosystems, such as those occumng in
the Two Elk area, are unique and should be preserved. In this portion of Colorado, spruce-fir is the dominant forest
cover type in high elevation areas and often comprises the major component of old-gowth forest in any given area.
The Holy Cross Ranger District is about 340,000 acres in size. About 70 percent of this area is forested, and
approximately 32 percent (108,000 acres) has a spruce-fir cover type. Of the roughly 117,000 acres of wildemess on
the Holy Cross Ranger District, about 54 percent (63,000) acres is forested. The spruce-fir component of this area
represents 35 percent ofthe total wildemess acreage and alone comprises 12 percent ofthe Holy Cross Ranger District
Based on this information, it appears that high elevation, forested ecosystems are relatively common in the
surrounding azea.
All of the action alternatives involve the installation of developed ski facilities in the Category III area and the
opportuniry for future designation ofthe area as wilderness would be forgone. In addition, development of the area
would make any future designation of the area as a Research Natural Area, in order to study and preserve ecological
processes, unlilcely. The area is not now, nor has it been in the past, under consideraTion as an Research Natural Area.
3.5 Roadless Resource 3_ 7
Chapter 4.0 Significance Analysis
CHAPTER 4e SIG ICANCE ANALI'SIS
4e1 FORES'IC PILAN ENDMEN'I' REQYTIRENIENTS
Forest Service requirements for amending forest plans are included in agency regulations and policies. These require
, that land uses be consistent with forest plans and that those proposed activities that would be in conflict with the plan be denied, modified (so as to be consistent), or that the forest plan be amended. Under pmvisions ofthe National
Forest Management Act (NFM[A), regulabons at 36 CFR 219.10( fl direct the Forest Service to consider whether a proposed amendment to the forest plan would be considered a significant change.
The Forest Service is authorized to implement amendments to forest plans to respond to changing needs and
opporiunities, information identified during project analysis, or the results of monitoring and evaluation. The
process to consider forest plan amendments, review them for significance, document the resutts, and reach a decision
is contained in tfie Forest Service Manual (FSIV) 1922 (USDA-FS 1992a) and the Forest Service Handbook (FSI-) 1909.12,
Chapter 5(USDA-FS 1992b): An assessment of a proposed amendment's siguficance in the context of the larger forest
plan is a crucial part of this process. It is important to note that the definition of significance for amending the
forest plan (36 CFR 219.10(0 and FSH 1922.5) is not the same as the definition of significance defined by NEPA. Under
NEPA, significance is generally determined by whether a proposal is considered to be a"major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environmenY' (40 CFR 1502.3), or whether the relative severity of
the environmental impacts would be significant based the their context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). On the other
hand, NFMA requires that proposed forest plan amendments be evaluatad for whedher they would constitute a significant
change in the long-term goods, outputs, and services projected for an entire National Forest. Non-significant
amendments may be adopted following disclosure and notification in an environmental document, such as an
Environmental Assessment or EIS, or a Draft Supplement to an EIS. Amendments that are deemed significant must lse
processed under the more intensive requirements for developing and approving a forest plan, which includes
preparation of an EIS (FSH 1909.12, 5.34(4)). This Draft Supplement addresses significance only from the pecspective
of amending the forest plan, consistent with requirements of NFMA and agency policy.
4e2 POST-DECISIOI1T REVIEW _
In the Category III ROD, seven standards and guidelines (hereafter referred to as "standards") were proposed for
amendment.
Through an oversight, the most current vetsion ofthe Forest Plan Consistency Review (Appendix E, Final EIS) was not
used as the basis for proposing these amendments; a previous version was used erroneously. Subsequent review now
indicates that four of the seven proposed amendments were unnecessary since they do not apply to areas managed for
downhill sltiing opportunities under the Forest Plan. It could be argued that proceeding with an amendment would heip
to clazify the fmding in the Final EIS that these standards do not apply and that, based on the criteria of timing,
location and size, changes in outputs, and effects upon other management prescriptions, these would not be a
significant Forest Plan amendment Even if undertaken, this change would have applied only to the special use permit
for Vail Ski Area and would have affected less than 0.5 percent ofthe planning area, the White RiverNational Forest
However, simple clarification intended to document where application of a standard is not appropriate dces not require
4.2 Post-Decision Review 4-1
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
an official Forest Plan modification and should not have been included for amendment The analysis for the Category
III EIS, and particularly the question of whether certain standards are applicable, has served to identify important
yuestions which will be examined further as the revision for the Forest Plan proceeds. Rationale for not proceeding
with a Forest Plan amendment for these four standards are outlined below.
4.2.1 PATTON EDGE-SHAPE INDEX
In forested units, create or modify created openings so they have a Pa11on edge shape index of at least 1.4 and have
at least a medium-edge contrasz (Forest Plan, page III-11) .
• This standard is intended to require that edges of polygons created through timber management activities be imegular
in shape and offer a medium or high contrast. Lands within ski azeas are managed for a recreation emphasis, and
applying a timber management standard to these areas would be inappropriate. The nature of alpine skiing requires
clearing trees in a relatively smooth, linear pattern. The nature of ski area development generally makes it
advantageous to wildlife to provide softer, low contrast edges whenever possible along ski trails. Since this
standard was intended to apply to timber management activities, and because would adversely affect wildlife in this
particular application, it was described as "Not applicable to 1 B Management Areas" in the Category III Final EIS (page
E-3). This remains the assessment and there is no need to process a Forest Plan amendment for this standard.
4.2.2 OPTIMAI. STRUCTURAL STAGE DISTRIBUTION
Apply thejollvwing optimum successionaUstrudural stage dis7ribution jorforested and nonforested lands available
for vegetation management. (Forest Plan , Page III-11, Amendment No. 89-2)
Vegetation manipulation needs within ski area boundaries are guided by master development plans, operating plans,
and a vegetation management plan specific to a given ski area Consequently, the Final EIS rated this standard as "not
applicable" to the Category III project and noted that, as an area operating under long term special use permit, these
lands are not available for vegetation management. Paralleling that finding, the ROD (page 15) stated, "it would be
inappropriate to apply the structural stage distribution requirements.... to these areas." Therefore, there is no
need to proceed with a modification, since the ROD was in error in attempting to amend this standard. .
4.2.3 MAXIMUM SIZE OF TREATED AREAS Maximum size of individual treated areas is 500 acres. (Forest Plan, Page III-11)
In the Forest Plan, this standard is included under the heading of general direction intended to guide timber and
vegetation management activities within areas "dominated by grassland or shrubland" (Final EIS, page E4). The
Category III area, Vail Ski Area, and surrounding lands are predominately forested. In addition, vegetation
management activities within the special use permit boundary at Vail are guided by a master development plan and an
individual vegetation management plan. Recognizing this, the Final EIS noted that this standard is "not applicable
to 1 B Management Areas." Similarly, the ROD stated, "this standard and guideline is not applicable to activities that
might occur within the special use permit for Vail Ski Area.." (page 15). As noted above, clarification of where a standard does not apply does not require adoption of a Forest Plan amendment. Thus, this standard is not addressed
further in this Draft Supplement and is no longer proposed for amendment. .
4-2 4.2 Post-Decision Review
Chapter 4.0 Significance Analysis
4.2.4 REGIoRT??F.. ACCEP'TABI.E WORK S'PANI)ARDS
ManagemsouireacftvziesondJ'acginumracrorrlanceevilhtheRegionalfflcxeptableWorkSYaradarA (0391)FSM 1310
R2 BID No. 1, 7122182 (6194). (Forest Plan, page III-20.)
"The Final EIS notes that this standard is "not applicable" to the Category III situation and that facilities provided
by the ski area must instead comply with provisions of the special use permit and master development plan (page E-10).
- 'Ihe ROD attempted to clarify this situation by stating that the Forest Plan would te amended to "remove any implication
that regionally acceptable work standards apply to operations or facilities at Vail Ski Area" (page 16). While the
, clazification is useful information, it does not require amendment of the Forest Plan. It also should be noted that the citation above for Regional Acceptable Work Standards has been removed fi-om the Forest Service Mantial (FS1V). -
4e3 PROPOSED CATEGORY YYI FORES'a' PY.ATlT
AMENDMIENTS
The Category III Draft and Final EISs set the stage for possible Forest Plan amendments. On page 4 of both documents
it was noted that:
"Based on the disclosure contained in this EIS, Forest Plan management requirements, standazds and
guidelines, or management area prescriptions could be amended for the Vail Ski Area Any amendment to the
Forest Plan is specified in the ROD" (emphasis added).
The Summaries for both the Draft and Final EISs included a similar statement on page 4.
In addition, both the Draft and Final EISs included a Forest Plan Consistency Review (Appendix E). In this review,
the proposed action and alternatives were compared for conformity with standards, guidelines, and management
direction from the Forest Plan.
Finally, shortly after the August 16,1996 release of the Final E1S and ROD, an amendment notice was sent to all persons
and agencies on the mailing lists for the Forest Plan and the Category ID EIS. This package included pertinent pages
frorn the ROD, in addition to a copy of the amendment signed by the Forest Supervisor.
4.3.1 STANDARDS AN D GUIDEL.INES
Foilowing further review after the Category III Final EIS and ROD wene released, it was determined that certain aspects
of the project would be potentially inconsistent with three standards in the Forest Plan. Described below are these
current Forest Plan standards an,d the proposed modifications. In addition, the discussion which follows provides the
background and rationale for adopting these as amendments.
4.3.1.Il MllnllIlHIIUIffi? WllldIlll~~ ~abB$a$
Curnng ]Eomt ]PBan 3tandamd - "Habitatfor each species will be maintained at 40 percent or more ofpotential. "(6289)
(Forest Plan, page III-24)
43 Proposed Category III Forest Plan Amendments 4-3
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
Proposed Amendment for the Vail Slu Area Special Use Permit -"Within the diversity units defined in the vail Category
III Final EIS, habitat for species or groups ofspecies will be managed to provide at least the levels indicated in
Table 9, below. Habitat for species not listed will continue to be managed at 40 percent or more ofpotential. "
Adoption ofthis amendment would not change wildlife habitat requirements elsewhere on the White River National
Forest. This standard would remain in place at least until completion of the Forest Plan revision process.
Ta61e 9. Pereeut of Potential Habnta4 by Diversity Unit'
EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED MINIMUM LEVEL
SPECIES/GROUP
Diversity iJnit 1 IDiversity Unity 2 Diversity Unit 1 Diversity Unit 2
Forest Interior 36 63 35 40(59)2
Lynx Denning 8 48 8 40(47)2
Lynx Foraging 21 21 21 20
Diversity units were the analysis areas used in the Final EIS to compare the relative effects among alternatives and to evaluate
consistency with minimum habitat standards. Diversity Unit 1 encompassed the northem one-half of the landscape area, including
all of the Back Bowls and the front side of Vail Ski Area, and is approximately 20,878 acres in size. Diversity Unit 2 comprises the
southem one-half of the landscape area, is about 20,300 acres in size, and includes all of the Category III area as well as about 16,200
acres of surrounding lands.
Z- Values shown in parenthesis are those estimated with implementation of the Proposed Action in the Category III Final EIS.
Discussion
The ROD for the Category III Final EIS proposed to eliminate this standard until a more appropriate measure is
established in the revised Forest Plan. In further review following release ofthe Final EIS, it was determined that
using the results ofthe EIS analysis as minimum habitat requirements would be more appropriate on an interim basis.
The Fina! EIS and Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS ] 996a and 1996c) illustrated the confusion that can arise when Forest
Plan habitat requirements are applied to relatively small portions ofaNational Forest, especially when addressing
the needs of species with large home ranges, such as lyrix. In this case, it is not unexpected that habitat conditions
could fall well short of the 40 percent Forest Plan standazd within a 20,000-acre diversity unit and still meet the
agency's National Forest Management Act (NFMA) mandate to provide habitat for viable populations across the 2.3
million-acre planning area comprising the White River National Forest. Likewise, habitat analyses for smaller
geographic areas such as a diversiry unit tends to over-emphasize current vegetation and habitat conditions and do
not account for what might be a very different composition across the planning azea. Locally, turn of the century
wildfire patterns and more recent aggressive fire suppression efforts have beeri major factors contributing to relatively low levels of lynx foraging habitat. Historic trapping is also thought to be important in low lynx
populations levels. More recent information compiled for the Forest Plan revision (Buell 1997) indicates that large
portions of habitat across the White River National Forest are currently managed to provide relatively high levels
of potential habitat capability (80 percent or more of potential), or exist in azeas managed as Wilderness or for non-
motorized recreation. Because ofthe low level ofhuman activity and disturbance, Wildemess and non-motorized areas
tend to offer natural levels of habitat capability (up to 100 percent of potential). • -
There is no agency requirement that wildlife habitat capability analyses be conducted on a diversity unit basis,
though it is common practice to do so as a part of assessing vegetative diversity. Habitat capability models such as 4-4 4.3 Proposed Category III Forest Plan Amendments
Chapter 4.0 Significance Analysis
the one used in the Category III EIS are not predictive models, rather they are intended to demonstrate the relative
difference in levels of impacts among the altematives under consideration (Buell 1997). In addition, these models cannot easily account for standazd mitigation measures that would be applied as a part of project implementation.
In the case ofthe Category III EIS, a relatively conservative (i.e., worst-case) analysis was performed. Also, the
Category ID ROD included a number of other required mitigation measures that would help to ameliorate advecse impacts
. to wildlife. Since the ROD was prepared after the Final EIS analysis was completed, these positive effects were not
factored into the quantitative assessment of suitable habitat.
: In conclusion, this amendment is needed to addr+ess the misunderstanding that arises in assessing consistency with the
Forest Plan and meeting the agency's requirements under NFMA. Consistency with tfie Forest Plan cannot be met in and
, around the Category III area even under existing conditions because of the ezisting pattems and amounts of habitat
and the unique needs of species such as lynx. Consistency with the NFMA is clearly the more important of the two
considerations, and the Biological Evaluation forthe Category III project demonstrated that the agency's legal
mandate to provide habitat for viable wildlife populations under NFMA can be fulfilled.
4.3.1.2 VnsanaIl QualiQy Ob,pecttnde
Caaemmmg lFomsB PHan S4ancHaeg& _„Desfgn arrd implement mcmagement activities which sustain the mual values ofripwicm
areas and blend with the szorounding rurtural lcmdscape. "(0656) Do not ezceed an Adopted Visual Quality Objective of
Partial Retention. "(6135) (Forest Plan, page III-221)
1Proposed Amendraeena for th~ Vai13ld Area SpeciW IJse Peaareit - "Within the special use pennitcrea at Yail SldAreq the
Adopted Visual Quality Objective for all lands, including riparian areas, is Modification. "
Discanssnom
This amendment would eliminate a specific Visual Quality Objective (VQO) for riparian areas at Vail Ski Area; instead
visual management would be guided by the VQO for Forest Plan management area for the ski area, i.e., Modification.
This was based on the conclusion that it is not feasible to manage the very small, isolated riparian azeas within a
developed ski area using a different objective for visual resources than the surrounding area Within the Category
III area, this change would be important for skiways, bridges, and lift terminals which would be located adjacent to
Two Elk Creek and several smaller drainages. In Category I and II areas, adoption ofthis amendment would bring into
compliance facilities (culverted crossings, lift towers and base terminals, and other structures) already located
neaz riparian areas and would allow development of future facilities to be guided by the VQO for the ski area itself.
The area of wetlands inventoried for the Final EIS provides an approximation ofthe area that would be subject to this
- change in VQO. Roughly 5 percent (223 acres) ofthe Project Area would change from a VQO ofPartial Retention to
Modification. Applying this same ratio to the remainder of the permit area would change 'about 411 acres to
Modification.
Almost thirteen years of experience implementing the Forest Plan at Vail Ski Area reveals consistent problems with
visual quality standards for riparian areas. Forest Plan VQOs were developed with a focus on the degee of alteration
of natural landscapes on National Forests. Intensive ski area developments introduce urban scale facilities into an
otherwise natural setting. In an urbanized setting, the perception ofscenery shifts from the natural to the human-
made. The present Forest Plan standards do not focus on these elements or provide a basis for resolution of design
issues for ski facilities.
The scenic quality of Partial Retention, applied uniformly to all developed ski areas, is often not achievable. The
nature of ski facilities, particulazly the high-tech materials and forms of modern lift towers and terminals, makes
them difficult to blend with natural form, line, color, and texture. These facilities will appeaz dominant in most
cases, regardless of the mitigation measures applied.
4.3 Proposed Category III Forest Plan Amendments 4-5
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
It should be noted that with adoption ofthis amendment, all other Forest Plan provisions relative to riparian areas
would remairr in effect. This includes standards for protection of water quality, wetlands, and ecologic function.
4.3.1.3 Deer and Elk Hiding Cover
Current Forest Plan Standard -"Use both commercial cmd noncommercial silvicultural practices to accomplrsh wildlife
habitat objectives. In forested areas, maintain deer or elk hiding cover on 60 percent or more of the perimeter of all .
natural openings, all created openings and along at least 75 percent of the edge of arterial and collector roads and '
40percent along streams and rivers. Not more than one half of the hiding cover can be contiguous to anotherportion
, ofthe hiding cover. Along streams and rivers in addition to hiding cover, 20 percent or more of the edge must be in thermal cover "(6188). ( Forest Plan, Page III-221)
Proposed Amendment forthe Va7 Sla Area Spectial Use Permit- "Within the Yai19d Area special use pprmit carq biggmne
hiding cover needs will be addressed through consideration ofsecuriry habitat (as defined in the Category Ill Final
EIS), rather than the Forest Plan standard (6188) for maintenance of hiding cover along the edges of natural and
created openings, roads, and riparian areas. At a minimum, security cover will be provided in a manner that allows for
seasonal migration. Where consistent with ski area objectives and wildlife needs identified in NEPA analyses,
securiry cover may also be provided in other areas. "
Discussion
In the Final EIS (page E-13) it was noted that this current standard could be met, both within the Category III area
and across the remaining portions of the special use permit. Recognizing the differing opinions that may arise in
determining whether or not this standard applies to lands under permit for ski area uses and the difficulty in
measuring the current standard, it was proposed for amendment in the ROD (page 17). The security cover analysis
included in the Final EIS (pages 490 and 491) demonstrates that the intent of the hiding cover requirement would be
met for the Category III area and provides a more useful model for future analyses at Vail Ski Area. While it could
be argued that meeting the intent ofthe standard is adequate to ensure consistency with the Forest Plan, this Draft
Supplement exercises caution and proposes to adopt the amendment described above to replace the current hiding cover
requirement to eliminate further misunderstanding.
4.3.2 MANAGEMENT AREA PRESCRIPTIONS
In addition to changes in Forest Plan standards, the.Category III ROD proposed modifying the management_area
prescription for approximately 4,615 acres of land immediately to the south and east of the Category III area (Figure
7). The proposed amendment would involve changing the management area prescription for these lands to management
emphasizing wildlife values. Currently, about 4,015 acres ofthese lands are managed for timber production (7E
Management Area) and approxirriately 600 acres are managed for semi-primitive motorized recreation (2A Management
Area). If implemented, this amendment would facilitate habitat improvement activities primarily for lynx, but
benefiting other wildlife species as well.
4.4 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
The criteria to be examined in an analysis of the significance of a forest plan amendment are detailed in FSH 1909.12, -
Chapter 5.32 (LJSDA-FS 1992b), and summarized below. The discussion which follows uses these parameters to evaluale
the significance of adopting the proposed Forest Plan amendments.
4-6 4.4 Significance Evaluation
.
~ Note:
, ;,--r~•,._...._.._ ail Ski Area
A more extensive road & trail system
,
,
k Town of ~ Category III Development
occurs in the CAT I area but is not ; Vail Draft Supplement to the EIS
depicted on this mbp. ;e c,e
OR"et
-BAN, - - - - - - - - March 1997
.
1 . -
z,*,a i. Private
~ Eagles Nest
`a `Yildernese
~ voii vq, ~ • ~,piY~,
,
l
CAT ,I Area';r
Vail iSki Area ! ~ \ t'b~'~~
pq 6 En~~i.c ~ 1' \ . ? L
"1 ri.k~ 9ee note) r. - ~ FS „
€'.~i..
H+. 7 1 • ~ j~~~ 6G" /
Dowds ~'fgl ldid~ V.~il ~ • ; ~O''`~~~„y I:i W H I T E R I V E R
~ :•~,~I.UfiCtlo
ry 'w,.... U•~'~ ~ ~ :I' uo,u?~.oi -x~ 11Y,?h11 'I IJ A 7 I O N A L
\
1
n;.Sl:` \ F O R E 5 i
_
~Private V
P ~,p
P'IE[IV0t0 I"~,
i
-.Q~
O . o
(1
b CAT ~II Area
O o
(yp L FS
a , qr~__~ ~ i• ~ nc. r l r ` p0h`,u . `~r~ ;~.C~/~iF~t%/~i i
i~~i M/". E~.
c. ' p~` i ~ ? 4 : ;1 fo G'~ ~ ~~i>:~;~ -
~0it ~ ~Pfl ! 1»c `f-,u ~ 'j°~'k ~ ~ ii ~ / a
L
~ ! )Mintu`n _~,.q,.,o aii~:~/~~iii!.i~~,./.~~ Eegle9 Neet
~eo i,~ij!
~j/%'i ~
/ : / i
~ i ti J
CATi III Area' Ailderness
W wH i T S 11 i, /%i~';'%~: ;s~/%%`i; %,:t,•i%%/%',
F. R I P
w
H I T E /
p /''P i ? ~ _ c.~,«, Rti /
/ ~ n n r i 2 ri 1' i Ao
• R p~~.~.~ ~ i/ji
~ `?~i.,~ ~
-1{ . . ~ :<i i i~ , i ~
W : r 5 ~]r s!i
0 R E S
~t ~ ~ ~ e~ < ?r %/'/,~~`o j ~ s ~
w .
~ ~f 1 j
(p ~ `~.v \ \ r 1 ~7
~
~
p ~ Holv Crose i~i~
r.
Wilderness
~
4
Shdne . ~
~~j , ~'r j . _,y:• i ~ j,~, G~ y p0 m % a9 Pa„ ~ Ul
l / / 24
' (Q lakof "
~`Ilrgart`~~'Pfiv4F2 ~
e Areas Proposed for ~
Amendment to Wildlife Emphasis (4131) °V,,it
i Current Manogement Area:
._:i~~~~ 'i, ~ n3 ~-•rk •
o i miie „'~o -Timber Mana ement
9 (7E)
A Source of Dose map: Q-Semi-primitive Motorized Recreation (2A)
J U.S.C.S. 7.3 M. Ouad OveAayo
Vall Eoe; Voil WanL Vail Pone, .;~~I .,:Ad Cliff j j
NinWm, Rad GNf ^ y~ % • ~ 1 ~ II A T I 0 N A L
tC~
U.T.M qrid. lone IJ
F o a e s r . /
~ ` 4 ~A
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
l. Timing. When the change in the forest plan would take place relative to the planning period and scheduled
. revisions of the plan.
2. Location and size. Location and size of the area affected compazed to the size of the overall planning
area. -
3. Goals, Objectives, and Outputs. How, or to what degree, the amendment wouid affect the long-term
relationship between levels of goods and services projected by the forest plan.
- 4. Management Prescription. Whether the change would apply only to a specific situation, or to future
situations across the planning area. -
4.4.1 AMENDMENTS TO STAIVDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Timine
The proposed changes to Forest Plan standards at Vail Ski Area would take effect following issuance ofan amended ROD.
No construction or operating plans are currently proposed that would affect the standards listed above. However,
beginning in 1997, sl:i area development in the Category ID area and annual operations and minor construction projects
could potentially affect azeas on the front side of Vail Ski Area that might be at issue without the amendment.
Presently, the revision to the Forest Plan is expected to be completed in 1999.
Location and Size
The area affected through adoption of these amendments would be located in generally small sites scattered across the
special use permit area. The total permit azea is approximately 12,590 acres in size. This represents 0.5 percent
of the 2,435,905 planning area covered by the 1984 Forest Plan.
Goals, Obiectives, and Outauts
Appendix A(Table III-1 of Forest Plan Amendment 86-2) provides a projection of the outputs for the Forest Plan through
the planning horizon for the White River National Forest. Development and utilization of the full area now under
special use permit at Vail Ski Area, including the Category ID area, was anticipated in 1984 Forest Plan. As a result,
amendment ofForest Plan standards in the manner described above would help achieve goals and projections ofthe Forest
Plan for recreation use.
Management Prescriations
Proposed changes to management area prescriptions are detailed in Section 4.4.2 below.
4.4.2 AMENDMENTS TO MANAGEMENT AREA PRESCRIPTIONS
As notad above, the proposed amendment would shift management emphasis on approximately 4,615 acres from its cucrent
focus on timber management and semi-primitive motorized recreation to a prescription which would emphasize wildlife
values. In particular, this would allow greater management flexibility in improving lynx habitat. Whether the Forest
Plan amendments are adopted or not, the area involved would remain in the suitable timber base for the White River
National Forest. Previously, timber management activities had been considered in these areas, but were postponed in order to allow a comprehensive environmental analysis which included the Category III area. If the land re-allocarion
is not approved, it is reasonable to anticipate that the area would again be under active consideration for timber _
management projects. However, even with adoption of the amendment, habitat improvement activities for lynx couid
provide some level ofcommercial timber harvest, though this would be a by-product ofmanagement ratherthan a primary
objective. The discussion which follows is framed around the four significance criteria described above.
4-8 4.4 Significance Evaluation
Chapter 4.0 Significance Analysis
• T9QA9ll9?g .
This change in the Forest Plan would be effective when the amendments are finalized, sometime in 1997. Actual
management activities to improve lynx habitat could begin in the summer of 1997, but a more comprehensive and
long-range program would not begin until completion of a conservation strategy and environmental analysis. More
extensive habitat improvement programs would likely begin in 1998.
1Location and Size
The size of the affected area is the second consideration in evaluating the significance of amending the Forest Plan.
In this case, the area under consideration is less than 0.2 percent of the planning azea comprised of the White River
National Forest and represents a net change of about 2:6 percent among the management areas affected (Table 10).
. Tab?e 10. Proposed Changes en Acreage ffor Managemen4 plrea Preseriptions.
Current Amended ]Percen4
MaIDagement Area lPresereptnon Acreage Acseage Change
2A - Semi-primitive motorized recreation 199,988 199,388 - 0.3
7E - Timber management 173,995 169,980 - 23
4B - Wildlife management 180,175 184,790 + 2.6
GoaVs. Oboecteves, and Oaatpaets
Appendix A lists the outputs and services that were projected during the planning horizon for the 1984 Forest Plan.
Of the 28 categories of outputs listed, those which would be of greatest concern relate to timber production and
grazing. The ROD for the Category III Final EIS indicated that a variety of options would be considered for lynx
habitat management including prescribed fve, thinning, and both commercial and non-commercial timber harvest.
Considering the small azea involved, relative to the planning area, and the fact that some level of commercial timber
production might still occur, no precise change in timber-related outputs can be projected. However, using the goal
established in the ROD to replace or improve lynx foraging habitat in at least an amount roughly equivalent to the loss
ofthis type of habitat through Category II1 development, approximately 1.5 million boazd-feet of inerchantable timber
could be generated if commercial timber harvest were the only tool used for habitat manipulation (VanNorman 1997).
In contrast, previously considered timber harvest proposals in areas ofLime Creek and Timber Creek that would fall
within the new 4B management area could potentially offer 3.5 million board-feet ofinerchantable timber ifthey
remained under a 7E management emphasis. This difference of2.0 million board-feet represents roughly one percent
- ofthe timber volume that would have been anticipated for a 10-year period under the Forest Plan. No change would occur
related to livestock grazing and use ofthe area, ancl habitat manipulation activities would most likely occur in
densely forested areas that are unsuitable range.
ManageeeaenQ Prescrupteons
The change in management area prescriptions proposed applies only to the areas indicated in Figure 7. The change in
acreage is summarized below in Table 10.
4.4.3 FINIDITVGS ARTI) (COIVCLIJSIOIVS .
The analysis above documented the significance of proposed Forest Plan amendments described in Section 43, based on
considerations of timing; location and size; goals, objectives, and outputs; management prescriptions; and other
provisions ofthe National Forest Management Act of 1976 (36 CFR 219.10 (e)) and (0). Ifadopted, these changes would
constitute a non-significant amendment to the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
4.4 Significance Evaluation 4-9
Chapter 5.0 List of Preparers
CHAPTER 500 LIST OF-P1tEPARERS
This chapter lists those people involved in the production of this supplement. A list of contributors for the
Final EIS for the Category III project is found in the Chapter 5 of that document.
5°Il FOREST SEIt~~CE YNTERDISCIPLINARI' TEAM
The following Forest Service personnel served in the preparation of this supplement, in addition to having
other duties for the Final EIS as outlined below.
CON'II'~BUTOit IEDUC.e.TgON & EXPERIENCE CON'I'RIBiJ'H'IOId
Kit Buell B.A. Biology (Botany), Continuing Wildlife, Biodiversity, and
Wildlife Biologist & Academics in Wildlife Biology, Fish Vegetation.
Ecologist Biology, Ecology; and Silviculture; 2
years as Wildlife Biologist with the
Boise National Forest; 4 years as
District and Zone, Wildlife and Fish
Biologist with the Routt National
Forest; 11 years as a Forestry
Technician with the Forest Service in
Colorado, Arizona, and California.
Loren Kroenke B.S. Forest Recreation, B.S. Soil Interdisciplinary Team Leader;
Project Manager & Science; 5 years as Developed Soils, and Geology.
Soils Specialist Recreation -Winter Sports Staff, Aspen
Ranger District; Forest Soil Scientist
with the Routt National Forest for 8
- years; 1 year as a Soil Scientist with the
Soil Conservation Service. -
- Erik Nlartin Graduate Studies in Ecosystem Mgmt., Alpine Skiing and Visual
Landscape Architect and B.S. Landscape Architecture; 23 years Resources
Forest Winter Sports with the Forest Service working in ski
Specialist area planning and administration.
David VanNorman B.S. Forestry; Continuing Education in Timber Resources
East Zone Timber Ecology and Silviculture; 6 years as
Management Assistant Timber Forester and Silviculturist,
White River National Forest; 9 years
experience as a Timber Forester, Cazson
National Forest.
5.1 Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team 5_ 1
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
5.2 PIONEER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
The following personnel with Pioneer Environmental Services provided work on this Draft Supplement. CONTRIBUTOR EDUCATION & EXPERIENCE CONTRIBUTION -
Roy D. Hugie Ph.D. Forestry (Wildlife Management), Principal in Charge; NEPA
, Project Manager/NEPA M.S. Wildlife Management, B.S. Game Specialist; general project
Specialist/Wildlife Management; 27 years professional oversight; contributing author to Biologist experience in Natural Resource biological resource sections.
Management; Author and producer of
several NEPA documents.
Neal Artz Ph.D. Range Science, B.S. Renewable Socioeconomic Analysis and
Socioeconomic Specialist Resources; 20 years experience with Alpine Skiing.
Natural Resource natural resource management; project
Management manager for other ski area environmental
studies; socioeconomic analyses;
international environmental experience.
R. Spencer Martin M.S. Environmental Management, B.A. Geology, Soils, Hydrology and
Terrestrial Ecologisd Biology; I year with Pioneer as Wildlife
Environmental Analyst biologisdecologist.
Patrick J. Meyer B.S. in Geography; 8 years Geographic Map Production and Geographic
Cartography Information Systems and Cartography. Analysis.
Judith A. Seamons B.S.; 5 years document preparation and Document Technical Production.
Technical Production desk-top publishing; Office, database, and
Specialist computer management.
Jennifer Ott B.S. Environmental Science; 8 years word Document preparation and
Clerical Assistance processing, document preparation production.
- experience.
5-2 52 Pioneer Environmental Services, Inc.
.
Chapter 6.0 - List of Coordination, Consultation and Distribution
CHAPTElt 600
ILIST OF COO INATI0N9 CONSLTLTATION AllD .
DIS'I'RIBUT'ION
6°Il cCOORDYNATION
. A list of ineetings pertaining to this EIS involving the public, organizations, agencies other than the Forest Service,
, and consultant participants is provided below.
BDate off Meeting IPa9't9C9paHfl$S-ILOCa$10n
July 21, 1993 CDOW-Minturn, CO February 8, 1994 EPA-Lakewood, CO
March 7, 1994 Red C1iffCouncil-Red Cliff, CO
March 22, 1994 Vail Town Council Council-Vail, CO March 23 & 24, 1994 Public Scoping-Minturn, CO
April 16, 1994 Colorado Mountain Club-('reeley, CO
April 25, 1994 Front Range Environmental Groups-Lakewood, CO
July 15, 1994 ACOE---Category III area
July 19, 1994 CDOW-Minturn, CO
August ] 0& 11, 1994 ACOE-Category III area -
August 18, 1994 Environmental Group Representatives--Category III area
January 10, 1995 Environmental Groups-Lakewood, CO
January 11, 1995 EPA, Town of Vail, CDPHE-Minturn, CO
January 25, 1995 Eagle County Staff-Eagle, CO
January 27, 1995 CDOW, Town of Vail Staff-Minturn, CO
February 8, 1995 Environmental Groups-Dillon, CO .
February 15,.1995 CDOW, Town of Vail Staff-Minturn, CO
February 15, 1995 ACOE-Minturn, CO
6.1 Coordination 6-1
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
March 21, 1995 Vail Town Council Council-Vail, CO
Apri14, 1995 Vail Town Council Council-Vail, CO
May 10, 1995 CDOW-Minturn, CO .
June 13, 1995 CDOW-Eagle, CO
June 28, 1995 EPA-Denver, CO
July 12, 1995 EPA-Category III area November 21, 1995 Eagle County Staff-Eagle, CO `
December 6, 1995 Public Information Meeting-Vail, CO
December 7, 1995 Public Information Meeting-Vail, CO
December 14, ] 995 Eagle County Staff-Eagle, CO
December 19, 1995 CDOW-Eagle, CO
January 4, 1996 CDOW-Glenwood Springs, CO -
January 22, 1996 CDOW-Grand Junction, CO
January 22, 1996 CDOT-Grand Junction, CO
January 23, 1996 ACOE-Grand Junction, CO
January 23, 1996 Vail Town Council-Vail, CO
January 24, 1996 CDPHE-Denver, CO January 24; 1996 Public Environmental Groups-Lakewood, CO
April 22, 1996 ACOE--Grand Junction, CO
November 8, 1996 Informal Appeal Disposition Meeting with Appellants-Avon, CO
6.2 CONSULTATION
. All federal, state, county, and local agencies consulted for the EIS process are listed below.
6-2 6.2 Consultation
Chapter 6.0 • List of Coordination, Consultation and Distribution
6.2v1 lE" EDERAIL..
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
; Department of the Army, Corp of Engineers (ACOE)
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 6.2.2 STA'TE
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
6.2.3 COiJN'I'Y
Eagle County Summit County
Lake County Eagle County Airport
6.2.4 ]LoCAL
Town of Vail Town of Frisco
Town of Red Cliff Town of Minturn
Town of Avon Town of Leadville
6.3 DY~TRIBUTRON
At the time of printing of this Draft Supplement, a total of approximately 460 groups, agencies, organizations, and
individuals were on the mailing list for this supplement. Copies of the document have been distributed as follows.
6.3<1 IFEDERAI,, S'I'ATE, (COIJIVTY, ANI) MUlVICIPAI.. AGENCIES
CDPHE-Air Pollution Control Colorado Department of Colorado Division of Water
Division Transportation Resources
Colorado Department of Natural Colorado Division of Wildlife Eagle County Commissioners
Resources USDI-Office of Environmental . Eagle County Government
Affaits Eagle County Engineering
6.3 Distribution 6-3
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
EPA Management Information Town of Minturn Unit, Washington, D.C. Town of Red Cliff
EPA Region VIII Town of Vail
Lake County Commissioners U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ^
Northwest Colorado Council of USDA-National Agricultural Library
Governments U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Town of Avon
6.3.2 GROUPS/ ORGANIZATIONS _
Action Vail Denver Public Library Parsons Engineering Science,
Ancient Forest Rescue Design Workshop Inc.
Arnold and Porter Eagle County School District Phantom Technology, Inc.
Avon Public Library Eagle Valley Enterprise Piney Valley Ranches Trust
Backcountry Skiers Alliance Eagle Valley Environmental Rocky Mountain Natural
Bart & Yeti's Restaurant Alliance Resource Center
Biodiversity Legal Franz Weber Sports Mgt & San Jose State University
Foundation Consulting, Sierra Club - Blue River
Boulder Public Library Ft. Collins Public Library Group
Colorado Environmental Gersh & Danielson Sierra Club - Roaring Fork
Coalition Glenwood Springs Public Library Chapter
Colorado Mountain Club Hansen Environmental Southern Rockies Ecosystem
Colorado Mountain College Consultants Project
Colorado Ski County Holy Cross Jeep Club Spensley & Associates
Colorado State University Hydrosphere Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp.
Documents Department Lakewest, Inc. Steammaster, Inc.
Colorado State University LAW Fund Sugarbush Resort
.
Wilderness Study Group Louisiana-Pacific U.S. Recreational Ski
Colorado Trout Unlimited Corporation Association
Dames and Moore Marwen Foundation Vail Associates
Denver Business Journal Mount Snow Ski Area Vail Public Library
Denver Post National Ski Areas Association Vail Valley Times
National Wildlife Federation Wilderness Society
6.3.3 INDIVIDUALS
Approximately 400 individuals received this Draft Supplement. The actual mailing list is on file at the Holy
Cross Ranger District Office.
6-4 6.3 Distribution
Chapter 6.0 - List of Coordination, Consultation and Distribution
CHAj"r& E1KR%,/ o0 REr EREli CES
For consistency, references are cited in the format in which they appear in the Category III Final EIS.
Buell, K. 1997. Ecologist and Vdildlife Biologist, White RiverNational Forest. Report for the Draft Supplement to
the Final EIS for the Category III Ski Area Development. March 19, 1997.
CFR. 1995. Gode of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 219. Revision Date: July 1, 1995.
CFR. 1993. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 1500, 1501, 1502 and 1508, Revision Date:
November 30, 1996.
CEC. 1996. Colorado Environmental CoaliUion. Notice of Appeal, Statement ofReasons, and Request for Relief. Appeal
Number 97-02-15-0008. Rocky NTountain Regional Office. Lakewood, Colorado.
Forest Plan Amendment 86-2. 1986. Amendment to White RiverNational Forest Land and Resoum.e Management Plan No.
86-2. U.S. Department ofAgriculture - Forest Service. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
1986.
USDA-FS. 1983. Rocky Mountain Regional Guide. USDA-FS, Lakewood, Colorado.
USDA-FS. 1984a White RiverNational Forest Land and Resounce Management Plan. U.S. Departrnent ofAgricuhure -
Forest Service. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 1984.
USDA-FS. 1992a. Forest Service Manual (FS1VT) 2340.3--5, R2 Supplement 2300-94-5. USDA-FS,
Washington, D.C.
USDA-FS. 1992b. Forest Service Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook U.S. Dept of Agricuhure, Forest
Service, Washington, D.C. USDA-FS. 1995. Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Vail Category III Sl:i Area Development U.S. Deparhnent of
Agriculture - Forest Service. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. November, 1995.
- USDA-FS. I 496a. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vail Category III Ski Area Development U.S. Depattinent of
Agriculture - Forest Service. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. August 16, 1997.
USDA-FS. 1996b. Record ofUecision - Vail Category III Ski Area Development U.S. L?epactinent of Agricuhure - Forest
Service. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. August 16, 1997.
USDA-FS. 1996c. Biological Evaluation for the ProRosed Vail Category III Ski Area Bevelopment U.S. Deparvnent of
Agriculture - Forest Service. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. August 1996.
USDA-FWS. 1394. Twelve-month finding for a getition to list as endangered or threatened the contiguous Unitad States
population of the Canada lynx. Fed. Register 59 (247): 66507 - 66509.
VanNomiati, D. 1997. East Zone Timber Management Assistant, White River National Forest. Estimates of inenchantable
timber volumes for areas surrounding the Category III. Nlarch 19, 1997.
References 7_ 1
'
Glossary
0"'LOSSAd~~
U. S.Anuuy Corps off Enganeen (ACOE): The federal agency chargeci with enforcing the Clean Water Act bY mgulatir?g
dredge and fill activities in wetlands.
Ac4non A?geu~atives: Any altemative that includes development of downhill skiing facilities in the Category III
Project Area.
Ac?ve¢se ]Effffecg: Apparent direct or indirect detrimental effect. . Ageeemen4: As used in this EIS, a joint progmm between the Tovm of Vail and Vail Associates to manage peak-day skier
numbers and related impacts.
A?t~~adve: One of several ski area development plans evaluated in detail in this EIS. NEPA requires that agencies
objectively explore all reasonable alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14).
1Bac9cgeoannd: The visible temain beyond the foreground and middle ground where individual trees are not visible but
blended into the total fabric of the forest stand. Area located between 3 to 5 miles and infinity from the viewers.
Also see middle ground and foreground.
Basefl6ne Condetion: The existing dynamic conditions prior to development, against which potential effects are
judged.
]Buodeveese8y: The variety of life and its processes. It includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic
differences among them, the communities and ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary
processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting.
Beologeeal Evalva4ion (BE): An evaluation conducted to determine whether a proposed action is likely to affect any
species which are listed as sensitive (USDA-FS) or as a candidate (LJSDI-FWS) for listing as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act, 1973, as amended.
C?earvng: The removal of vegetation, usually referring only to tr+ees (canopy cover). Understory plant species would
normally not be removed unless grading is done:
CoreicHor. A route that potentially allows movement of individuals or species from one region or piace to another (Noss
and Cooperrider 1994).
Coopera4ing Agency: Any federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for legislation or
other major federal action significantly affecting the qualiry of the human environment.
Cumaalaative l[enpact: The impact on the environment which resutts from the incremental impact ofthe action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regazdless of what agency or person undertakes
such other actions.
IIDesision Notuce: A document detailing an agency's decision on a project proposal that is based on an analysis in an
Environmental.
Glossary G - 1
, ~Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
Direct Effect: An impact which is caused by the action being considered and which occurs in the same time and place
(40 CFR1508.8).
Edge: The wne oftransition between two or mone elements of the environment; e.g., field and woodland or the zone
where different plant communities meet or successional stages come together.
Edge Ha6iiat: Habitats occurring in the edge between two habitat types (such as forest and meadow) that have a higher
diversity of flora, fauna, and microc(imate. -
Edge Tolerant Species: Plants or animals which prefer edge habitats and are not normally found in interior portions of a block of habitat. - -
Environmental Assessment (EA): A documentthat identifies potential effects on the human environment of a proposed
action to determine whether those effects may be significant.
Enviroamen4al Lnpact Shatement (EN: A disclosure report requinad by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
that documents the environmental effects of a proposed action that may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The federal agency that monitors the quality of vazious aspects of the
environment such as air and water quality. They also have an irnportant role in the wetland regulations via review
of 404 permits.
Forest Plan: A Forest Service document required by regulations for each National Forest that provides general
standards and guidelines for activities and that identifies areas of management emphasis.
Glading: The removal of up to approximately one-third of the trees to facilitate developed downhill skiing.
Grading: The complete removal of all vegetation and subsequent surface disturbance associated with modifying the
topography or contour to make an area more skiable.
Habitat: Places where plants or animals naturally or normally live and grow for all or a portion of their lives.
Habitat Type: A classification ofthe vegetation resource based on dominant growth fornis. The forested areas are more
.
specifically classified by the dominant tree species.
Indirect Effect: An impact which is caused by the action being considered, but which occurs later in time or farther
removed in distance, but which is still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR1508.8).
Landscape Area (LA): A spatial scale of analysis used in evaluating project effects on vegetation and wildlife. In
this EIS it consists of Category III and surrounding areas and encompasses approximately 41,178 acres.
Management Area Presceiption: A management strategy or emphasis which is identified in a forest plan and applies to
specific areas of the National Forest.
Master De,welopment Plan: A conceptual program for long-term development and operaTion of a ski area over time. It is required as a condition of the special use permit. For Vail Ski Area, this pertains to the plan approved by the
Forest Service in 1986. ;
G - 2 Glossary
GIOSSSry
Ngtigateon: Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adveise environmental impacts. Mitigation actions
may include: 1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, 2) minimizing
impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, 3) rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring th e affected environment, 4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time
_ by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, and 5) compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. '
: Mod'ufsaYeon dQO: Changes that visually dominate the characteristic landscape and amact attention, but still
reflect visual chazacteristics that occur naturally within the Central Rocky NYountain Character Type; to be
_ achieved within one year of project completion. However, activities of vegetative and landform alteration must
borrow from naturally established form, line, color, or texture so completely and at such a scale that its visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding azea or character type. Additional parts
of these activities such as structures, roads, slash, root wads, etc., must remain visually subordinate to the
proposed composition.
Na4i0na9 lEnvenonmenta9 Poticy Ac4 04' 1969 (NIEPA): This law requires the preparation of environmental impact
statements for every major federal action which may cause a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment.
No AsQaon A?geenative: NEPA requires an evaluation of all reasonable altematives. This includes the alternative
of not taking the action or not allowing the activity proposed, which is referred to as the No Action Alternative.
Non-segneficang amendgueena: A proposed or adopted amendment to a forest plan that dces not significantly alter the
long-term relationship between levels of multiple use goods and services projected in the forest plan.
Off$-sate g¢aupmsgs: An impact associated with the implementation of an altemative which affects the environment
outside the boundaries ofthe project area. Usually used in reference to effects which may occur offNational Forest
System lands.
O1d-groseth: Any stand of trees generally containing the following characteristics: 1) stands contain mature and over
mature trees in the overstory and are well into the mature growth stage; 2) stands will usually contain a
multilayered canopy and trees of several age classes; 3) standing dead trees and down material are present; and 4)
evidence of human activity may be present but does not significantly alter the other characteristics and would be
a subordinate factor in a description of such a stand. See the Vegetation section in Chapter 3 for further detail.
P?annnng area: The area across which the potential impacts to Forest Service sensitive species are evaluated,
generally an entire National Forest (36 CFR 219.3).
1P%pestAa+a (PA): The geographic area where the physical developments associated with the Proposed Action and
the alternatives would occur. Also, the smallest of the three analysis areas (about 4,300 acres), and the one
where most of the direct effects would likely occur.
lPaoposed Action: The development plan submitted by Vail Associates, Inc. and examined in detail as Altemative C.
]Ranger Distdc4: An administrative subdivision of the National Forest supervised by a District Ranger, who reports
to the Forest Supervisor.
]itecoed ogDecision (110I3): A document prepared which states the agency's decision and why one altemative was favored
over another, what factors entered into the agency's decision, and whether all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm have been adopted, and if not, why not.
Glossary G - 3
Draft Supplement to the Vail Category III Final EIS
Regional Area (RA): A scale of analysis utilized in assessing impacts to vegetation and wildlife. In this EIS it
refers to an azea of approximately 753,316 acres.
Scoping: The process used to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an EIS.
Sensitive Species: Those species of plants or animals that have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for
c(assification and are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This also includes species that are on an official state list or that are recognized by the •
Regional Forester as needing special management to prevent their being placed on federal or state lists.
Short Term Impact: An impact which occurs during construction and/or for 1 to 2 growing seasons tfiemafter. May also
occur after brief activity associated with operafion and maintenance.
Significant amendment: A proposed or adopted amendment to a forest plan that wouid significantly alter the long-
term relationship between levels of multiple use goods and services projected in the forest plan.
Significant Impact: A subjective judgement conceming the relative severity of an impact based on consideration of
context and intensity. Often, a significant impact is one which exceeds a standard, guideline, law, or regulation.
NEPA directs agencies preparing EISs to focus their analysis on significant impacts.
Special Use Permit: A legal authorization issued by the Forest Service to a permittee which defines the terms of
occupancy and use of specific areas of the National Forest. Regulations for issuing and administering special use
permits aze found in 36 CFR 251.
Visual Quality: Describes the degree ofvariety in the landscape, created by basic vegetative patterns, landform,
and water forms. Landscapes with the greatest variety or diversity have the greatest potential for high scenic value
or visual quality.
Visual Resource: The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and land
use effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors.
Wetlands: Areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support a prevalence of
vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction (Executive Order 11990). Under normal circumstances, the area does, or would, support a prevalence
of vegetative or aquatic life.
Wilderness: The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as follows:
"A wilderness, in contrast with those azeas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby
recog?ized as an area where the earth and its community of life are unuammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain. An area of wildemess is further defined to mean in this Act, an area of undeveloped
federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,
which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (I) generally appears to have
been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2)
has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive experience."
G - 4 Glossary
.
Index
INDEX
~ alpine skiing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Page
1 - 5, 1 - 6, 4 - 2
= aPPeal........... iii,l-2
APPeaI Deciding Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii, vii, 1 - 1
avalanche ........................................................................3-4
biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 5, 3 - 1, 3 - 4, 3 - 5, G - 1
Biological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4, 4 - 5
. • corereserve 3-5
corridor ..................................................:.................:3-5, G -1
Decision Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2, G - 1
deer................ 3-4,4-6,A-2
Draft Supplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii, vii, 1 - 1-4 - 2, 4 - 6, 6 - 4
Eagle County iii,6-2 ~
edge habitat .3-4, G -2
elk......... 1 -6,2-7,3-4-4-6,A-2
Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1, 1 - 2, 3 - 6, 4 - 1, G - 2
ForestPlan iii,vii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5,2-7,3-6,4-14 -6,4-8,4-9,G-2-G-4,A-2
Forest Plan amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii, 1 - l, 1 - 2, 4 - 14 - 3, 4 = 6, 4 - 8, 4 - 9, 7 - 1
habitatcapability 4-4
~
hiding cover .4-6
lynx 1 -5,2-7,3- 1-3-5;4-4-4-6,4-8,4-9
management area prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3,4 - 6, 4 - 8, 4 - 9, G - 2
monitoring . . . . . .4-1
National Forest Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii, vii, 4 - 4 - 4, 4 - 5, 4 - 9
non-significant amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii, 4 - 1, 4 - 9, G - 3
old-growth 1-5,2-2,2-4,2.-7,3-4,3-5,3-7,G-3
partialretention ...................................................................4-5
Patton Edge-ShapeIndex . . . .4-2
public involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 5
Record of Decision iii,vii, l- 1, 1 -2,2- 1,2-7,4- 1-4 - 4, 4 - 6, 4 - 8, 7 - 1,G-4
Regional Acceptable Work Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
~ Regional Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v, 3 - .1, 3 - 5, G - 4
Roadless Area............
scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................:............3-6
1-5, 1-6,2- 1,3-6,3-7,6- 1,G-4
sensitivespecies -3, G - 4
signifcant amendment G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G - 4
standards and guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1, 2 - 7, 4 - 14 - 6, 4 - 8
Visual Quality Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v, vii, 1 - 1, 4 - 5, G - 3
Index ~ _ ~
A
• APPE0 _DIX A
PR JECTED FOREST
LAN l1TPlJ1'S
L ]11L PE1 V DYL1] A - L ~OJEr/ Y ED FOtl lESY L L[ ]l~ OULL PUll S
'VABLIE QQO-Il 1PIf8O,DEC'?'ED AVEQdAGE AMNQJAL Ov'VPU'9'S, E]CPE1VD6'H'v9tES, COS'Q'S, AND IR]E'E'vQBRIS
ACT?V?TY vNIl'VS 1981 ?98D- 1985- 1991- 2001- 2011- 2O2fl-
, 1985 1990 2000 2010 2026 2030
v
R VEGETA'V80N
x• Area Treated Acres 6,600 8,805 11,017 11,033 11,414 9,489 10,900
Y
If8EC1[3EA'Il'OON
~ Developed (excludes skiing) Thousand Visitor Days 950 1,085 1,232 1,500 1,800 2,130 2,527
~
= Downhill Skiing Iv9illion Visitor Days 2.4 2.6 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.6 6.2
V
~ Dispersed Thousand Visitor Days 1,920 2,131 2,358 2,753 3,162 3,626 4,165
~ .
~ Trail Construction/Reconstruction Miles 4 1 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
A. < WOLDEIdMESS
~ Wilderness Management Thousand Acres 891 891 900 900 900 900 900
~
~ Wilderness Use Thousand Visitor Days 717 796 880 1,080 1,181 1,354 1,555
w WBQ.Dfl.,HFE ,4ND F9SH
O Elk Winter Range Carrying Capacity Thousand Animals 4.2 43 4.5 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2
~
~ Deer Winter Range Carrying Capacity Thousand Animals 8.4 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.6 10.0 10.4
rn
Wildlife Habitat Thousand Acres 1.80 3.37 4.00 4.00 4.004.00 4.00
b
~
~
RAIVGE
~ Grazing Use Thousand Acres 170 171 173 175 178 181 185
N
~ TIIYtlBER
y
~ Green Sawtimber
~ Volume Millon Board Feet 16.5 22.1 25.0 27.8 41.3 42.7 44.2
Acres Treated Acres 2,900 3,500 3,900 5,100 5,000 5,800
~
~ Dead Sawtimber
" Volume 1Viillon Board Feet 6.5 15.0 22.1 22.0 7.2 2.4 2.5
> Acres Acres 1,500 2,210 2,200 720 240 240
N '
y ` TABLE 111-1 PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL OUTPUTS, EXPENDITURES, COSTS, AND RETURNS (CONTINUED)
ACTIVITY
UNITS 1981 1981- 1985- 1991- 2001- 2011- 2021-
1955 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Reforestation Acres . 300 1,000 1,000 500 700 700 400
a
~ Timber Stand Improvement Acres 1,300 1,300 1,600 1,500 1,500 1,200 1,300
~
X WATER
y Water Yield Millon Acre-Feet 2,084 2,085 2,088 2,091 2,092 2,096 2,098
Water Meeting Water Quality Millon Acre-Feet 1,894 1,895 1.,897 1,900 1,902 1,905 1,907
~o Standards
' MINERALS Operating Plans 79 85 85 90 90 95 95
b
HUMAN AND COMMUNITY
~ Human Resources Enrollee Years 16.5 15 20 25 25 25 25
a LANDS
~ Purchase and Acquisition Acres . 784 150 150 300 300 300 300
~
~ Exchange Acres 0 150 150 300 300 300 300
w Right-of-way Acquisition Cases 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
O
Land Line Location Miles 22 30 30 30 30 30 30
~ SOILS
~ Resource Im rovements Acres
~ p 70 0 100 100 0 0 0
~
FACILITIES ~ Arterial and Collector Road Miles 0 4.30 8.61 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72
Construction and Improvement
n
0
~ PROTECTION
~ Fuel Treatment Thousand Acres 1.40 1.79 2.80 3.23 1.11 0.43 0.30
n.
~ EXPENDITURES '
~ Total Budget Millon Dollars (1978) 4.147 4.681 5.996 7.838 ` 8.134 8.889 8.866
' [;7URNS
Return to the Treasury Millon Dollars 0.995 2.268 . 3351 4.101 4.940 5.605 6.243
i
CD
~
The Vai*1 Valley Traveler BIl-MON'Il'HlLY NEWSL1ET"T]ER OF"d'HIE VAg1L VALLEY 'g'OURI3M Ar1I) C0NVETI7'ION BIJRE,QiU
~oRume 9 llssue Il March/ Aprel 1997
L ETTER FROM TH]E PRESj[DEN'II',,, enhancing a number of our pages, particularly those highlighting
special events in the Vail Valley.
Greetings! As we begin to close out another strong winter
, -season, many indicators are beginning to fonnulate a very FPOnt Range Vacatiouers
positive outlook for summer business in the Vail Valley. A wide To build off of last year's successful Front Range cooperative .
range of attractive special events, the commitment of several campaigns, we. are increasing the special event advertisements ~
large groups, and a solid sununer marketing program all add up and opportunities for Vail Valley businesses to effectively
to the potential for summer `97 to be a record breaker for advertise around these ads, at very affordable costs. Expanding
business! the number of inediums to include tazgeted newspapers and radio
creates reach into the Front Range beyond previous year's
In this issue of the Vail Valley Traveler, it is appropriate to give programs.
you a look at our summer marketing programs and the unique,
collaborative approach taken by the VVTCB and the Vail Valley public lEtelations
Marketing Board (VVMB) to increase off-season business by The highly successful program, implemented through a contract
maximizing every available marketing dollar and positioning the xvith the Vail Associates PR department, is expanding to include
Vail Valley as a competitive year-round destination resort. more media visits and a highly targeted public relations launch
with New York media. By cross-selling summer stories to the
Due to the volunteer nature of the VVMB, the VVTCB staff has huge number of press members attracted to our winter product,
worked to implement and leverage Marketing Board programs the PR effort goes far beyond what we could hope to achieve
wherever possible. This year's progrwn includes the following with the budget available. highlights:
The substantial gains in sununer business over the past nine years
Groups and tYleetings could not have been possible without the joint efforts of the
Traditioiially, the Board has funded advertising and direct mail VVTCB, the VVMB, and [he PR "muscle" of Vail Associates.
campaigns to generate interested clients to whom the VVTCB's The success of ow summer marketing program is an example of
Group Sales staff can sell the Vail Valley destination. These synergy at its best.
efforts have led to an increase of approximately 178% in group
meeting business during the non-peak season since the Board's Sincerely, Frank Johnson
inception in 1989. This year, the Board is increasing their
emphasis on datahase marketing, group meeting advertising in HEATINQa UID SUMMER ...THE VAIL, VALLEY
targeted, productive publications, "one on one" selling via trade ~ARKET~~~ ~~ARD
_ shows and sales trips, telemarketing, and updating of our group
meeting collateral information
Today, nine years after its inception, the VVMB's mission
Destination Visitors remains the same to attract more visitors to the valley in the
Destination advertising, aimed at family and individual travelers, non-winter season to produce a more balanced year-round
continues in targeted travel and lifestyle magazines. with the goal economy. Throughout its existence, this marketing alliance has
of distributing over 70,000 Summer Vacation Guides. This dramatically increased the awareness of the Vail Valley as a
approacll has enabled us to reach a great number of travelers summer destination.
with a limited advertising budget. Additionally, we are
continuing our successful direct mail campaigns, both nationally ~n 1989, several key community members formed a task force to
and statexvide. This year, we will test-market "family-oriented" study the year-round economy of the valley. While the Vail
messages, in addition to our general summer message, to Valley was already known as a world class international ski
determine which most successfully promotes tourism. Also, resort, the group recognized the lack of a summer marketing
leveraeing our dollars with Vail Associates and the Beaver Creek force. Based on this need, the VVMB formed as an independent
Resort Company in a newsletter distributed to over 350,000 Vail entity to promote May through October tourism in the valley.
Valley patrons provides valuable increased coverage at the best
possible cost. Throughout its history, the VVMB's program has been financed
by To%%n of Vail business license fees, Town of Vail General
IInternet Fund, Town of Avon General Fund, Beaver Creek Resort
Recognizing the growing number of potential visitors using the Company, and Vail Associates. Business license fee support
internet to access information, we are increasing ovr f~cus on the makes up approximately 35% of the fund. Contributions from
Vail Vallry website. Capitalizing on this marketing tool, we are the other four sources further supplement the fwid.
C'ontinued un nezt page...
Z The Traveler '
The Vail Vallev Marketing Board (continued from As the Fourth of July approaches, a weekend packed full of
a e I excitement, two annual events celebrate anniversary years in the
Initially. volunteer members of the Board were appointed by the Vail Valley. Embarking on its lOth Anniversary Season, the
orgi,nizations providing the funding. Today, in addition to Bravo! Colorado Vail Valley Music Festival presents the
appuintees Irom the Vail "fown Council (4), Beaver Creek Resort Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, featuring a fabulous pops
coiiinany (2), Avon Town Council (1), and Vail Associates (1), concert and two complimentary patriotic concerts on July 4-6.
four members appointed by the merchants of Vail Village, Another Vail Valley tradition, the Vail Lacrosse Shootout,
Liunshead . Beaver Creek, and Avon serve on the VVMB. brings all-star lacrosse players to the mountains to compete for
the title in one of the country's largest and best tournaments for
Ciirrently, the WMB contracts with.Vail Associates to carry out its 25th year. all I)ublic relations functions and Reece and Company, a Denver- .
' based aclvertising frni, to cairy out the advertising program. Continuing the Vail Valley's patriotic tradition, the Fourth of
July weekend featwes a wide variety of fun-filled events. Both
In 1997, approximately 45% of the $844,000 summer marketing Vail's fireworks display and Avon's Salute to the USA, the
budget is being directed toward destination marketing, and 26% largest fireworks display in Colorado, will light up the valley
to broup marheting. Supplementing the destination and group skies on July 4th, followed by Minturn's own fireworks
marketing efforts, approximately 12% of this year's budget will extravaganza on July Sth. The weekend also features the annual
be used for an ongoing public relations campaign designed to Vail America Days parade through Vail, and a host of music,
produce favorable articles in key magazines and newspapers. dance, and free entertainment for everyone.
The eflorts and financial contributions of the different entities Later in July, the return of the very popular Grundig World Cup
have led to a significant increase in visitor spending in the Vail Mountain Biking Races will attract cycling enthusiasts from
Valley. Based on statistical data, an estimated increase of $86 around the world. Top members of the cross country circuit
million in summer visitor spending since 1989 is directly compete on Vail mountain's challenging course on July 11-13.
atU-ibutable to the Board's marketing efforts a return of $1623
for eveiy marketing dollar spent. With the beautiful changing of the seasons comes the VVTCB's annual Oktoberfest on September 20-21. Featuring live ompah-
Looking toward the future, continued growth in non-ski season pah, rock-n-roll, blues, and pops music, free street performances,
tourism is dependent on establishing a funding formula that traditional food, Oktoberfest-4-Kids, and European Brewer's
enables Dinners, the traditional celebration is sure to delight.
long-tenn marketing with an equal emphasis throughout the Vail
Vallev. Recognizing the importance of special events, the VVTCB
" continues to amact new events. This summer welcomes the
A SUMMER OF FUN Triple Crown Sports 1997 Rocky Mountain Regional Soccer
Shootout to Vail for the first time on August 15-17.
The V VTCB's special events department, along with several For further information regarding any of the sutruner's special -
otl~cr events, or to participate as a event sponsor or create lodging
valley organizations, is planning a summer packed full of fun and packages, please
interesting events during the non-winter season to increase the contact Bill Brice, director of special events and
economic vitality of the business communiry. A variety of communications, at (970) 476-1000 x.3050.
social. cultural, and sporting events is sure to bolster spring,
summer, and fall tourism.
Serving as a key element to summer marketing, special events <
attract additional guests and enhance the Vail Valley's image as ~EW ~EMBEI~:;~
a
ace to vi i. V
n excitinb PI
st VT Bm
C embers from East Vai
1 to
P g. `;:.::::>:::::~~X `..'>i
ordillera ar
C e sure to i
be m acted b e ial v
s c e ent ha eni
s n
P Y P
P
~;K~,~AK;&:
~
tlu-ouhout the valle
~
~ y.
. .
. ~
Thr vvTCB hi-
s summer,s eve t n
cks off thi
n s o Memori
al Da
Y
. ti;
weeken
d ~th the JeePW w
t~ hiteater val.
Fest'~ The weekend
. ~
,i
features a de arra
of excitin events includi w xtre
Y ~ . ng ne e me
d-t -head •
hea o iaft and k
aYak races t ugh Dow
hro d te• one
Chu of
: . . .
the state's most challenging class IV (advanced) whitewater
, .
: PEOFLE
sections. ln both Vail and Mintwn, Colorado's top river outfitter
teams and individual paddlers will compete for prizes, and more "
importantly, bragging rights, on May 24-26.
a _ , . - .:ic• t5~~~'~._
o ~ The TE°aVeleC .
OTH AdNUAL FRONTRANGE MEE'y'IT1G 1VIElVIBERSHIP SEEKS T'O BRIGHTEN APIBIIL
IPLAN1VERS RECEP'I'IOIV A SUcCCE3S WI'I'H MEL'd'DOWN 197.
The "Vail Valley Adventures Series", the Eighth Annuai Front In an effort to increase April business in the Vail Valley, the
Range Meeting Planners Reception held at the new Denver Public VVTCB and Vail Associates have teamed up with the lodging
Library on March 25, won rave reviews. The event, hosted by the communiry ta create the new Meltdown `97 program. Targeting
VVTCB's Group Sales deparhnent and the VV1ViB, was deemed a winter recreation industry employees, the program is designed to
great success by meeting planners and Vail Valley bosinesses, bolster business during a typically slow period and promote the
alike. valley's great spring skiing product. Employees of ski areas, .
, retail shops, equipment manufacturers, industry related hotel Designed to preview what is new in summer for groups, and to properties, and airlines are being offered special lodging/ lift . demonstrate why Vail is a unique and ideal meeting destination, ticket packages for the discounted prices of $49, $64, and $79
the reception featured twenry-five local businesses which brought a per night/ per employee, effective AprilSth through the end of
piece of Vail Valley summer to over 100 meeting planners. This the season. year's venue proved to be well-suited for interaction, providing
businesses and meeting planners with an excellent opportunity to Meltdown '97 aims to increase business in April and also seeks
network and exchange valuable information. to create positive feelings thtoughout the industry about the Vail .
Valley: Success may result not only in return visits, but also in "The reception is done quite professionally, and is very helpful," word-of-mouth promotion by a group that has widespread
explains Pippa Lakeman of Site Works International. "1 was able influence on the ski industry market.
to visit with everyone I needed to see at one time, rather than •
traveling all over the state. I rel:indled relationships, put faces with "T1us program gives industry employees an opportunity to enjoy
names, and got an overall update on the Vail Valley." the product they have been selling all winter, and experience vchy ~
Vail and Beaver Creek are the destinadon of choice for many
Continually striving to further increase group business, the people," states Joel Heath, director of development at the .
VVTCB and VVMB held this year's event earlier than ever to get VVTCB. "We foresee Meltdown as an annual event, with the . a jump on summer group marketing. Vail Valley eventually becoming the place to be in the spring for the industry."
"This.year's reception was one of our most successfiil," says Jim
Feldhaus, vice president of sales and marketing. "A majoriry of Taking the program one. step further, Meltdown organizeis haye the attending meeting planners showed great interest in the Vail plans to discuss early ski season discounts with participants.
Valley meeting destination. We have been pleased to leam that Industry employees can then share knowledge of these packages
several hotels are already booking group business as a result of the with their clients, helping to boost business in the early winter
trade show," fw-ther explains Fe(dhaus. months, as well.
The aggressive sales efforfs of the VVTCB, and marketing efforts Along with other annual April events, such as the Taste of Vail
of the VVMB, have resulted in a growing awareness of the Vail and Warren Miller's Mad Mountain Marathon, the Meltdovm
Valley asa meeting destination. With several large groups already program will help increase business during the last month of the committed to visiting this surnmer, including Camp Jeep(& and the season, and provide an ideal market for local businesses' end of World Wide Church of God, the VVTCB anticipates bringing an the year sales.
estimated total of $2.4 million in lodging revenue to the Vail Valley from group attendees during the months of May through
October. Based on statistical data, which states a year-round WEST MEN..g..~ ~ALTH
average of $3.00 are spent in the community for every dollar spent ~ENTER - ,
on lodging, the Group Sales department estimates bringing in $72
million in total revenue to the valley's economies in the non-winter cordially invites you to an important and timely workshop titled,
season. "gmplementing a ADrug Free Workplace aad Satisfylmg the
Department of'd'ransportafion Itegulations".
Monday, April 14, 1997 from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. at the Season's "in Avon, and Thursday, April 17, 1997 from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.
at Colorado West in Eagie. . "
This workshop is free of charge to all Human Resource and/ or Personnel Directors. .
Please RSVP by Apri! 11 th to Jennifer at Colorado West Mental .
, Health at 476-0930. ,
:
4 The Traveler APRIL 10,11 World Synchronized Skiing C6ampionships .
11-13 Colorado Winter Sports Film Festival
1 13th Annual Chocolate Lovers Charity Classic 12 Warreo Miller's Mad Mountain Marathon
3 Vail Symposium Speaker Series - Jack Kemp 13 The Asthma Ski Day Foundation, Beaver Creek
3-5 Taste of Vail Food & Wine Festival 13-15 Rocky Mountain Masters Trophy Series Finale,
4 Casino `97 Vail
Marriott's Grand Ballroom 13 Beaver Creek 1Vgountain Closes
5 Snowshoe Shuf[le 14-18 Philadelphia Flyers Fantasy Camp Week
5 Super Ripathon - Eagle Valley Yout6 Snowboard Dobson Ice Arena
' Competition 18,19 Annual Bike Show & Sale
5 V1`arsteiner Mogul Mania Championships Vail. Cascade Club
5 Peak Awarcis Celebration - Vail Valley Theater 20 Vail Mountmin Closes
CompanN21 The Annual Great Race .
6 Camerata Chorale, Beaver Creek -
A Celebration oJ'Sp?•ing MAY -
8 BB&B End of Season Bas6
Minnie's Deck 24-26 Jeep@ Whitewater Festival
9-13 Vail International Hockey Tournament 24-26 Gondola Opens (Friday, Saturday ONLY until June
Dobson Arena 21)
9-13 Jimmie Heuga's Toyota Ski Express - National ZO- VBS Summer Bike Race Series
Finals Sept. 21
VAIL VALLEY Bulk Rate
U.S. Postage
PAID
TOURISM & CONVENTION BUREAU 8v s~Vall, CO '
100 E. Meadow Dr. Vail, Colorado 81657 Permit No. 50
~ I~fkM $PR'NDM X C: ~
TowN aF v~~
Ti~? S . MDNTCC-;?.~
VA-IL.,CO P>1~~~
.
. , . , , .
. . . . F~ : , .a^ - i. . ~ . ~ .
+ ~ a' ' ~ ' , _ r . . ~ r.-~-_ ` - _ . ' . . . ~ _ • I
, , y i. . . , . , ' - . • . ..S ~ . . ' . ~ ' .
4
. . . . . . .
. KVBA*TV8 ~ . - 1 - . . ' V ~ . ' .
. + • • e e • • ' , . . • • • • • • ~ . . , . . . • . • • e e • • o •
. ~ . ~ . . . - . . . ,i' _ ' . _ , - ~ :
_ ' . - • . . ' ~ " ' ~ . , .
TV&DESERYESCANP
-for TWO . ~ r
~ . s . n .
' . , ~ . . ' t0 ' , i. ` . ' ' ' . , _ . . . . . , ' .
~ LA PALO~ ~SORT, TUCSON ~ARIZONA
OCT°OBEIZ 16-2 0;=1997
. _s~ *:.w . . . . $
~~ts~RS
o ~tound-trip ~ frorrfl Dec~ver to Tucson, United Airlines depait DIA Thursday at
fl fl:38ann, arride Tucson 12:31pm, depart Tucson IVionday 2:SSpm, arrive DIA
,=s
5:40prn
o Deirilc Coupons for bererages _ _ . . . : - . . , ~ . . . ,
-
o Boardir~g passes vvhera available
o ~rival and depar¢uee assistance
o l~und-trip t~sfers airpoct go resort
o Round-2rip luggage handling with porterage at airport and hotel
~
o A1 taxes and grattaieies '
1~SOR~°
o FOiJ~t nights ar.,coe~riodations at L,a Paloma Itesort in Tucson, Arizona : . {
A
0 1 sou~ of Vau o I~otel taxes, portecage ~d rnaid gratuities
VaUeylnlormation
~ .i
FOOI~ ~ BE~RAGE . . ~
o `~lelcome Cocktail Reception with hot and cold hors d'oeuyres the first evening "
~ o 'TlA~O brealcfasts at Yhe resort, the first anorning's will feature a local host/hostess
to faaniliaeiae giaests with the resort and activities that are available in the area
o- Fuewell ~Cock~i~ ~ptioee with hors d'oeuvres followed by a DINNER
~I~'I'gOI~T~, - =S ~ - . . . _
:F
~ $100 Acti~ty Credig for gol& ballooning, jeeping, etc. per person
~~d ~vatataors go allfl fianctaons . . ~ . . ;
~
m P~natszed room g~s bearing I~~A-''V8 logo - ~
'~°~ve1l~Vallet . . . . , . . ~ . . . ~ ~
o- ~ggage tags with grip eti~aeraey Gsted ~ - '
. , . - `s
, . . ~
_ . .
~'~R'TISIr1G ~QiJIItE1VIENT: II~ICREMENTAL $7500
Niast sip up by August 191997
m menemx~s ~ . . . . . .
C oL 0 1~ o o PO 8ox 888 o bail, Colorado o89658 phone 970 479 0800 o fax 970 479 2088 - '
: • . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . • . '
, . . . - ' f
~ ~ ~ - • ~ ~ , ~ \ _ ` l~ l~l.~ ,WWI~ .
~ ' , ~ " ~ - ~ . ~ - • - ~ , - `
/ ~ ~ - • \ ~ RLS~EIVEDAPR l~~~f~~~ • ~ i ~~r~,.~' _ ,
• . . ~ i ' , , • ' I - ~ _ .
J \ s = z. ` e,` p ~'r °~~t;'• _
af... 0u
' - ~ ' ,
/ ~ . ~ ` - ' . r~ ` / .
/ i ~ ~ • ' ' ' ' r / . ' .
/r T'
l ~ ` ~ VViU~V VU-~. \ V U V\ ' ,i \ . a
~ _ ~ ~ ' _ . ' _ . ' . • ~ ,
L-
0 ~ o ' . , ~ o
o,~g , . , _ , .
-Q Gu oc~~~ook fo r U nf~c~g rat
~~nd use, Transp( orla~oon-and
~ ~ ,
o i~~ ~
;Qo
p
.,Q~~Do~~ -~~~:~o~~:
Sponsoted by:
~O -v-ePnor's Offlice off Energy Coov~erv~4uoov
=CoVoPa~~ ~~paP'tPWefit of TP/anspdPtat0on
r Co\~oPado,Department_off Lbcal 1~ffa0rs
CoVor'ado Deparimeov4 off Publfic -HeafthA, Eneuronmebvt _ . .
_ a- ~ ' . r • \-1 ~ . ~ ~ ~ _ '
- ~ ~ " ~ ~ / \ • ~ , E ~ .
Prepared by:
\ Coov~Qrroao~vut~ Mat~ePs, lovce
~ - Ceovter ifor ResoaaPce Managemeova./
CIUItlbP & Sftnff9eW; LoL,P:-
GePsteU9bePgeP G~~~~~iaies
~ r. ' ~ , • ~ , ' ~ _ ' r \ i \
. . / J " ~ • ~ ~i ` . ~ ~ '
.
y / .
. , l . ~l { - • i ' r • . % ~ . ~ ~ ,r
_ ' • ~ RfiIgPCh 9997- ~17
_ y ~ . ~ , _ , ~ ' ~ ~ ` ~ (
i . _ . \ .
_ ~ " _ - ' ~ . r ~ , . , ~ -
~ ~ -r _
. . ~ .
~ ` : ~ ~ ~ - ' ' y; ~ - :.r _ . _ : - i ~ ~ s
Smad _ evVe6l
i
_ i. 'I~ ` ~ ' • ~ 1`. ~r~ ~ . ~ ,
STATE OF COLORADO
ExECuTevE cHAMBERs ofco~
136 State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80203-1792
Phone (303) 866-2471
° /876 ~
Roy Romer
Governor
I)ear Coloradans:
I am pleased to present to you the enclosed report 66Managang CofloraaIlo's
IE'nntanre: AGunudeboolk ffor Integratrnng IL,andl Use, 'II'~anspoa-tatnon, andl Anr Qunallnty
Pllammnnngo" T'his Guidebook presents valuable information that can enable communities
to better manage the rapid growth we are experiencing in Colorado.
This report represents a direct response to the Interregional Council's (IRC)
recommendation to "improve transportation and comprehensive planning in all
communities across the state." The IRC is a group of dedicated and knowledgeable
individuals from around the state that worked to identify better ways to cope with the
growth occurring in Colorado.
Specifically, this Guidebook presents community leaders, planners, and citizens
with ideas on how to integrate their land use; transportation and air quality planning. We
can no longer address these issues separately, because they increasingly affect each other.
Case siudies included in the Guidebook illustrate examples of how communities across
Colorado have integrated their planning to produce tangible results in our communities.
It explains the principles of comprehensive planning, a checklist that can help
communities evaluate how well decisions are currently being integrated, a tool box of
techniques on how to implement integrated planning, and a resource directory that
contains information on the legal and regulatory issues that affect many planning
activities.
By linking transportation, air quality and land use planning and coordinating
planning through all levels of govemment and on a regional basis, we can better maintain
the quality of life we highly value.
Sincerely,
Roy Romer
Governor
T't?e authors, Barbara Cole and Stephanie Bakken from Community Matters, Inc., Allen Gerstenberger, Gerstenberger and Associates,
Meredith Miller from the Center for Resource Management and Sarah M. Rockwell and Christopher Kamper from the Law firm of Cutler
and Stanfield wish to thank the foliowing individuals for their time and dedication to this important document.
o Kate Fay and Jodi Asarch from the Governor's Office of Energy Conservation for ensuring this project meets the needs of Colorado
citizens;
o Charlie Unseld from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Randy Grauberger and Bill Stringfellow from the Colorado
Department of TranspoRation and Ray Mohr from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment who kept us abreast of
emerging integrated planning success stories throughout Colorado;
o T'he following individuals from the Project Council Steering Committee who carefully reviewed and commented on numerous drafts:
o Michael Cooke, Douglas County Commissioner
o John Covert, Colorado Municipal League Staff Associate
? Cindy Erker, Morgan County Commissioner
o Frank Gray, Director of Community Planning and Development, City of Lakewood
? Colin Laird, Healthy Mountain Communities
? Scott Woodard, John Parr, Peter Kenney and Steve Hebert for their early review and insights on the document; and
? James McClements for his writing and editing work on the Executive Summary.
In addition to these individuals, there were a number of people across the state who provided valuable information. Levels of participation
varied but all of these people's efforts, whether it be attending a meeting, writing a comment or reviewing a draft case study, were equally
important to the evolution of this Guidebook:
Marty Alexendroff Steamboat Springs Fred Koch Douglas County
Mark Bean Garfield County Patti Lewis Morgan County
Stan Berryman Pitkin County Mary Locke Mesa County Civic Forum
Dan Blankenship Roaring Fork Transit Agency Kirk Madsen City of Steamboat Springs
Bennett Boeschenstein City of Fruita Doug Marston Morgan Counry
Perry Buda Mesa County Health Department Madie Martin City of Denver
Lee Cassin City of AspeNPitkin County Sharon Mentrer Colorado Trust
Meg Corwin City of Fort Collins George Monsson Morgan County
Cliff Davidson Mesa County Don Moore Douglas County
Steve DeFeyter Mesa County Mike Mueller Univ. of Colorado, Co/orado Springs
Steve Denney Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs Ron Phillips City of Fort Collins
Chuck Donley Routt County Randy Ready Cityof Aspen
Grant Emery Douglas County Mark Relph City of Grand Junction
Rick Fawcett Routt County Tim Sarmo Colorado Dept of Local Affairs
Keith Fife Mesa County George Scheuernstuhl DRCOG
Nancy Fishering Citizen activist, Montrose John Schneiger City of Fruita
Tom Frazier City of Fort Collins Richard Sheldon Morgan County Federal Savings
Ken Gale Montrose Chamber of Commerce Mike Strugar Univ. of Colorado at Denver
Jean Garren Routt County Alowetta Terrien Mesa County Civic Forum
Barbara Green Hale Pratt Midgley Laitos Green & Jackie Thompson Douglas County
Hackstaff
Andy Hill Coforado Dept. of Locaf Affairs Ralph Trapani Colorado Dept of Transportation
Alice Hubbard City of Aspen Ken Tweedy . Original Aurora
Van James City of Steamboat Springs Tom Vosburg City of Fort Collins
Linda Kakela City of Steamboat Springs Terry Ware City of Lakewood
~ ~
Mmaghng CCoIloi°ndo9s YutuTea_
A GuIldebook I~oir ffintegi°afing
ILmind Use9 TIr°aIIDspoIY°kfloIIII mIIIld MII° QflI1aIlllty MaIIflIIIlIlng Fg°ogIY°ams
Wha~ us ~hs GaaNaboo~ ~nd -
WhnMlas ot~ prc~apc~~l? , . . . :
~ ~ somad~00e 'Il'hese .
bett
The State of Colorado is at a crossroads. During the
1990s, we have grown at unprecedented speeds, and aswng e :
while growth means a strong economy and new jobs,
ua~~ag ~aaesgao~~ d
ort~n~
24V
unmanaged growth can threaten the quality of our kepp
lives> foul the air that we breath> and strain our
highway systems. Concern about this has led policy- ~s: -3Gov RoyaRomec'
makers, planners and citizens to consider creative
approaches to manage growth in Colorado.
One such approach is integrated planning, a method for 0~~~grated p~~nMng ffoP Sman Gpowth
making decisions about land use, transportation and tlie
environment that recognizes how closely these
elements are linked. While this link may seem The need for integrated planning in Colorado was
obvious, important decisions have been made with identified during Governor Romer's Smart Growth and
little regard to the interdependency of these elements. Development Initiative. The initiative began in the fall
of 1994, and brought leaders and citizens together for a
All levels of government can practice integrated series of statewide, regional and community meetings.
planning, and experiences in Colorado have shown that The Guidebook presents simple tools and techniques
it can help create more livable communities and growth
that respects the environment while meeting broader that address three key suggestions made during the
and more long-term economic needs. Smart Growth Initiative:
? 1LinCc transportation, air quality and land use
planning in the decision-making process.
? 1Provide alternatives to single-occupancy car
4ravel that a're truly viable.
? IInfegrate and coordinate planning et4'orts both
regionally and through all levels of government.
'Guidebook hasybeen prepp red ~t the=r#equest otthe I nterregional Counc~l ~t ~s ~omtly„ `
~ sponsorecE by the Governar's 0ffice:o1~nee~gy ~onservation and the tolorada depa'rtments of
. ;
~ransport~t~on; ~,ocal Affa~rs; ~ncl I'ubhc Health and _Environment <
. , c . e . a . . , u , i . r::. , n , a . a i 6 . a , , . , • . . . . . ~ 's, s: qT
? MANAGIMG COLORADO'S FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMAflA63Y 1 0
Oup Communitieso courses, executive homes and vacation retreats. What is
~ ~ lost, at the very least, are Colorado s most amactive
Q~tegra$~~ ~~~~cz features: its landscapes, its livability and its air quality.
Front Range residents hemmed in by growth move to
smaller towns on the western slope and in the San Luis
Valley, and now these communities are experiencing their
The Big ThPee own growing pains. As we see the results of unmanaged
growth in our own communities, it is natural for us to ask
Integrated planning links three key elements: Where this will lead.
a Land Use ,
E3 Transportation C0loradans~t~p concerniare~ a:
"
~
o Air Quality l ilizoemplgymeutqtbe econoreiy; t~
m~~populataon grow
~th;~urban~sprav~fl,
To see the imPortance of inte~'ating these elements in ~ ~4im ~
~ ~
planning, we need only look at our own communities. ~ 4H'at~SpOt'~atlOil, alla ~OIIU;~IOiI;~
Az
When shopping and services are close to our homes
ac~ordeng to a ~Tniversity~of a-
(smart land use planning) we spend less time driving
(reduced transportation costs) and create less pollution f01'a~0 S~91~Ey ~
(better air quality).
This is the theory and practice at its simplest. A What Do We Want?
community engaged in integated planning might look at
ways to encourage neighborhood scale commercial
development in residential areas. It might fnd ways to One can safely assume that most people who live in small
bring residential development closer to shopping. It might towns are there because they enjoy the pace of small town
improve access all around with better public transpor- life, the sense of safety and neighborliness, and the easy
tation. While putting these solutions into practice will be proximity of shopping and services. But apparently they
a challenge, the rewards can be immeasurable as we keep are not alone in their preferences. According to a report
our streets safe, our neighborhoods walkable and our air in the Highlands Ranch Herald,
clear and fresh.
The majority of residents in a suburban
Denver metropolitan area who responded to a
survey about their town envision a traditional
ecso 7r.w atiom town center where they can gather for
outdoor events, walk down tree-lined streets,
listen to concerts in the park, eat at sidewalk
~ cafes and ride their bikes to and from the
e~~ ~i~ & center on an adjoining trail.3
eoaw~~aas
%woolor
The irony, of course, is that while we have rushed to turn
our towns into cities, we have lost certain qualities that
M ft foP CoOoPado? urbanites now want to restore to their lives. But small
towns grow larger for good reason. People who live in
Between 1990 and 1994 more than 360,000 new residents small towns want to make sure that jobs are available and
moved to Colorado. Summit County grew by 25 percent. that the widest possible range of goods and services is
In 1993, one California family per day moved to within easy access. [t is perhaps inevitable that our towns
Montrose, and portions of Weld and Larimer counties and cities will continue to grow, but if we know what we
have seen their populations increase by more than 9 want, integrated planning can help make our communities
percent.l work for us well into the future.
As Colorado continues to grow, open lands are developed
to accommodate new housing, industry, and commerce.
Agricultural land is sold at a premium for new golf
¦ 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NiANAGING COLORADO'S FUTURE ¦
and manage growth in a way that best suits their
DesUgn foP the o~~~ Fft particular circumstances and needs, as well as the
needs of their neighbors. Integrated planning is not
Integrated planning is infinitely adaptable because it first easy to implement. The process requires a
calls upon a community to shape a vision that keeps its commitment of staff and resources, considerable
citizens' most deeply held values and goals within sight. citizen involvement and a willingness of local leaders
This allows any town or city to craft an integrated and citizens to make hard choices. Nevertheless,
planning program that fits its needs. Coloradans have experiences here and around the country suggest that
often looked upon planning, transit and preservation of integrated planning can help ensure the long-term
open space as urban issues, but in the past few years some livability of Colorado communities.
of the strongest calls for smart growth have come from the
Western Slope. Integrated planning is not just for the
cities and counties of the Front Range. While the
challenges in the Denver metro area are different from
4 ',4%
those of a small town, the principles are the same. ~ IlHB1pr01Ve4ran3p~0i'~at,10~1,
~ 4 A~~
qualaty~a~cl
Many small communities in Colorado already lead the
way. lE"a~usco, for example, has chosen to preserve its town ~~p ann1ng4d~~j ~6~ro~~i
~
center, the heart of the community. It has revitalized its
downtown through a plan that encourages a mix of
Mp.., basiZ~~
~e
residential and commercial development. Residents can
now work and shop within close walking distance. Frisco ;A ~~~a ,~O~II'a~ti~t101Il~~~,m,':~
has increased pedestrian use of Main Street almost ten- an~Hii~g~:effo~s
~
fold since 1982, reducing congestion and traffic and rre
~~'rom;the lntegionat'Counct!'s Repoit°ta
creating a vital town center that preserves Frisco's small ~,~tiie Governor ~Srriart Growth Irntratrve
town character. A
SH~,~EO F9ho ShoWd Mse the GaaWebooft?
P~
Ivodayq The Guidebook is designed for Coloradans who want
P,16~g• to understand integrated planning, and it has been
written with the following audience in mind:
0 Elected officials
0 Planning commissioners
' 0 Policymakers
0 Citizens of Colorado
TNnN09g Re&naHy 0 Professional land use and transportation
planners at the state, regional, county or local
Perhaps the greatest challenge of integrated planning is levels of government
that it requires us to look beyond our city limits and 11 Public administrators
counry boundaries. Local solutions can go only so far, ? Public works directors and their staffs
and long-term prospects for these solutions are greatly ? Anyone involved in maintaining clean air
improved if they fit within a larger, more regional context. throughout the state.
This is why integrated planning also emphasizes
intergovernmental cooperation and regional planning. By
working together we can manage sensible growth that
serves us all.
The State of Colorado provides the Guidebook in the
hope that all Colorado communities will begin to plan
? MANAGIfVG COLORADO'S FUTURE EXECUYIbE SUMMA03Y 3 El
Why Do We Need this Tool? to serve development. Integrated planning can
help communities design and encourage
development that is less expensive and preserves a
As we consider the potential value of integrated community's scenic qualities.
planning for our communities, we must bear in mind
that...
El Many zoning laws prevent mixed use and
e If poor.ly planned, a new singEe-ffaaaeily home other desigm ffeatures communities now desire.
can generate up to 10 more car trips a day.° Some mix of commercial and residential uses
New suburban development adds a tremendous throughout a community can offer people the
amount of traffic to local and regional roads. chance to live, work and shop without getting into
Integrated planning can help design new their cars. Integrated planning can help replace
development that makes good use of alternatives, out-of-date rules with new ones that meet today's
such as transit and pedestrian and bike paths, to needs.
reduce use of single occupancy vehicles.
m Transit can help reduce traffic congestion
and pollution even in rural areas.
Transit is not just for big cities. Smaller
~communities have successfully developed transit
~NS,ot, ~ Wan;~
systems that serve commuters, the elderly, skiers
and tourists. Integrated planning can help explore
~ we`~°~
local transit opportunities and link neighboring
towns as well.
~
m I)evelopment and growth are already guided
¦ Commutiug is the snngle greatest contributor by p?anning tools and proeesses.
to traffic congestiom and auto emissions. Throughout Colorado, comprehensive plans,
Integrated planning can help create jobs closer to zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations
home and homes closer to jobs. It also can help already regulate the quality, type and amount of
communities find ways to encourage carpooling development in most communities. Integrated
and transit use that can reduce traffic congestion planning at its best can help bring a unified vision
and help improve air quality. to the design and implementation of these
guidelines.
? Highway traffic es increasing at a rate of 5
percent per year-twece as fast as ghe
5 sIn nnetrosI~ete~~r ~the ~ ~
population. Fl~* .p ~
~ rocess'of~spravvl:Ti~
Integrated planning can help a community explore
opportunities to improve use of transportation COmplete r~h~t~silbu!'bs m„g
alternatives such as buses, light rail, ride share °bleIIla,~nta each other~ a=;
7, 7 programs and carpooling. ~seamlessly,~distinguisliable~ ~
~
.
;only by~their ind~vidu~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ displ a e
ysvery
, ~ ,
? I.ow density development can cost taxpayeas freworks
up to five times enore to service than coaQnpaet ~~'+ouof July
develoPment 6 A",~` t`~
Gersh {fromqSubdivide antl ~
Higher densities preserve open space and reduce
q ur an~ iticle
the miles of roads, water lines and sewers needed e a ~ ~
~The Ai»rcus~Jcaumaf)
¦ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MANAGING COLORADO'S FUTURE A
What am ft pPOn6up~(ss oof Fundamc~nW pP6ndp~c~s
Magum4ed p~~nMng?
This first set of principles is designed to help communities
The Guidebook describes two sets of principles to guide a craft a process of integrated planning and establish
community though a process of integrated planning that guidelines and goals. Brief examples have been drawn
fits local needs. The first set of fundamen4al principles from the Guidebook's case studies. More detmiled
suggests ways a community may want to approach the examples and experiences can be found in fhe
process of integrated planning and establish basic GuidebooEc.
guidelines and goals. The second set of substan4ive
principles suggests ideas a community may want to
explore as it looks for solutions to specific land use, 1e ~~ve' a V0sion
transportation and air quality challenges.
Ask basic questions IiEce, "W6at do we value?" and
The principles are based on successful experiences in the "What kand of community do ewe want?"
United States as well as in countries with even greater '
land use, transportation and air quality pressures. The Citizens of Fruita decided that they valued hiking and
principles aze designed to be used selectively to match bike trails and particularly wanted to emphasize a feature
local conditions, and communities should evaluate the of Fruita that sets it apart-its prehistoric fossils. The
principles carefully to determine which ones best apply. community adopted a plan that encouraged the
The principles do not prescribe, but rather suggest certain development of a dinosaur museum near a major I-70
potential elements that a community might include in the highway exit and the Kokopelli bike trail. Many parts of
process. the town have been developed with a dinosaur theme, and
activity centers have been built in areas served by
transportation. The land use plan for the community also
attempts to reduce non-essential vehicle travel and
9,1. 0g w 0,~ 90 a ,.,t ~ ~ Yr
~z promote the development of bike and hiking paths.
~80e $,Y9S~bAIl"
s a. L~ovg~a~ge ~cutuzeo~s eau0y
o~ l~~agsge;~cntttdds e~~llg,~ ~ ~ ~ t ,
-Encourage early citizen participation to ensure that
planning activity is widely understood and embraced.
76~ggk,p~~pdgg~~9"1._,Zd4~ Ib~
..r•;~ Q ~ ~
o I~fl~Illl 01mg au~~~ In response to rapid growth, a group of citizens in the
Uncompahgre Valley initiated a series of town meetings
° ~~~re y~u aregt to address issues such as land use, environmental quality,
~ x 4 4 education, economic development, mobility and quality of
o 'ICh nnll~ 4naIl sgnck
a G ~ T 9 life. Based on those meetings, a committee prepared the
Uncompahgre Valley Action Plan. By supporting citizen
initiatives, local leaders have let citizens take the lead in a
e.... , e r 'F. r. , F, ,.E ~ le ~ :k.
meaningful way.
o EIIIl3llIlII'eflejCllbIl~Ilt~
~4"eA
o ~cCW~nnmk6puffie6fthe
b¢ saustiiunid Ov¢r ~ 4 ~fl lv ;
a.
,
a ~ t2epIl(~DIIdll]~Dfl~'
~
i" Ar 4
? MANAGING COLORADO'S FUTURE EXECUTIbE-SURflRflARY 5 ?
3. Think regioraalBy, act Bocal9y S. Know where you are a4 a91 times
Find ways to build cooperation among neighboring Always obtain the best possible information to help
communities to increase chances for success. evaluate issues and make decisions.
Regional cooperation can help communities pool ideas Good information on a variety of attributes-physical,
and resources and protect their long-term investment in social, environmental, and economic-is key to making
planning. The cities of Aurora, Denver and Lakewood are sound decisions. Citizens of the Uncompahgre Valley
working together to evaluate and plan improvements to knew that as they crafted their action plan they would
the 24-mile Colfax Avenue corridor from highways 1-225 need basic information about local land use and ownership
to 1-70. This cooperative effort has brought leaders patterns, air quality, jobs, valley population growth and
together to discuss the social, visual and historic character other data. While the value of doing their homework at
of the corridor and prepare a plan that improves the beginning of the process was self-evident, they now
transportation alternatives and enhances the pedestrian have the benefit of solid baseline data by which to
environment. This project is expected to lay the measure the success of the action plan and make
groundwork for future efforts by identifying and improvements as updated information comes available.
overcoming obstacles to collaboration and exploring
further opportunities.
6. Think carrot-and-s4ick
Include regulation where necessary and incentives
~ where possible.
- Douglas County is balancing the demands of growth with
1., the goal of maintaining the county's rural character. The
county has created two programs designed to minimize the
, negative impacts of new residential developments and
encourage creative approaches. The Rural Site Plan and
the Design Enhancement Overlay District help preserve
open space and encourage more efficient development
o through financial incentives such as density bonuses and
flexible site design. Programs like these can reward
4. Plan for the long haul desired behavior and get results that might be difficult to
achieve through regulation.
Remember that short term fixes can carry long-term
price tags, and try to assess solutions by their
prospects for sustained success.
k~
y~Taaffic~congestion~is~~~~~
While the people of the Roaring Fork Valley may have
affecting the pqual~ty oF Iife~
found it cheaper in the short run to simply widen Highway
,,of Colorado,residents
82 (which runs between Glenwood Springs and Aspen), M~ Xk; Reo~~~
the region's citizens and leaders knew that this would be a ~ thousand fourihundr~ed
~ommuters~in the Denver~
stopgap measure given the growth anticipated in the ~
valley. Thanks to citizen involvement and riae~rogolatane area,,were
intergovernmental cooperation, they now have a F~~~e ed in the fa1F of~1995,
transportation plan that contains a range of multi-modal
solutions to be implemented in the coming years. They regarding traffec congestion
hey~ d
~ort y f o~r~ percent' satdrt
plan to build a light rail connection from Aspen to the
Pitkin County Airport, develop park and ride facilities, either dreaded or s~mply.;~
and buy the Denver and Rio Grande right of way for a tUlet'a$ed #he~1' work tTips K~;
transportation corridor.
¦ 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MANAGING COLORADO'S FUTURE ¦
7. Be consfistent, comp~eQweovftry and
cow4padl'octruoov-ffpee
Once your community has agreed on a vision, revievv ~existing policies and laews for consistency with that
vision.
When 1Fort Collins reviewed its existing regulations, it 47~"' found seven definitions of "street." As the city rewrote its
policies it was able to better integrate land use,
transportation:and'air quality considerations into a more
comprehensive and consistent framework. A new
congestion management plan includes roadway
improvements, increased bus frequency, pedestrian-
oriented design standards and activity centers with 9. Copppmp~ ~o debe~opment that can be
adjacent higher density housing. And as the city has ausftpp~ed obeP tiQiTOe
taken steps to make its regulations consistent and
contradiction-free, it also has coordinated policies and 'II'ry to create development that meets the needs o9'
programs with neighboring jurisdictions. present generations without compromising the ability
o9'tuture generations to meet their needs.
The work of the Yampa Valley Economic Diversification
Committee reflects a commitment to this goal. Two
counties and five towns in the Yampa Valley have joined
{ forces to explore the potential for diversifying the local
,illll~il economy and reducing the Yampa Valley's isolation. The
~ organization is trying to bring in businesses compatible
with local citizens' long-term vision. In their first effort
they created a telecommunications coalition to encourage
ap E\CVCUN~ MROUGNOUi
~ ~0ED0.a`~~N local investment by high tech companies.
8e CnsaaP(a flexcuMuty 10. Keep u4 sump~e
Preserve your options by keeping ahead of the When dePning goals, consider the bene9its o4'tmking
problem mnd design policy and regulatory tools svith small s4eps that stand a better chance of success.
4lexibili4y 4o respond to future condi4ions.
1Fort Collins found two simple, easily articulated goals
Mesa County's a'v quality planning reflects a self- that can help the city fulfill its vision: It will limit the rate
initiated effort to develop solutions before air quality of growth in daily vehicle miles traveled to no more than
becomes poor. By staying ahead of the problem and of the rate of population growth; and shift 10 percent of
federal regulations, Mesa County and communities in the single occupancy vehicle trips to other modes by the year
Grand Valley can preserve air quality in creative and more 2015. The beauty of these two goals lies in their
cost-effective ways that better reflect local conditions now practicality. They are easily measured, and they are based
and in the future. Communities also can design flexibility on a pragmatic assumption that the car will continue to be
into policies and regulations to accommodate anticipated the primary mode of transportation for most people. The
and unforeseen changes in local needs and conditions. goals seek to modify travel patterns, not radically change
them.
0 MANAGING COLORADO'S FUTURE EXECUYIVE SURfiMARY 7 ?
Substantoe~~ Pdncup9es ~ ~ .
ZL"-„"
This second set of principles describes substantive ideas ti t ' ~
~
that communih' leaders and citizens maY want to exp i lore ii A~.~.~S a as they look for solutions to specifc land use, ~transportation and air quality challenges.
IL.AiVIID 1USE principles describe 'I['RANSPOR'E'A'E'?OlV Principles AgR QUALITX Principles
ideas that promote resource can help a community explore . emphasize the importance of
efficiency, produce more vibrant, alternatives to the single occupant ~ understanding local conditions that
pedestrian-oriented downtown vehicle amd ensure that different affect air quality. The least costly
areas, ensure that complementary transportation modes are option for most communities is to
uses are located near one another, intelligently and efficiently focus on measures that prevent
and aid in the preservation of open connected. Communities that pollution in the first place.
space. choose to implement any of these
principles will see a noticeable .
difference in traffic congestion. I. Pursue strategies that eliminate
1. Allow for a mix of uses that pollution at the source rather than
combines housing with shopping I. Provide for multiple modes of managing it once it occurs.
and employment centers. transportation and for the 2• Identify the predominant
2. Encourage clustering of specific integration of these modes. stationary and mobile air
uses and consider creating areas of 2 pursue local and regional travel emissions sources within your
higher density. demand management strategies. communiry and determine the
3. Target in-fill and redevelopment relationship between these sources
3. Encourage use of transit by and regional land use and
to under-utilized sites. targeting frequently used routes transportation patterns.
4. Locate uses strategically to ensure and peak travel times, providing ,
a complementary relationship transit for special events such as Use natural rather than political
between land use and sporting events and groups such as boundaries to evaluate and
transportation systems. skiers and the elderly, and creating manage air qualiry.
5. Phase new development to ensure amenities such as park and ride 4. Develop a profile of local
that new areas are given a chance lots, and good pedestrian and bike topographic, meteorological and
to mature and blend in with the trails for easy access. peak traffic conditions that will
existing community. 4. Look at ways to create a well- influence air quality, then develop
offsetting policies and strategies.
6. Ensure adequate, affordable and integrated network of roads, bike
diverse housing. paths, sidewalks and transit routes. 5. Implement land use principles that
reduce travel distances between
7. Protect significant areas of open 5. Identify and secure lands that may key activities.
space to help maintain community be necessary for transportation
character and to provide expansion. Think ahead about 6. Provide the infrastructure to
oalternative ways of getting from what you will need in the future to support trip reduction such as
place to place. most effectively serve your transit, park and ride lots, and
community. telecommunications.
8. Limit the overall area for
development.
9. Engage in activities that will
insure compatible development in
the areas directly surrounding your
community.
¦ 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MANAGING COLORADO'S FUTURE ¦
ThhWng Qbo0 Coaft
' x~ as'a g
Most communities that adopt integrated planning also will
want to inco r porate the conce pt of ff ull c o s t ac c o u n t ing
into the decision-making process. Full cost accounting
brings environmental and quality of life costs and benefits -
into the equation. This enswes that any analysis of a
community's options reflects as accurate an assessment as
possible of the cost of each option P~
In the Romreeeg lE'ork VaIley, Pitkin County, Snowmass
Village and Aspen have successfully incorporated the
concept of full cost accounting into their comprehensive
transportation improvement program. After 25 years of
debate, these three jurisdictions recently decided to build
• a light rail from the Pitkin County Airport into downtown
Aspen. While light rail construction may seem more 66
costly than a new four lane highway, elected officials
considered other costs in their decision making. They en cannot buIlRd n¢s waconsidered: ~
ount off tiraffffue purobllems
o The cost of exceeding acceptable levels of air apmymop-~ than Los Angeles
pollution; aaas ablle to sollde uts pirolbRems
o The loss of revenue from tourists unhappy with
traffic congestion; and with ed~~ ~~d w~~eir
o The loss of valued open space. fII'eeways. 9
Leaders also gave weight to their commitment to increase 99
local transportation options and hold auto traffic to 1994
levels or below.
Another idea that has begun to gain interest in Colorado is
revenue sharoeeg among local jurisdictions. Competition
for sales tax revenue drives expansion even in areas with
strong sentiment for curbing annexations and new
development. Revenue sharing among neighbors can
reduce these pressures, and though the necessary
intergovernmental agreements require complex
negotiation, they can encourage more rational growth
within communities and regionally.
? MAMAGIIVG COLORADO'S FUTURE EXECUTIVE SURflRflARY 9 ?
What Can Be Found in $he transportation, and air quality. It includes specific
techniques that can help your community practice
Gu0debook? integrated planning. The principles were developed
through research conducted in Colorado and other
The complete Guidebook details information only westem states.
touched on in this summary. Highlights include:
The Tool lBoz
The Case Studies The Tool Box provides techniques to help communities
This may be the most illuminating and useful section implement integrated planning principles, and it provides
for communities beginning the process of integrated a checklist for evaluating whether a particular tool will be
planning. The case studies report experiences from a of use in a community. The tools fall into the three
range of communities facing a variety of categories of land use, transportation and air
challenges: _ quality. The toolbox provides a description
- of each tool, a discussion of its advantages
o Fort Collins and disadvantages, and a local example of
o Roaring Fork Valley where it has been successfully used.
o Mesa County/Grand Junction
o Yampa Valley I~ , 1 The Resource Directory
o Fruita One the greatest challenges is to understand
o Uncompahgre Valley A i the legal and regulatory framework that
o Douglas County - affects many planning activities. The
o Morgan County Resource Directory is designed to fill in this
o Denver Metro,s Colfax Avenue information and more. It describes the major
Corridor ` federal and state statutes that apply to
integrated planning, and provides examples of
~ documents such as ordinances, regulations
''he Re ort CarcD and intergovernmental agreements. The
P directory also includes a bibliography of
The Report Cazd helps a community: secondary and technical resources.
? Evaluate how well it is following the key
principles of integrated planning; Also Available: ''he Slide S6ow
? Determine how well land use, transportation and In addition to the Guidebook, the Colorado Department
air quality decisions are integrated within its of Local Affairs has a number of copies of a traveling
region; and slide show with talking points. The slide show
? Develop an action program, make necessary policy presents the principles of integrated planning and
adjustments or develop new planning processes shows its impact to date on land use, transportation and
that ensure better collaboration and links between air quality in Colorado. It can be used to inform
land use, transportation and air quality planning. gatherings of citizens, planners, and elected officials.
The first part of the Report Card, "Understanding
Community Values," helps identify the land use,
transportation and air quality values that are most
' Uncompaghre Valley Community Action Plan, Community Matters, Inc.,
important to a community. Then, a series of questions 1993.
assesses how well a community currently practices 3 Colorado Department of Transportation
Highlands Ranch Herald, October 16, 1996, page 3.
lritegTlted platllllllg. ° Loudon Couniy Planning Department, 1990; Rural By Design, page 282.
5 Colorado Department of Transportation, January, 1997.
e Frank, 1989, ULI Study.
The Principles of Integrated Planning B ee R, al d Cunc ~ of Govemments, Juy 1996 R al l
Den l Reort.
egion e9i ~na P
° Aspen Community Plan adopted unanimously by the Aspen City Council,
This section details the 10 fundamental principles as cne soard or county commissions, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
well as substantive ideas for integrating land use, Commission and the Pitkin County Planning arid Zoning Commission
¦ 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MANAGING COLORADO'S FUTURE ¦
i . \ ' ` l ~ , ` \ - ' _ = _ / - ,
, - ~ ~ v , - . Y ~ . . f , r ~ • ~ / . _ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ! ` . • ' ~ ~ r . ~ `
, • i Y . _ . . ~ ~ ~ - . ,
~ / ~ , ~ l ~7 . • - ~ ~ J ~ , ~
, \ " • . ~ . ' . ` - ' _ / '
_ • ~ • '
_ ' ( • _ ~ _ ~ l / ~ ~ J ~ i ~ ' ' , . ~ ~
- ~ . , -
r ~ ~ . ~ ~ • . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . \ ' ~ ~
/ - / / ~ i ; ~ • - ~ _ ~/i - r - . ~ ~ ' `
~ ~ ~ % ' . , • X ~ 1 • . ` ~ 1 ~ ~ i
J ` , , ~ , ~ / ~ . ~ Y, _
^ ` ~ i- ~ ' - - ; ~ • • . , - _
~ ~ . / . ~ _ . , - . - \ ; ~ 1 , • ,
" ' ) - -c " i \ - • '
'I / \ , • ~ ' . < < { . . ` ` _ ' r't ~ ~
\ - ` • . ~ / , - ' \ _ \ . ~ ; \ ~ , f ' - . /
~ . . , i i / ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ,
~ ~ • . ~ , ~ ~ i .
,
- ' - . ~ . . ' 7.. , - • . . ~ '
A-'
• / ' ` , ~ ' ~ - -
- y ~
, ~ .
' . ? L , ; ' i:, ` -~:_J, ' 1 ` ; \ _ '
,-,For mor..e information on Managmg Cvlorado's~Future Guidebook, ,
ar.write
4
~~~~~~~~Wth:A(bta~ot~Ce - _ - -
irafer~.
~
' _ - ~,,,I.393 Sherrm,ari street, .SLa6ge~629, i J.
Depteer, C0l.,80203~
_ . . • , ~ ~ ~
(303) ~866 2817
l;-SOQ 899 GROW (47~9)
~ ~ . . , t ' ~',,~"w ' a.;;. - t ~ ~ 'y , • \
__1 ,~w „ , .•-r - _ _c`.. s,'.? ' _ - ` . / , ' .
ease look for the Guid'ebook on the Internet ~ . ~ - -
:GiqP 'wwnr state co:us/smartc~eov~4hi : , / . ' _
" r ~ ~ T . - - ~ . ~ - -
_ ~ ~ ; \ - • Prrnted on Recycled Pdper
-
- - ~ ~ ~ . r ~ l ~ ' ` ~ . ' \ . _ - ~ -
. ~
' ~ , , ~y_ • ~ _ ~ ~ . f- \
C1
1
_ ' ' • . T . -
, \ ' _ . ~ ~ ~ i ~ ' ~ - • ' . ' 'l