The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-05-19 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Approve the Minutes from the meetings of April 7 and 21, 1998. (5 mins.) 3. Discussion by U.S. Forest Service Regard Booth Creek Project Burn James T. Johnston Area. (30 mins.) 4. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998, first reading of an Ordinance re: Steve Thompson Supplemental Appropriations. (15 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On April 28 staff presented to the Town Council the schedule of supplemental appropriations with the Town's financial report. This supplemental reflects the discussion and detail transactions presented on April 28th. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 on first reading. 5. Resolution No. 7, Series of 1998, a Resolution renaming Vail Valley George Ruther Drive, North of I-70 to Elkhorn Drive. (5 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify, or deny Resolution No. 7, Series of 1998. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: the Town of Vail has been presented with a petition for a street name change of Vail Valley Drive, north of I-70 (see attachment). The petition has been signed by all of the property owners. The property owners have requested a change of the name from Vail Valley Drive to Elkhorn Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the applicant's request reasonable, and therefore, staff recommends that the Town Council adopt Resolution No. 7, Series of 1998. 6. Proclamation No. 6, Series of 1998, proclaiming June, 1998 Colorado Recycling Month. (5 mins.) 7. Proclamation No. 7, Series of 1998, proclaiming May 17 - 23, 1998, Larry Grafel "National Public Works Week." (5 mins.) 8. Local Licensing Authority Appointments. (5 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint two members for two-year terms to expire June, 2000. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The following citizens have applied for appointments to the Local License Authority: William F. Bishop Connie Knight 9. Town Manager Report. (10 mins.) Bob McLaurin 10. Adjournment - 8:25 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) I I I I I I I THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/26/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6098, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/2/98, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I I I I I I I Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C:VIGENDA.TC COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1998 3/24198 COUNCIL STORAGEIOFFICE PAM: Is there an area in the municipal building where Ludi/RoblMike Jewett: If you would like E-mail NET access, please call SPACE Council members can store materials, have access to a Ron Braden at 479-2154 to supply your password. Thank you. Sybill Navas phone, and arrange meetings? 4121l98 CORRIDOR NOISE BOB MCLAURINIGREG MORRISON: Although noise Bob will write to Col. King w/CSP. Kevin FoleylCouncil "barriers° are included on CDOT'S 20 year STIP, the Council is interested in a more pro-active stance. Should we be considering a more multi-faceted approach, i.e., request a step up in enforcement by CSP, request a lowering of the speed limit to 55 through this corridor, involve our own PD, enlist the aid of all TOV residents in calling the 1-800 # to REPORT A GOOD DRIVER, etc. 4l28198 SPRADDLE CREEK HOUSE RUSSELL: There is a house high atop Spraddle Creek that That is the Smith Residence. A review of the approved lighting plan and a LIGHTS has taken on the appearance of a hotel - 24 "streamer" lights site visit indicates that the project IS IN compliance with our code. Sybill Navas were counted recently. Staff should investigate. Due to the large size of the lot (44,000 sq. ft.), they are allowed 44 exterior fixtures. And that is what the Town reviewed and approved. 4/28/98 DOWN JUNCTION BIKE PATH LARRY: This item was discussed again at the recent Eagle The study will continue until June 15. Kevin Foley County Regional Transportation Authority meeting - is there a time line on the wildlife study that's being conducted? UVhat is the status? 4128198 OFF SEASON LATE NIGHT BUS BOB: Bob will continue the discussion with Mike Rose. SERVICE Kevin Fole May 15, 1998, Page 1 i WILLIAM F. BISHOP ~ ~ L ~ ~•-t e-.~-.J ~ cst- ~v'b'`-"i`-''-~~[ ' t ~ ~-tr--~+.t~ e-? w~....~ ~ C~~.~v~ tT~~ ~ U -94 ~ c. ~ ` ' . 1 ~ ~ _ O ~ aPR 1 7 isss ~ ~ COIll11C KIllgIt, President 385 Gore Creek Drive, Suite 201 + Vail, CQ $1657, . _ _ _ . Telephone & FAX: (970) 476-3615 ? e-mail: claught@vail.net April 16, 1998 Town of Vail Council Members 75 S. Frontage Road ; Vail, CO 81657 ~ Dear Council Members: : Lorelei tells me my position on the Local Licensing Authority board expires this ; May. I would like very much to continue in my volunteer position with the Town. After two and a half yea.rs on the board, I have a far better understanding of my responsibilities. In additioq I have acquired a backgound of knowledge including, but not Iimited to, possible over serving of bus riders and an effort to identify keg sales; from previous liquor violations of a few establishments to smooth-running events sponsored by the Foundation and Tourism Bureau. ~ i All of which, I believe, will make me a better, more qualified board member. Thank you for yow consideration. 1 r ; i Sincerely yours, f connie Knight Updated 5/12 9am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, May 18, 1998 AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 P.M. 1. US West - 160 Mountain Bell Road 2. Yaros - 5119 Black Bear Lane 3. Golden Bear Store - 286 Bridge Street Driver: George : y~~~~'•,~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow a US West Wireless and Sprint Spectrum facility, located at 160 Mountain Bell Road/Unplatted (on the existing Mountain Bell tower). Applicant: US West Communications, represented by Jill Jelinek of Liberty Wirestar. Planner: Christie Barton 2. A request for a side setback variance, to allow for an existing garage in the side setback to be converted to GRFA, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. Ronald Yaros, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a change to previously approved plans, located at 286 Bridge Street, A& D Building/Lots A& B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis, Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther *Va TOWN1 Updated 5/12 9am 4. A proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow single-family and two-family structures to expand by 500 sq. ft. or less irr allawable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), without compliance with certain design requirements; atlowing interior GRFA conversions for multiple-family structures; reorganizing the conditional use section of the Zoning Regulations; and allowing Type II Employee Housing Units as a permitted use rather than a conditional use in Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 6. Information Update 7. Approval of May 11, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public 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 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 15, 1998 in the Vail Trail. 2 1999-2000 Biennial Budget Calendar Share Catendar with the Town Council May 19 Discuss with Town Council Parking Rates & Options June 16 Department Goals, Issues and Performance Measures Due to Town Manager June 15 Complete Revenue Forecast July 3 Review Issues, Community Survey, Measures, and Revenue Forecast with the Town Council ( Haif a day) July 14 Finish Salary Spreadsheets and Departments Review July 31 Determine Spending Limits August 13 Train Departments to Input Budgets July 15-31 Budget Packets to Departments August 13 Complete Department Budgets October 2 Departmental Meetings with Town Manager and Finance Director October 5-16 Town Manager Budget is Complete and Delivered to the Town Council October 30 Budget Workshops with Town Council November 3,10,17 Public Hearing/First Reading November 17 Second Reading/Budget Adoption December 1 BUDCAL99.XLS Page 1 5/14/98 (,~5 ~•!y-~r8 ~a~,~ ~ bt6~c~ Sheetl Chart 2 Debt Service to Maturity 3,500,000 77~- ~ 3,000,000 ; . > • , , • 2,500,000 r : 2,000,000 ~ 0 E 1,500,000 1,000,000 1' i - - 500,000 B Cost to Ref ¦ Existing Debt , ; r 0 No Cost Ref 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Page 1 Sheetl Chart 2 Debt Service to Maturity ~ . 3,500,000 „ ! . # 3A00,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 Amount ` - 1,500,000 ~Cost to Ref ~ ¦ Ez sting Debt 1,000,000 ' 500,000 : - - 1998 1999 2000 2pp1 2pp2 2003 2004 2005 2i Year 2006 2007 2008 2pp9 2010 2011 201°' cc ~ in C 0 U y y p X 0 Z W U Page 1 . ~ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1998 7:00 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Ford, Mayor Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Armour Sybill Navas Michael Arnett Michael Jewett Kevin Foley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was citizen participation. There was no citizen participation. The second item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1998, amending Title 4, Business and License Regulations to Include Regulations for Garage and Yard Sales, an Amendment to Title 11, Sign Regulations to Provide for Temporary Signs Regarding Garage and Yard Sales and Real Estate Open Houses. Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, stated the ordinance discusses proposed regulations providing for garage and yard sales that are appropriate sales of second hand goods as opposed to an extension of commercial activity inappropriate for residential areas. The Town of Vail Code has not addressed such sales nor addressed any sales tax consequences for the conduct of such non-commercial events. Under the ordinance as presented; garage and yard sales would be exempt from obtaining a business license or paying sales tax, but an exemption form is required to be filed prior to the sales event. The non-commercial sales would be exempt from sales tax. One change has been made to the ordinance reducing the total number of garage or yard sales from nine to six. The Town Council also directed the Town Attorney to address in the ordinance a provision for the allowance of temporary signs in residential districts for garage sales, yard sales, and real estate open houses. A free-standing or wall sign and no more than 1 temporary sign. Mayor Rob Ford stated this ordinance was created because there were complaints from citizens of Vail to the Town Council. Councilmember Bob Armour asked Mayor Rob Ford if the real estate signs in town are larger than the three square feet signs stated in the ordinance. Mayor Rob Ford stated the signs are bigger. ! Tom Moorhead said he would look into the sizes and have the Community Development Department review this issue also. Councilmember Sybill Navas asked about the length of time an open house sign could be posted. Councilmember Mike Jewett asked about allowing signs for secondary roads from a main road to find the residential sign. He would like to make a motion to have one off-site sign for both the _ real estate open house signs and garage sales and limit the time the reaF estate open house signs could be posted to the time of the open house. Councilmember Ludwig Kurz made a motion to approve on first reading Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1998, with the changes as discussed, Councilmember Mike Jewett seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued. Councilmember Sybill Navas said she would like a limited time be placed on open house signs. Councilmember Bob Armour stated he also felt that a time limit be placed on the real estate open house signs. A vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998, and an ordinance regulating the parking and storage of recreational vehicles. Tom Moorhead said based upon complaints from residents within the Town of Vail, the Vail Town Council directed the Town Attorney to draft proposed regulations to regulate the parking of recreational vehicles within the Town of Vail. Tom read the ordinance to Council. At the worksession there was discussion that the vehicles . have a valid registration and license. There was some confusion in part of the ordinance and Tom will clean up the wording of the ordinance. Faith Scott, a resident of East Vail and homeowner for eight years, thanked the Council for allowing her to address this issue. As currently presented, this ordinance is an improvement but expressed a few concerns regarding the ordinance as drafted. Most peop{e she has spoken to think there is already an ordinance addressing rv's within the Town. She feels that this ordinance, as written, would encourage more rv parking. She also stated she would like Vail to become a model for other municipalities in producing an ordinance that addresses time limits, storage, alternative parking, etc. She suggested some alternatives could be to store rv's in Eagle or for the Town to develop a parking area for storing of rv's. She brought pictures of problem rv areas needing improvement and showed them to Councit. Councilmember Mike Arnett stated that taking town-owned land for storage of rv's was not a good alternative and stated the Town is looking at using town-owned land for employee housing and other uses. He also said that RV storage down valley would not be acceptable. He stated that the ScotYs complaint is the only one he has heard to date. Faith Scott responded by saying it would be easier to solve a small problem instead of a large problem. If the Town doesn't do something proactively, we will have to address a bigger problem tomorrow. Further discussion ensued. Councilmember Sybill Navas asked Tom Moorhead if there would be a"grandfather" issue. Tom stated no, there would not be a grandfather clause. . Mayor Rob Ford asked Tom to get information regarding this issue from the Vail Police Department. Tom stated he would ask the Vail Police Department for input. Councilmember Mike Jewett stated that based on questions asked and staff recommendations, he would recommend tabling the item to the May 19, 1998 worksession. The ordinance as drafted does not suggest a penalty for parking upon streets, highways or within the parking structures. This should be considered and discussed at the worksession. Councilmember Mike Jewett made a motion to table Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998 until council has had time to discuss with other entities involved. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Ludwig Kurz. Further discussion ensued. Tom Moorhead said this ordinance should go to a work session with the Vail Pofice Department. A vote was taken. The motion passed to table the ordinance, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1998, second reading of an ordinance amending Title 11, Sign Regulations, of the Municipal Code, allowing for temporary traffic control, directional and on-site window signs, and a special review process for temporary signs, due to the numerous construction projects in Vail Village during the 1998 summer construction season. George Ruther, Town Planner, explained that currently 15 construction projects are scheduled for this summer in Vail Village. Staff is requesting approval of this ordinance with the minor change allowing for additional lighting to be proposed subject to staff review or Design Review Board review. The additional change would be in place until October 1, 1998, but may be extended to October 18, 1998. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve on second reading, Ordinance 5, Series of 1998, with the date change to October 18, 1998, the motion was seconded by Councilmember Sybill Navas. A vote was taken. The motion was unanimously passed, 7-0. ~ George stated he will take this ordinance to the next Village merchant meeting on Thursday. The fifth item on the agenda was a Design Review Process presentation. Russ Forrest, Community Development Director, made a presentation to council regarding the design review process. George Ruther, Town Planner, discussed the memorandum given to council and stated the goals of the process are to clarify all aspects of the development review process, consolidate and define design review standards, and to educate the users of the process. He stated, currently, the applications and information required are difficult and these have been clarified and made user friendly. A major change in the process is requiring a mandatory pre-application meeting with applicant. This has notably improved the process. Atso, staff has committed to a 10-day turn around time for applications, which corresponds with the Design Review Board review. He also stated the previous process was lengthened by two weeks which allows for a thorough review and makes the approval ratio higher (from 80% not getting approval to almost 100% approval). There will continue to be a fast-track review process. The staff would like to go through the summer construction season and make any adjustments or changes, if necessary, in August. Councilmember Bob Armour commended the staff for being aggressive with this process and likes the mandatory pre-meeting. He felt staff was doing a great job. Councilmember Ludwig Kurz stated he seconded Bob Armour's comments and asked how the dissemination of the information was going to be done. George Ruther stated the staff will be producing a mass mailing and will issue a press release in the newspapers. Russ Forrest also stated during the annual construction kickoff meeting this was discussed with local contractors and architects. The televised council meeting will also help in getting the information to the public. Councilmember Sybill Navas also commended staff and echoed the other council members comments. She asked why the turn around time for building permits are still three weeks. George explained the building department needs that additional time to review the construction documents. Russ Forrest stated the steps will be mapped out and they will continue to fine tune the process. Mayor Rob Ford thanked staff for their hard work. The sixth item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. . Bob McLaurin, added discussed the funding grant to acquire transportation buses. The grant was made with fhe condition that the buses wou(d be shared with Taos, New Mexico. They agreed that sharing the buses sounded good on paper but in reality is difficult. So the Town will sell our older buses to Taos to satisfy the spirit of the grant and will take place in the Spring of 1999. Councilmember Bob Armour asked about the status of the 1971 fire truck. Bob McLaurin stated it will be sold to a volunteer fire department. Councilmember Bob Armour made motion to go into executive session, then to adjourn, the motion was seconded by Councilmember Ludwig Kurz. A vote was taken, the motion was unanimously passed, 7-0. As there was no further business, Councilmember Ludwig Kurz made a motion to adjourn, Councilmember Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting adjourned 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Ford Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1998 7:00 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 7, 1998, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Ford, Mayor Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Armour Sybill Navas Michael Arnett Michael Jewett Kevin Foley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was citizen participation. There was no citizen participation. Councilmember Mike Jewett left to attend a caucas and will return. The second item on the agenda was the consent agenda approving the minutes from the meetings of March 3 and March 17, 1998. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve the minutes for the March 3 and March 17, 1998 meetings, the motion was seconded by Councilmember Sybill Navas. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, approved 6-0. The third item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 3, 1998, amending Special Development District #30 (Vail Athletic Club) and Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996, to allow for a change in the number of dwelling units/accommodation units, modifications in common area square footage and GRFA, a modification to the EHU timing requirements, and amending the development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Municipal Code. The Vail Athletic Club is located at 352 E. Meadow Drive, Parcels A& B, Vail Village First Filing. George Ruther, Town Planner, stated that the staff quantified the numbers as requested by Council. He read through the PEC memo and stated all changes per the Council request were made to the Ordinance. Mayor Rob Ford apologized to Stan Cope, representing the applicant, for the previous meeting ending earlier than expected. Councilmember Bob Armour stated he is concerned this ordinance now gives the Vail Athletic Club another three years to do the project. He doesn't want the Vail Athletic Club to keep extending the project. Stan Cope stated some parts of the project will happen this year and next spring. The intention is to complete the project. Councilmember Bob Armour asked if they would agree to change the completion date from three years to a specific date of July 5, 1999. Tom Moorhead stated that per the Town of Vail Municipal Code the extension is good for three years. Tom also stated that there are two issues to changing the time frame of this request, the municipal code and vested rights. Vested rights are regulated by state statute and the Town of Vail follows these regulations. Mayor Rob Ford asked what the consequences could be if the project is not done in the three year time frame. Councilmember Sybill Navas asked if it is possible to write an ordinance to override the vested rights statute of the State. At this time, Tom Moorhead left to read the municipal code for further clarification. Stan Cope stated he would like a reasonable amount of time to complete the project. He also clarified the concerns regarding the snowmelt system on the west side of the building and the trash enclosure. Since there is no trash enclosure plan, no snowmelt removal system is necesssary. Stan also stated the first two floors of the Vail Athletic Club have been remodeled. George Ruther stated there was a question about the proper notification of adjacent property owners regarding this project. George stated for the record that the Community Development Department sent notification to the Mountain Haus Home Owners Association on January 23, 1998, with verification of the address from Eagle County's address of record. Tom Moorhead read Sections 12.9a-12, 12-9a-10, and 12-9a-4. The language contained is mandatory language. Tom reviewed Chapter 19, Vested Property Rights. The chapter does not create vested property rights but supports the state law, adopted by ordinance. Section 12-19-6 states that vested property rights are for three years. The effective date of approval is the date of original approval. Tom recommended Council to come to an agreement with the applicant as to the date of expiration of this amendment to the original Special Development District. Mayor Rob Ford asked if the Council could add to the ordinance that if this major amendment is not completed in the next three years that no furhter amendments could be done. Tom Moorhead recommended this ordinance state a specific date of completion, then the applicant could ask for an extension. However the Council may not approve the extension. Mayor Rob Ford asked if the staff could set a date to add to the ordinance. Stan Cope stated he would consider the date of May 1, 2000. Councilmember Kevin Foley asked about the completion of the two floors of the Vail Athletic Club and about the delay of their employee housing. Stan Cope statedaid the employee housing has been delayed but they are working with the Affordable Housing Team to buy and deed-restrict units and go beyond the minimum requirements. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve Ordinance 3, Series of 1998 on second reading with the changes previously requested and adding the expiration date of May 1, 2000 and striking the three year deadline. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Kevin Foley. After further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously, 6-0. The fourth item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1998, amending Title 11, Sign Regulations, of the Municipal Code, allowing for temporary traffic control , directional and on-site window signs, and a special review process for temporary signs, due to the numerous construction projects in Vail Village during the 1998 summer construction season. George Ruther, Town Planner, stated on Tuesday, March 31, the Town of Vail hosted a Vail Village Contractor's Meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to have a discussion with the Town of Vail, the contractors, the merchants and the Vail Village property owners regarding construction in Vail Village during the 1998 summer construction season. During the discussion, it was suggested that the Town of Vail adopt an ordinance allowing for temporary traffic control, directional and on-site signs in Vail Village. The goal of the proposed ordinance would be fio help minimize the negative effects of construction on Vail Village this summer season. It was suggested that the ordinance be similar to the temporary sign ordinance the Council passed last May to minimize the effects of the West Vail Roundabout construction on the West Vail merchants. George stated that changes were made to the ordinance per the Council's request at the afternoon worksession Mayor Rob Ford, stated for the record, this ordinance was created because of the amount of construction going on in Vail Village, and this is a temporary ordinance which expires in September of 1998. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve on first reading, Ordinance 5, Series of 1998, seconded by Councilmember Ludwig Kurz. A vote was taken, the motion unanimously, 6-0. Councilmember Mike Jewett returned. Councilmember Mike Arnett left the room for a few minutes. The fifth item on the agenda was Proclamation No. 2, Series of 1998, a Proclamation of Teacher Appreciation Week. Mayor Rob Ford read the proclamation for the record. Councilmember Sybill Navas made a motion to adopt Proclamation No. 2, Series of 1998, and was seconded by Councilmember Bob Armour. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The sixth item on the agenda was Proclamation No. 3, Series of 1998, a Proclamation for Days of Remembrance for 1998. Mayor Rob Ford read the proclamation for the record. Councilmember Sybill Navas made a motion to adopt Proclamation No. 3, Series of 1998 and was seconded by Councilmember Mike Jewett. A vote was taken, the motion passed unanimously,7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was Proclamation No. 4, Series of 1998, a Proclamation declaring the week of April 5-10 as International Building Safety week in the Town of Vail. Gary Goodell, Building Official, stated that municipalities from around the world are also proclaming this as International Building Safety Week. He also stated he is going to come in front of Council in a few weeks to ask the Council to adopt more current building codes. Mayor Rob Ford read the proclamation. Councilmember Kevin Foley made a motion to adopt Proclamation No. 4, Series of 1998, seconded by Councilmember Ludwig Kurz. A vote was taken, the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The eighth item on the agenda was Proclamation No. 5, Series of 1998, a Proclamation Honoring American Athletes who Medaled in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Mayor Rob Ford read the proclamation for the record. Councilmember Mike Arnett made a motion to adopt Proclamation No. 5, Series of 1998, seconded by Councilmember Bob Armour. A vote was taken, the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Councilmember Kevin Foley stated he would like to see some Vail names in Salt Lake City at the 2002 Olympics. The ninth item on the agenda was a discussion of the Eagle County Recreation Authority/School District Intergovernmental Agreement for Berry Creek 5th. Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, explained the concept plan considers the planning process jointly for the Miller Ranch property and the Berry Creek 5th property. The conceptual pfan has been under consideration for approximately one and a half to two years. There have been several public meetings. The Eagle County Recreational Authority will be meeting soon and the Town of Vail representatives will need to have direction on what the Town of Vail's position is on this concept plan. Mayor Rob Ford is the representative. Councilmember Mike Arnett has a concern about the density and usages of the property. Mayor Rob Ford stated this council is not enamoured with the Town of Vail involvement in this concept. The Town of Vail Council's ability to withdraw is not feasible. Tom Moorhead stated this has been an ongoing process since 1991. He explained the past concepts of the properties. The Eagle County School District purchased the Mller Ranch property. The school district's goal is to provide housing for their employees. Further discussion ensued regarding possible partners ( the Metro Districts in Eagle County), density concerns and employee housing. Mayor Rob Ford asked if this conceptual plan will enhance possible partners to come forth. Tom Moorhead stated that anything done to the property, jointly pursued, would be an asset. Councilmember Bob Armour stated the approved sketch p{an had over 100 units, until it expired. He would like the Town divest itself of this property, sell it and bring the funds back to Vail. He stated by approving the concept plan, it confuses the plan for the Town to get out of ownership of the property. Bob stated that breaking up the property would not make this property attractive to future buyers. Councilmember Kevin Foley would like to see more employee housing on the site. Mayor Rob Ford stated we can't get the opportunity to move this along without approving the concept plan. Councilmember Sybill Navas asked if we approved the concept plan if we are also approving the intergovernmentaf agreement. Tom Moorhead stated the approval of the concept plan would not be approving the intergovernmental agreement. The intergovernmental agreement is still in the draft stage. The transfer of property would be contingent upon certain agreements in place prior to transferring of the property. The intention is to reach agreement and follow through with the planned agreement. The Concept Plan is a concept and was the choice of the Eagle County School District and the Eagle County Recreation District. Tom Moorhead explained that the rest of the partners have approved the concept plan. The next stage would be to develop a sketch plan and come to terms on intergovermental agreement. Councilmember Ludwig asked if this obligated the Town of Vail for any financial contributions and if we reject the concept plan at this time, does it go anywhere and what does it do to the planning. Tom Moorhead said the agreement and the planning costs would be split according to ownership. The sketch plan has been extended and additional planning costs would be incurred for the Berry Creek 5th property. If there is not agreement of this concept plan, the Eagle Count School District and Eagle County Recreation Distict would have to go forward with other plans. Councilmember Bob Armour moved to reject the concept plan, and was seconded by Mike Arnett. Further discussion ensued. Councilmember Sybill Navas stated the Town still has the opportunity to vetoe the plan at the integovernmental agreement stage. She is in favor of approving the plan at this time. Bob McLaurin stated that as good stewards we need to continue to be involved in this process until such time the Town of Vail can get out of the property. Councilmember Kevin Foley asked when was the Eagle County Recreation Authority formed. Tom Moorhead stated the Town owns 60% of the property and the other entities own 40% of the property which constitutes the Eagle County Recreation District. A vote was taken, the motion was declined 3-4, (Councilmembers Sybill Navas, Ludwig Kurz, Mike Jewett and Rob Ford opposed). Councilmember Sybill Navas made a motion to approve the concept plan, the motion was seconded by Councilmember Ludwig Kurz. A vote was taken, and the motion was approved 4-3. Councilmembers Mike Arnett, Kevin Foley and Bob Armour opposed. The tenth item on the agenda was summary action by the Town Council regarding the Vail Valley Center Mayor Rob Ford stated there were concerns by the Town of Vail Council on this project. He read the letter the Council sent to the Eagle County Planning Commission regarding the project stating the project should be denied as it is presently presented. The eleventh item on the agenda was an announcement of Common Ground Pubiic Meetings to be held Tuesday, April 14, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the Vail Cascade Hotel; and on Thursday, April 16, 1998, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Sonnenalp Hotel. Mayor Rob Ford invited the public to attend the common ground meetings. The twelvth item on the agenda was the town manager's report. Bob McLaurin, Town Manager, added the Town is continuing to work with the Village property owners to improve streets and add a snowmelt system. They would like to have a special election in November of 1998. The bus schedule will continue through April 19th and the parking structures will remain open and will be free aftern April 13th. Councilmember Bob Armour stated the upper portion of Vail Mountain will stay open past April 19th. Bob McLaurin stated the Village merchants are talking about offering free lift tickets on the Vista Bahn this summer. Mayor Rob Ford stated the internet web site is now available. As there was no further business, Councilmember Ludwig Kurz made a motion to adjourn, Councilmember Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Ford Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk i i 1 ~ BOOTH C EEY _ PROJ~~~ ~~RN AREA White River National Forest Rocky Mountain Region Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture Eravironmenta1 Assessment R~~S - } ENVfRONMENTAL ASSESSIIIIENT BOQTH CREEK PROJECT BURRI AREA 1NHiTE R1VER NATIOtVAL FOREST Apri! 20, 1998 Eagle County, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA-Forest Service " White River Nationai Forest P.O. Box 948 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Responsible Oificial: William A. Wood, District Ranger Holy Cross Ranger District White River National Forest For Further information Contact: James T. Johnston tJS Forest Service Holy Cross Ranger District White River National Forest P.O. Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645 (970) 827-5715 Abstract: The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the analysis of the proposed action and two alternatives which were developed for the management of the 1,000 acre Booth Creek Project Area on the Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River National Forest. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, nationai origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases appiy to ali prograrns). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (Voice or TDD). "USDA is an equal Opportunity provider and employer". ~ , TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ CHAPTER I- PURPOSE AND NEED introduction I-1 Purpose and Need 1-1 Lands Involved I-3 Decisions To Be Made I-4 Proposed Action 1-4 Public Notification and PUblic !nvolvement 1-4 Issues I-5 CHAPTER fl - ALTERNATIVES Introduction 11-1 Formulation of Alternatives II-1 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study II-1 Alternatives Considered In Detail II-2 Comparison of Alternatives II-5 Mitigation - II-6 CHAPTER lfl - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction 111-1 General Setting III-1 Mass Movement III-1 Bighorn Sheep Habitat (Vegetation) III-3 Economic Analysis (Cost/Time) 111-3 Visuals 111-3 Safety, Air Quality, Smoke Management 111-3 Compliance with the National Forest Management Act III-3 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species III-3 Heritage Resources I11-3 Recreation/Wilderness 111-4 Wetlands III-4 CHAPTER IV - ENVIRONMENTAL GONSEQUENCES introduction IV-1 Mass Movement IV-1 Bighorn Sheep Habitat (Vegetation) IV-2 Economic Analysis (Cost/Time) fV-3 Visuals IV-4 Safety/Protection of Homes IV-4 Air Quality, Smoke Management N-5 Threatened/EndangeredlSensitive Species IV-5 Heritage Resources IV-6 Recreation/Wiiderness IV-7 Escape Fire and Wildfire 1V-8 Other Mandatory Disclosures 1V-8 Cumulative Effects IV-9 CHAPTER V- LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATlONS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED V-1 i-1 ~ APPFNDICES Appendix A- Initial Scoping Comments A-1 Appendix B- Scoping Comments to the Draft Environmental Assessment B-1 i - 2 TABLE QF CONTENTS ~ List of Figures I-1 General Location Map I-2 II-1 Proposed Action (Alternative 2) II-3 II-2 Alternative 3 II-4 C.ist Of Tabfes I-1 Forest Plan Management Areas 1-3 II-1 Comparison of Alternatives II-6 • II-2 Mitigation Measures and Effectiveness 11-6 III-1 Wildlife Habitat Structural Stages 111-2 i - 3 r CHAPTER B PtJRPOSE AND NEED M CHAPTER I PURPOSE AND NEED INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the known direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action for Bighorn Sheep Management through prescribed fire. The USDA Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep in cooperation with the Town of Vail are proposing to treat approximatety 800 acres of shrubiand and aspen with prescribed fire. ' This Chapter discusses the purpose and need for the project, the lands involved in the decision to be made, the decision to be made, and the Forest Service's proposed action for the project area. In this chapter, the public invofvement pian that was implemented to raise issues and concerns is disclosed and was used in . the ident'rfication of the key issues. These issues were used to develop and analyze the alternatives including the proposed action. Upon compietion of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River Nationai Forest (Forest Plan), forest management direction was developed to guide vegetation management on the National Forest to achiev° the goais set forth in the plan. The purposes af the Environmental Assessment is to develop and design management practices that will meetthe Forest Pian goals and objectives for this project area. In doing so, this EA will disclose possible effects of vegetation management in the Booth Creek Area on the Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River National Forest. (See Figure I-1) Historically, the Booth Creek area has been managed for livestock grazing, hunting, and a variety of primitive, dispersed recreational activities (hiking, photography, snowshoeing etc.). This EA is structured.as foilows: Chapter l describes the purpose and need for the proposed actian and provides a summary of the scoping process and issues identified; Chapter I( describes the atternatives, summarizes environmental consequences of the alternatives, and describes mitigation measures associated with each alternative; Chapter III presents the existing environment that is the baseline environment; Chapter IV describes the probable consequences of each alternative on selected environmental resources, as well as, providing scientffic and analytic basis for the comparisons of alternatives; and Chapter V summarizes the agencies, organizations, and persons contacted during scoping. PURPOSE AND NEED This Environmental Assessment is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan (Record of Decision signed 9/20/84). Incorporated by reference from the Forest Plan (pp. 111-93 through 101) are the Goais and Direciion describing the desired condition for vegetation, and other affected resourc- es. These goais and Direction from the Forest Pian include: • Reducing the accumulation of natural fuels. • Manage tree stands using both commerciai and non-commercial methods. Ciearcut aspen and/or use prescribed fire to regenerate. • Establish elk, moose, bighom sheep and TES species on sites that can supply the habitat needs of the species and populati levels of CDOW. • Alter ages classes of br wse stands in a diversity unit. I-1 BOCJTH CREEK/VAIL VALLEY PRESCRIBED BURN wo.,* 1 ~ x x .,_.L-~,~ ' I'"`' ? ' W \ ~ ~ M M A tzj I = ~ o ~ m ~ ~ SQpo4E c~E~X - Z i ~ a' - trJ ' x ~ 5 0 1 4 ~ ~ a M M A z . ~ x ~ ~ , 1 ~ - _ " . • \S IL . 1 t V A I L'~ ~ \ I ~ • ~ O Improve the health and vigor of all vegetation rypes outside wiiderness, • Improve habitat capability through direct treatments of vegetation, soils and water. The project area is within one management area and the Forest General Standards and Guidelines are outlined in the Forest Plan (111-24 to 28), and on Figure I-1. Proposed management activities would occur within Management Area 2A. Table I-1 Forest Plan Management Areas Management Area Acres Percent of Project Area 2A - Semi-primitive motorized recreation 5,320 99% 9A - Riparian < 100 < 1% Management emphasis in a 2A area is for semi-primitive motorized recreation. In 2A Management Areas management activities are not evident or should remain visualiy subordinate. Recommended silvicultural prescriptions ineiude clearcut, selection, shelterwood, salvage and prescribed fire. The primary purposes of the proposed management activities in the Booth Creek area is to enhance Bighorn Sheep habitat by creating a travel corridor for sheep to move to escape cover, reduce fuel loadings (vegetation) and to regenerate aspen and shrubs. The primary purpose of the Booth Creek Burn is to improve habitat for one of the few bighorn sheep bands on the White River National Forest. The East Zone of the White River National Forest contains approximately 9,000 acres of bighorn sheep habitat outside of Wilderness areas on Forest Service lands. Of the 9,000 acres, the project area contains approximately 2,000 acres. While this habitat is not unique in Colorado, it is a important ecosystem on the forest and deserves to be managed, maintained and enhanced. The current condition is that by suppressing wildfires, the aspen and shrub component have become over mature and are in need of vegetative treatment through prescribed fire. A wiidfire would likely cause serious habitat degradation and properry damage. The specific purpose of the prescribed burn is 1. To create a movement corridor for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep to go from Booth Creek west to Spraddle Creek. 2. To reduce the fuel loading (vegetation) to lessen the risk of wildfire. 3. To regenerate shrubland and aspen stands that are over mature, and 4. To improve the quantity and quality of forage (Shrubs, grass, forbs) for big game. LANDS INVOLVED The Booth Creek Area is located on the north side of Interstate 70, in the Vail Valley. The north side of the valley from the ridgetop (on the north), to Dowd Junction (on the west) to I-70 (on the south) to East Gore Creek (on the east) encompasses approximately 5,500 acres of National Forest System lands on the Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River Nationat Forest. The project area is east of Dowd Junction, beginning at Spraddle Creek and is about 2,000 acres. It is adjacent to the Town of Vail city iimits. The general setting of the project area is on a south facing forested relatively steep slope on elevations of 8,500 to 10,000 feet. The forested areas consist of aspen and spruce-fir. Approximately 45% of the project area is in grassland and shrubland (serviceberry-sagebrush), 15% in conifer stands and 40% in aspen. Of the aspen, more than half is over mature. The project area is not roaded except for the trail going up Spraddle Creek. Vegetative treatment has never occurred n the area. There is State of Colorado and Town of Vaif property within the project area (approximately acres in Unit 6). 1 -3 DE lSiQNS TO BE MADE An Environmentai Assessment is not a decision document. It is a document disclosing the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that action. The decision is docu- mented in a Decision Notice signed by the Responsible Official. The decision the District Ranger wiil make will consist of three elements: 0 The first element of the decision is whether or not to implement vegetation management through . prescribed fire within the project area. 0 The second element is that if the answer to the first element is yes, then where and when to implement vegetation management. 0 And the third element of the decision is how to manage the prescribed burn. PROPOSED ACTION 7he Forest Service proposes to implement a prescribed burn in the Booth Creek Area. The burn would occur in the spring andiorfall over a two year period, weather permitting, to broadcast burn approximately 400 acres of aspen and 400 acres of shrublands (sagebrush/serviceberry) totalling 800 acres. The prescribed burn would improve critical winter range for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, elk and deer by as much as 150 percent. A corridor would be constructed (by fire) so the Bighorn Sheep band would be able to walk from Booth Creek to escape rocks (near Spraddie Creek) approximately 1 1/2 miles west by 1/4 mile south. The prescribed burn wouid reduce the dead and down aspen that currently create an impassabie barrier for the sheep. Dead, dying aspen and overmature shrubs lying on the ground would be reduced by 80 percent by fire consumption. This would reduce the future risk of an uncontrolled wildfire. The units would be hand lit by a fire crew. Structural engines from the Town of Vail would be positioned near private homes as a precaution against wind shifts and downhili fire runs. 7he proposed action was modified due to internal and public comments. Units within the analysis area have been removed from erosion/debris/mass movement zones, reduced in size and scheduled for treatment at different tirnes of the year. PUBLlC NOTIFfCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT There are some important environmental issues to consider in determining how best to implement the proposed projects if at ali, within the Booth Creek Burn project area. Forest Service resource specialists identified some of the issues, and members of the pubiic identified others or helped to beiter define these issues. Public comment on the proposed project was solicited by mailing scoping letters to members of the public who could be affected by the proposed project, or those who might have an interest in the decision. Chapter V lists those individuals, organizations, and agencies notified. Letters were sent during February 5-9, 1997. Written comments were requested by April 1, 1997. The comment period was extended to May 1, 1997 due to pubiic request. Approximately 23 written responses ere received. In addition, 150 brochures were hand delivered to residents during the second week o arch. The brochures were hand delivered to homes and residents I-4 adjacent to the proposed burn units. Seven people attended the open house in Vail on February 10, 199 . There were aiso two meetings with the Vail Town Council. The public was invited to go on several field trips (February 28, March 4 and 11, 1997 to look at the proposed burn units and to the results of a completed burn (Dowd Junction burned in 1994). ISSUES Public comments and management concerns generated many issues, concerns, and opportunities. The Interdisciplinary Team (ID-0 reviewed the issues, concerns, and opportunities and determined which were key and tracking issues. The IDT also determined which issues would be tracked through the analysis, and which could be eliminated from detailed analysis. Key tssues Key issues are defined-as resources or other values that drive the development of an alternative, may be adversely affected by the proposed action, or unresolved confiicts regarding alternative uses of available resources. Key issues provicle the focus for the analysis and are used directly in the forrnulation of the alternatives. The key issues are tracked through the analysis process and through the remaining sections of this document. There were some additionai issues eliminated from analysis, these are found in Appendix A. Mass Movement Pofentiat a. The project area contains erosion-debris flow channels that start in the upper drainages, go through some of the burn units and stop above some residential homes. {n addition to the identified flow zones, there is additionai debris, rocks and mud that are included within this issue. Some home owners were concerned that the prescribed burn would cause land/mud slides into their homes. Bighorn Sheep Habitat (Vegetation) a. There is a need to improve critical winter habitat for the deer, elk and bighorn sheep that use the area in the winter. There are approximately 125 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep that come out of the Eagie's Nest Wilderness (Gore Mountain Range) and inhabit the Vail Valley during the winter. The sheep are subjected to harrassment by domestic pets and are crowded in limited critical winter habitat (<500 Acres). There is an additional 900 acres of habitat to the west that is unreachable due to dead/down aspen that the sheep will not cross. There is a lack forage (quality and quantity) for sheep and other big game animals in the project area. Cost/TimE of the Project a. Vegetative treatment by other methods (Saws, Harvester) is expensive and takes more time to achieve the same results as a prescribed fire. It wifl take 7 to 10 years to accomplish the mEChanical treatment vs one to two years with prescribed fire. It costs three times more per acre to use rnechanicai means. In the phasing of the mechanicai treatment alternative, the sheep population will continue to grow and degrade the existing habitat. Visuals a. The area will look black after the burn for several years. The dead and d wn aspen will be partiaily consumed and remain as blackened chunks of wood lying within the b' area. I-5 Safety and Protection of Private Ho es a. A number of home owners are concerned that the prescribed fire could endanger their homes. b. There was concern that the smoke from the prescribed burn would cause safety (visibility) problems to vehicles traveling on I-70 and within the Vail Valley. Air Quality and Smoke i1llanagement a. Smoke dispersal into non-attainment areas and Class I airshed (Eagles Nest Wilderness) is a , viofation of the Laws, Rules and Regulations of Ciean Air Act. Smoke could cause problems with visibility concerns within other communities down wind. PERMlTS AND APPROVALS The USDA Forest Service is required to get a Smoke Permit from the Colorado State Department of Health. The Permit will be requested and obtained by Forest Service, East Zone Fire Management Officer prior to the implementation of the burn. 1 -6 CHAPTER 81 ALTERiVATf!/lES CHAPTER I! ALTERNATIVES 1NTRODUCTION This Chapter displays deTailed information about the Proposed Action, alternatives to the Proposed Action, and a summary of environmental eifects. The Alternatives present different vegetative management ap- proaches and are designed to respond to the Key Issues. The required "No Action" alternative represents no ' change from current management. FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 1502.14) require rigorous evaluation of all reasonable aiternatives, including "No Action" to minimize possible environmental effects. The impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to that action are to be presented in comparative form. A range of alternatives was developed by the Interdisciplinary Team for evaluation in this environmental analysis. The alternatives discussed are intended to be realistic and compatible with Forest Service manage- ment direction and address the issues raised during scoping. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELiMIMATED FROM DETAILED STUDY The following alternative was developed during the process, but was eliminated from detailed study. Booth Creek-Small Timber Sale This afternative proposed to prepare and offer a post and pole aspen timber sale to remove the standing aspen and to regenerate the stands. KV funds (are Knutsen-Vandenberg monies generated by a smail charge on purchased timber, if any were generated) would be used to remove .the dead/down aspen and to mechanically cut the brush to regenerate thern. This afternative was eliminated from detailed study because the area is not roaded, would likely not be a commercially viable sale. It would aiso take too much time to cut and regenerate the shrubs. Shrubs do not respond as favorabiy to mechanical treatment. The aspen is of poor quality and would probably not be purchased by a timber sale contractor. ALTERNATiVES CONSIDERED tN DETAIL The foflowing three alternatives were developed during the environmental process and are considered in detail. ALTERNATIVE 1 No Action Alternative 1 is the no action alternative which is required to be considered and analyzed in detail. This alternative wouid resuit in no implementation of management activities necessary to sustain and enhance the critical habitat for bighorn sheep. The vegetation (aspen and shrubs) would continue to age, die and be replaced with species less desirable to bighorn sheep. The aspen stands wouid decay and eventually be II-1 replaced by shrubs. The shrubs would eventuaily be replaced by grass/forb. Big game (deer and ik) would lose valuable young aspen for forage during the winter. The sheep would not be able to access habitat to the west, increasing their risk of over using their existing habitat. The vegetation (grass, shrubs and dead/ down aspen) would accumulate and result in greater risk of uncontrolled wildfire. Figure I-2 indicates the general location. ALTERNATIVE 2 Proposed Action - This alternative consists of broadcast burning four management units (1, 2, 3 and 6) within the Vaii Valley by Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Vail Fire Department personnel. The area(s) would be burned with ground personnel (hand ignition). Some of the aspen and most of the shrub component would be regenerated. The dead and down aspen would be reduced, and the shrubs, grasses and forbs would be stimulated to produce more pounds of forage per acre. The area would be improved for a number of wildlife species. 7he bighorn sheep would be abie to access habitat to the west. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 have stands of aspen that are 40-80% dead. Surface fuels are grass, serviceberry, sagebrush and downed logs. Unit 2 is 30-60% dead aspen. Surface fuels are grass, serviceberry, sagebrush and downed aspen logs. Units 5 and 6 are mostly shrubs/grass with decaying stands of aspen. Approximatefy 800 acres within the Booth Creek boundary area would be prescribed burned in a mosiac pattern during a two year period (weather permitting). The burn(s) would occur during the spring and/or fall when weather and burn conditions are optional for attaining objectives and controlling the fire. Artificial reforestation efforts will not be needed in the aspen due to the intensity of the fire which wili regenerate from 300 to 3,000 stems per acre. A detailed Burn Pian is located in the project file and is available for public review. Figure 1I-2 is the map for this alternative. Unit 1 is proposed for a fail burn, due it's north aspect (too wet in a normal spring). Units 2, 3, are proposed for spring burning in the first year. Units 4 and 5 would not be treated with a prescribed burn. Unit 6 would be burned the next year. ALTERNATIVE 3 Force Account and Volunteers (Mechanica! Treatment) This alternative would use Forest Service personnel and volunteers to manually cut the as.pen (with chain- saws). They wouid then stack and burn the piles. The shrub component (sagebrush and serviceberry) wouid 4 be manually cut (saws, brush hooks) to stimulate regeneration. The units are the same as in Alternative 2. Units 1, 2, 3, and 6 would be manually treated in their entirety. Units 4 and 5 would have a corridor (125 yards wide by 400 yards long) cut through the middle of them. The swath would be placed on the contour of the slope. The cut material in ali of the units would be piled and burned during the year once the material has dried out. It would take approximately 7-10 years to implement this alternative (Crew size, expertise and funding dependent). There wiil be a longer risk of a pile getting out control due to the year round burning and lack of personnel monitoring the pile. . Figure II-3 illustrates the area of this alternative: II-2 BOOTH CREEK/VAIL VALLEY PRESCRIBED BURN dOo '00~` ~ 00~~ ~ ~ b ? MMA W I m ° 1 ° G~~EK t~ b ! SP~ PA ~ cI~ ~ " ~ X 0 ~ • ~ z I ~ M MA i ,.~~t?~. ~ • • . , / s. ~ ~-1=-~------ = a ' . • ~ .~EAS IL ~ _ ~ • a ro I~' • y / ~ 1\ J I a ~ ~ ' ~ ` • • ! t 's~ VAIL' BOOTH CRE[=K/VAIL VALLEY PRESCRIBED BURN ~ 00 ~ ~ X x ~ ? 1 x \ . . ~ t0 ~ ? w i MMA w ~ 0 I ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ Jo`t C¢EE,~ ~ r~ I Syik' _ - - ' „ ~ tri I tx' ~ . - - ' . ^,~j o, a ' . ~E A S I L ~ ~ . . VAIL'F ' • ~ ~ ~ ° • ?Cj • ~ • ~ COMPARISON OF 64LTERNATIVES This section compares alternatives by: -The effect on mass movement channels (High, Low, None) -The acres of aspen and shrubs managed for long-term sustainability. -The cost ratio of each aiternative (cost per acre) -Effect on visuais -Safety and Protection of private homes -Air quality and smoke management 11 -5 Table II-1 Compar on of Alternatives Alternative 1 2 3 Mass iViovement Flow Channefs Risk of movement Some Slight Slight Increase Increase Vegetative Treatment Acres of aspen/shrub managed for 0 534 600 long-term sustainablity Economics (Cost/Acre) 0.0/1 $105/1 $400/1 Visuals ' Meets Forest Plan VSQ None Meets Meets Safety/Protection of Homes Risk of Injury/Home Endangerment Short Slight No Rise Term Risk Risk Visibility 1-70 Haze in Valley (Visibility in miles) None Slight Slight 1.4 mi. 1.8 mi. Smoke/Air Quality Duration None 2 Days 12 Days Tons/Day 17.6/Day 1.1 /12 Days Risk of Escape Fire None Low Low Risk of Wildfire Moderate Low Low IVIITIGATIDN The fioilowing measures have been identified for the action alternatives except no action as means to mitigate . adverse environmental impacts disclosed in this Environmentai Assessment. Table II-2 lists the mitigation measures, their effectiveness, and the method to be employed for implementation of the measures. Table II-2 Mitigation IVreasures and Effectiveness Impacts Mitigated Mitigation Effectiveness Responsibility Mass Movement Located within each Altern - 2 USFS, Burn Plan tive. 11 -6 Table 11-2 Mitigation Measures and Effectiveness (continued) Impacts Mitigated Mitigation Effectiveness Responsibility Safery and Protection of Structural Fire Engines wili be 1 USFS, Burn Plan Private Homes placed near homes. Project area will be signed. . Smoke Management 6urned during Atmospheric 1 USFS, Burn Plan instability (favorable condi- tions). Good smoke dispersal. Patroi roads and monitor. Sign to warn visitors and public. Visuals Impact is discussed in each 1 USFS, Burn Plan Alternative. Noxious Weed Invasion Noxious weeds discovered in 2 USFS the project area after the burn will be treated in compliance with the Forest-wide Environ- men£a( Assessment on the Nlanagement of Undesirable Plant Species. Recreation/Hunting Use Minimize fail burning 1 USFS Effectiveness: 1 = Highly effective 2 = Moderately effective 3 = Somewhat effective 4 = Uncertain No site-specific mitigation for cultural resources are recommended at this time, as there are no known historic properties within the analysis area. Should any significant culturai resources be located in the future, they will be mitigated (avoidance), if necessary, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Otficer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Il-7 CE-1APYER 111 AFFECTED ENVlRUNfViENT . CHAPTER IIl AFFECTED ENVfRONiU1ENT lNTRODUCTION This Chapter describes the existing conditian of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed action described in Chapter I. Additionai resource speciaiist reports are located in the Project Analysis File located , at the Holy Cross Office. This affected environment generally inciudes all National Forest System lands and private lands in and adjacent to the project area and along the access roads into the project. It is expected that most direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the decision will be confined to the lands, both public and private, within and adjacent to the project area. ' GENERAL SETTING The proposed project is focated in the Vail Valley, adjacent to 1-70 and the 7own of Vail, Colorado. The project area is characterized by slopes and benches on a south facing aspect. Some steeper slopes are present along some of the drainages, and the average slope of the units proposed for management activities average 30 to 40 percent. Elevations range from 8,400 feet to 10,000 feet. The project area adjoins private lands (Vait Town Boundary) on the south. The area is not roaded, except for the faur wheel drive trail that goes up Spraddle Creek along the east side of the drainage. The area is currently used for dispersed recreation. The majority of the recreational use in the praject area occurs during the sumrner and winter (hiking and snowshoeing). The area is critical big game (deer and elk) winter range and is important habitat for 125 Bighorn Sheep that winter there from the Gore Range (Eagle's Nest Wilderness). The area is also important visualiy to Vail Valiey residents, and skiers at Vail Ski Resort, located across I-70. KEY ISSUES MASS MOVEMENT/SUSTAiNED RAPiD SNOWMELT There are four debris/erosion flow zones within the boundary of the prescribed burn. In 1985, 1988 and 1992 there was significant mud and snow slides into the private residences on the south boundary of the proposed burn area. The siides were caused by sustained rapid melt of snow (water content). There is a map of these areas in the project file at the Holy Cross Ranger District. BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT VEGETATION Forested vegetation within the project area consists mainly of aspen and shrublands. Table III-1 summarizes the vegetation within the analysis area by wildiife habitat structurai stages. The publication Managing Forest- ed Lands For Wildlife (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1984), located at the Holy Cross District Ofifice, contains more detailed information on the structural stages. Structural stage 1 is grass/forb, 2 is seedlings/sap(ings, III - 1 3 is poletimber, 4 is mature timber, and 5 is old growth. The A, B, and C refer to the canopy closure, with A having a canopy closure less than 39 percent, B having a canopy closure between 40 and 70 percent, and C having a canopy closure greater than 71 percent. Canopy is the cover provided by limbs and leaves that shade the ground. Shrubs are aged either young or old...Serviceberry and sagebrush over 25 years of age is considered an old age class. A healthy shrub/aspen community contains a relatively high degree of structural diversity (age classes). The aspen stands have tree ages and subsequent sizes from five to ten years old (1-3 inch diameter, early), from eleven to seventy five years old (4-12 inch diameter, intermediate and late) and old growth, to one hundred ten + years old (+13 diameter). The understory is grass/forb and shrubs that are in young and old ages. Habitat patchiness has been created through past natural disturbances(mud slides, insect/disease/fire) and human disturbances (human caused fires) within the project area. These include wildfires, recreation and game trails and insect/disease outbreaks. As a result of this patchiness, a diversity of plant, animal, and cover types has evolved within the project areathat has resulted in a relatively high level of diversity. This patchiness however is failing due to the ov2r maturity of the aspen and shrub community. Optimum diversity or desired future condition (forest and shrub) health of the area would be 50% young and 50% old shrubs, and 27% early, 36% intermediate, 27% late and 10% old growth ages in forested stands. Currently, over 80% of the shrubs are in an old age class and most (60%) of the aspen are small size, old aged diseased trees. The bighorn sheep cannot move down the valley to additionaV winter range due to the jack-strawed dead and down aspen that prevents their movement. Sheep consider timber stands barriers due to their need to visualiy observe the landscape for predators (dogs, coyotes, Mtn. lions, etc.) Other big game species (deer and elk) browse on shrubs and seedling aspen during the winter. The shrub community is too old to enable elk and deer to obtain the quantiiy and quality of forage they need during a severe winter. Neotropicai birds are not found in the area during the early spring due to lack of forage. Small mammals (mice, voles, etc.) inhabit areas under the snow during the w+nter and are found in escape ground cavities during the spring prior to creating nests and rearing young. Vegetative treatment will not significantly affect neotropi- cai birds and/or small mammals. The existing condition of the vegetation is found in Table ili-1. Table I11-1 Acres of Existir+g Structural Stages Structural Stage 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 46 4C 5 Aspen 0 0 75 40 160 93 175 37 0 Mountain shrub 0 950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sagebrush 0 760 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mountain-Grassland 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wet meadow 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ill-2 COST/TtME ANALY5IS This is a four season resort and second home based economy. The cost of implementation and time it wil( take to achieve the wanted results will be dicussed in Chapter 4. VISUALS There wiil be a mosiac biacken iandscape caused by the broadcast prescribed burn in siternative 2. • Alternative 3 will have scattered dead slash on the ground temporarily until the slash is piled and burned. The burning of the piles will cause black spots within the project area. S/aFETY, A1R QUALITY AND SiVIOKE MANAGEMENT There is a need to make certain that the burn is impiemented on days of atmospheric instability to reduce the risk of smoke piling into the Vail Valley causing visibility problems to residents and visitors using I-70 and the roadways. TRACKItVG ISSUES (Issues identified during scoping but are not key issues) CON9PLiANCE WITH THE NATIONAL FOREST i1lIANAGEIVIENT ACT The Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River Nationai Forest determined the appropriate silvicultural prescriptions within 2A Management Areas to be cfearcut in aspen cover type. The Forest Plan General Standards and Guidelines also have standards for big game, Bighorn Sheep and shrub treatment. Fire can be an appropriate tool for treatment. Aspen is expected to regenerate 300 to 3,000 sprouts per acre, The area is not in the suitable timber base of the Forest. THREATENED, ENDANGEFtED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES A data search was conducted through the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CDOW-Nature Conservancy) to see if there are Federally listed Threatened/Endangered or State Sensitive species (TES) documented in the area. No known Threatened/Endangered plant or animal species have been documented in the analysis area, nor has any portion of the land been designated as critical habitat by the Secretary of the interior (PL-93-205, Section 4, 1978). A Biological Assessment for Federally Listed Species and a Biologicai Evalua- tion for R2 Sensitive species have been completed for the project area. The Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation are {ocated in the Project Anatysis File. The Biological Evaluation analyzes the potential effects of the proposed activities on Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species. There are currently forty three sensitive species of plants and animais on the iist. The Biological Assessment analyzes the potential effects of the proposed activities on Federally listed threatened and endangered species. The list of species that may be impacted on the White River National Forest, contain eleven species of plants, eight species oT mammals, three species oll amphibians, twenty species of birds and one specie of fish. The complete list of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species is containad in the project file. 111 - 3 HERITAGE RESOURCES A Heritage Resource Survey was completed on the project area during the summer of 1995 and 1996. No sites were discovered. RECREATION/WILDERNESS IMPACTS The area is used primarily during the winter by cross country skiing and snowshoers. The use is limited due a lack of trails. There will be minimal displacement during the spring during implementation. The Eagies Nest Wilderness is a Class I Airshed. WETLANDS There are approximately 100 acres of intermittent streams, wet bogs and seeps within the project area. There will be no impact to these areas because they will not be treated (avoided). RISK OF ESCAPED FIRE AND V146LDFIRE There will not be a risk of escaped fire with the no action alternative. There is a risk of uncontrolled wildfire (lightning/human caused) due to the accumulation of dead and down vegetation within the project area. There will be less chance of wildfire with alternative 2 and 3 due to the removal of fueis. There will be a slight risk of an escaped fire from the prescribed burn. There will be a slightly higher risk from alternative 3 of an escaped fire. The risk with Alternative 3 will be due to less time spent near the piles after they are burned. III - 4 CHAPTER IV ENVIROCVMENTAL CONSEQIJENCES CHAPTER IV ENVIR4NMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION This Chapter discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing the three alternatives described in detail in Chapter II. It forms the scientific and anaiytic basis for comparing the probable , environmental impacts of the actions associated with the three alternatives, on the affected resources. This Chapter is organized by resource, followed by a discussion of the probable effects of each alternative considered. The resources are presented in the same order as they were discussed in Chapter 3. DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Effects on Mass Movement (Debris Flows) Effecis of Alternative 1(No Action)- With no management activities planned, no debris/Flows/Wetlands would be impacted. Natural processes wouid continue and during periods of high runoff occasional debris flows and erosion would occur. Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- This aiternative is designed to avoid any known wetland/flow areas. Unit 1 would be burned in the fail, Units 2 and 3 would be burned in the spring, units 4 and 5 would not be broadcast burned and unit 6 would be burned the next year. No vegetation would be burned within 100 feet of any identified debris ffow area(s). Units 4 and 5 were removed from the broadcast burn due to the chance that vegetation removed by fire would increase the risk of mass movement on the slope. There would be slight increase of risk to mass movement with this alternative below units 1,2;3, and 6. No residences are located below these units. Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- This alternative covers almost the same area as Alternative 2, except that units 1, 2, 3; and 6 wouid be manually cut with chainsaws. The siash would be piled and burned over a two to five year period. Units 4 and 5 would have a corridor cut approximately 125 yds x 400 yds through them from east to west. The risk of mass movement would be slightly less than alternative 2 because the treatment would be phased over a 2-5 year period. Cumu(ative Effects- There wouid be no cumulative effects associated with any of the action alternatives. _ The soil map unit descriptions do not indicate that irreversible damage would occur within the project boundary under any action alternative. The soii map unit descriptions and field verification far the project area determined the soil limitations for reforestation to be slight to moderate. There are severe debris/flow zones within the project area, however these would be avoided in alternatives 2 and 3. There are few defined channeis within the proposed units. There are numerous seeps and springs with characteristics typical of limestone and shale formations. Surface flows are originated by snowmelt runoff. Initiation of mass movernent events within the project area will be lated to soil moisture conditions going into the period of snowfali and timing/duration of snowmelt runoff. he issue is actually tied to potentiai changes in surface hydrology, sub-surface shallow groundwater IV-1 transport and deep ground water inputs as a result of top killing the vegetation. These changes will be short lived. Conditions could be favorable for mass movement as a function of residual fall moisture with rapid melting of an above average snowpack. The burning window (when climatic conditions and vegetation are right for burning) is such that there would not be contributing surface snowmelt to the areas burned. Vegetation should be re-estab{ished prios to the next years runoSf, post burn. The greater than average snowpack over the past few years may result in increased risk of mass activity movement, independent of prescribed burning. The Burn Plan for Booth Creek has taken into consideration previous years snow-packs, residual moisture in the fali before the burn. The burning window should be such that in a year with high antecedent moisture and a high duration snowpack, the prescribed burn would not be implemented. A go/no go criteria has been develoned for the burn p_lan along with the standard live/dead fiuel moisture, climatic conditions and the smoke parameters. The Forest Hydrologist will review the site conditions and participate in the go/no go discussions. Effects on Vegetation, Bighorn Sheep Habitat Effects of Alternative 1(No Action)- None of the proposed vsgetation management activities would occur in the project area. As a result, biological diversity would decrease due to loss of vegetative species. Animal numbers would not increase. The aspen would continue to age, disease and insect infestations would increase and the stands would die. Dead and down timber would litter the floor making entry by big game animals more difficult. The aspen and shrub community would not regenerate. The shrub component (criticai for wintering species) would continue to mature, die and be repiaced by grasses and forbs. This type of vegetation is covered by snow during the winter and is unreachabie by browsing species. The area would lose valuable habitat and the number(s) of species that live in it. Effects of A{ternative 2(Proposed Action)- Unit 1 would be burned in the fall. Units 2 and 3 would be burned in the spring. Unit 4 and 5 would not be broadcast burned and unit 6 would be burned the preceding year. Broadcast burning would maintain and increase the plant and animal species in the area through removai of dead/down aspen and by regenerating the shrub community. Some aspen stands and shrub areas would be regenerated. Critical habitat for elk and deer would be improved by creating younger more vigorous piants. This would increase the quality and quantity of forage. Bighorn sheep winter ranye would be improved and a movement corridor would be established enabling them to move into new winter habitat with necessary escape cover nearby. Neotropical bird and small mammal habitat would be improved through the removal of oid grasses and would stimulate grass/forb production. Upon implementation of this atternative, prescribed fire would be used to maintain 40% of the aspen/shrub community within the project area. Grass/forbs and some aspen seedJings would be avaifable within several months of treatment and new sapling size stands would be established within the next two to five years. Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- This alternative will mechanically treat the same number of acres and all the units, though without fire (broadcast burn). Units 4 and 5 would have a corridor cut through the middle of them (east to west). All of the slash would be piled and burned. This work would be very intensive and take from two to five years to accomplish. The work would be accompiished by Forest Service personnel, contractors, volunteers or a combination of the three. The vegetative response (regeneration) would take longer to accomplish. Timing IV-2 to regenerate aspen would take several more years beca ise the cutting has to be done when the plants are dormant (fall through early spring). Cumulative Effects- The no-action alternative would cause a decrease in vegetative diversity within the Vail Vailey. There would be less aspen stands, less bighorn sheep and less numbers of species requiring early stages of aspen and shrubs to live in. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase vegetative and wildlife species within the area. Efifects on Economic Anafysis/Cost-Time of the Project Effects of Alternative 1(No Action)- The economic analysis is used to compare the alternatives by cost of treatment per acre. Under this alternative, no (proposed project) would occur. This is a four season resort and second home based economy. No action would have an insignificant effeet on the economics of the valley. There would be less wildiife, viewing opportunities, but considering other sites within the area, this would be a minor or no change. Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- This alternative would be implemented during a five day period including preparation for the burn. The cost would be approximately $105 per acre for 400 acres. This cost inciudes in-kind services, volunteer and equipment donations from the Bureau of Land Management, local fire departments and the Town of Vail. Totaf cost wili be approximateiy $42,000 for planning, NEPA, suppfies, equipment and personnel. The proposed action will also be implemented within a very short time frame, enabling the wiidlife species to react favorably to the habitat improvement. Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- The same acreage and units would be treated as alternative 2 but mechanically (chainsaws). Units 1,2,3 and 6 would be compietely treated. Units 4 and 5 would have a corridor cut through the m,iddle of them. The implementation time is crew size dependent. Personnel can cut between 1/2 to 3/4 of an acre per day. It wili take approximatety 200 person days to implement the project at a cost of $400 per acre. The cost is approximately $80,000-105,000 to cut, pile and subsequently burn the piles. Volunteers, contractors and Forest Service personnel would be used to treat the area. 7he time frame for this alternative is crew size dependent. It would take five to seven years for a ten person crew or one to two years for a forty person crew to accomplish the work. It would take much longer (5-10 years) to open up the new habitat for the sheep and to improve the shrub and aspen community. Bighorn sheep would have to wait for approximately four years to move into the °new" habitat. Practically speaking from a funding standpoint, the project would not get done without major contributions from the Foundation for North American Sheep, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and private donations of time and money. The phasing of this alternative and the length of time it would take to complete would be a logistic challenge. Cumulative Effects- Aiternative 1 would have no cumulative effects associated with it. There would be no management activities. Alternative 2 and 3 would in combination with other forest activities such as recreation have a slight cumulative effect on econ ' mics within the Vaii Valley. It is not probable that habitat improvement with IV-3 prescribed fire or mechanical treatment will make much of an economic impact within the Valley based on development and other resources within the area. Effects on Visuais Effects of Alternative 1(No Action)- There would_ be no change to the visuals of the Vaii Valley from this alternative. ' Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- Units 2, 3, and 4 would be burned during a three day period during the spring. Unit 1 would be burned in the fall. Unit 6 would be burned the next year in the spring. The broadcast burn will blacken the area in a mosiac pattern. There would be areas of black and green spread throughout the units. There would be charred pieces of dead and down aspen that were not fully consumed throughout the aspen stands. Cool season grasses and forbs would sprout as soon as the weather warmed. The burned units would be covered in annuals, perennials and forbs by mid summer. During the summer, warm season plants would grow and fili in the bare spots. By fa{I, the entire area would be a different colored green as regeneration starts taking place. Within two years, little evidence of the prescribed would be visible. Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- The green up from warm and cool season grasses, forbs and shrubs wouid occur in the same manner as alternative 2, except that it would take place after the units were cut (3-7 years). The piles however would be burned over the summer and fall during the next 4-7 years. There would be temporary black spots from the piles being burned. These spots would aiso be covered by grasses, forbs over time. There would be a green strip in the middle of units 4 and 5 from the corridor being cut through the middle of them. It would take more years for this area to be covered with vegetation due to the phasing of the treatment. Cumulative Effects- There wouid be no long term effects from either of the action alternatives. Alternative 3 however would take longer to complete and longer for the area to regenerate and subsequently be covered by native vegetation. Effects of Safety/Protection of Homes Effiects of Alternative 1(No Action)- There would be no vegetative treatment, fuel loading on the hillsides above private property would not be reduced or removed. This area of National Forest would remain at risk to wildfires as the accumulation of fuels (vegetation) would increase. There would be continued risk from human caused and lighting caused igni- tions. Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- This alternative would reduce the fuel loadings (vegetation) within the units. There would be a slight decrease in the risk of wildfire on the Vail Valley. The risk to structures as a result of this alternative would increase slightly, but wouid b' addressed through mitigatian measures listed in this EA. iv-4 Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment) This alternative would also reduce the amount of fuel available to wildfire. The risk of this alternative is less than alternative 2 due to the time it wouid take to reduce the vegetation by mechanical means. Cumulative Effects- The risk of wildfire would be reduced for a short time (5-10 years) by the action aiternatives. The risk would increase over time as more of the vegetation ages, falls over and accumulates in the untreated areas of the . valley. , Effects on Air Quality/Smoke Management Effects of Alternative 1(No Action)- Under this alternative, no (proposed project) would occur. There would not be any impact from smoke within the Vail Valiey and/or outside. Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- This alternative would cause a moderate amount of smoke to be lofted into the air. There wouid be 17.6 tons of emissions for the day that units 2 and 3 are burned. The Kosh visual range on I-70 would be 1.4 miles with an average wind speed and Good Smoke Dispersal. The visual range within the Eagles Nest Wilderness would be .9 miles. The Zone Fire Manaaement Officer wili obtain a smoke permit from the State of Colorado with a specific set of implementation parameters. The units wili be burned eariy in the day to achieve good fuel consumption. implementation will occur on days of atmospheric instability to achieve good to excellent smoke dispersal out of the vailey and over the wilderness. The units will be burned in the spring, where there is a greater likelihood of achieving smo{<e dispersal standards. The units will be burned in two days. There will be safety personnel assigned to area roads and highways in case of wind changes and to monitor highway smoke. Specific parameters can be found within the Booth Creek Burn Plan, located at the Holy Cross District Office. Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- More acreage and units would be treated in alternative 3. The slash trom cutting the vegetation will be hand piled (8x8x8 ft) and subsequently burned. There will be a maximum of 500 cubic foot of piles burned per day (30 piles). There will be 1.1 tons of emissions per day for 12 days. The Kosh Visual range on I-70 is 1.8 miles with an average wind speed and good smoke dispersal. The Kosh visibility range in the Eagles Nest Wiiderness is 21.4 miles. The zone FMO will obtain a State of Colorado Smoke Permit. There will be more days of pile burning, over a number of months, for several years (crew size dependent). The more piles that are burned over a longer period of time increases the risk of unprepared weather changes and an increased chance of smoke lingering in the Vail Valiey, Interstate-70 and the Eagle's Nest Wilderness. Cumulative Effects- Alternative 1 wouid not attribute any smoke within the area. Alternative 2 and 3, in combination with other smoke (Vail Associates and private residences ) could increase the amount of smoke emitted into the Vail Valley. Alternative 2 would have a short term effect, being over within a three day period. Alternative 3 could have long term (a few days over several years) impacts to the area IV - 5 due to smoke dispersal and non predicted weather paTterns. Air quality levels are worst (high PM10) in February-April in the Vail Valley. The project would not contribute to any smoke during this time period. Efifects on Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive Species Effects of Alternative 1(No Action)- With no management activities planned, there would be no impact to any Federally Listed or Sensitive , Species. Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- Potential impacts to Sensitive Species from the action alternatives are in the Biological Evaluation package located in the Project File, Holy Cross Ranger District. The findings in the BE document associated with Alternative 2 would have "No fmpact" on the following species and/or their habitats, Those are: Harrington's beardtongue Lynx Clustered lady slipper Wolverine Colorado false neediegrass Spotted bat Altai cotton-grass Townsend's big-eared bat Smooth rockcress Fringed-tailed myotis Hapeman's coolwort Ringtail Molydenum milk-vetch American marten Sea pink Merlin Globe gilia Flammulated owl Debeque scorpion-weed Common loon Wooly fieabane Osprey Tiger Salamander Northern goshawk Western boreal toad Ferruginous hawk Northern leopard frog Pygmy nuthatch Boreal owl Loggerhead shrike Black tern White-faced ibis Black swift Grsater sandhill crane Lewis' woodpecker Fox sparrow Three-toed woodpecker Purple Martin Olive-sided flycatcher Golden-crowned kinglet Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanicai Treatment)- This aiternative would have the same impact on Sensitive Species as Alternative 2. The Biological Assessment for Federally Listed species is located in the Project File at the Holy Cross District Office. There will be "No Impact" from either of the action aiternatives. The species listed in the area are: Peregrine falcon Humpback chub Bald eagle 8oneytail chub Whooping crane Razorback sucker Penland alpine fen mustard Colorado squawfish Southwest willow fiycatcher IV-6 Cumulative Effects- There would be no cumulative effects associated with any of the action alternatives. Effects on Heritage Resources Effects of Aitemative 1(No Action)- Under this alternative, no (proposed project) would occur. This alternative would have no effect on significant cultural resources. Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- This aiternative is designed to avoid any known heritage or potential (Springs) resource sites. Any sites discovered during implementation would be protected (by avoidance). The risk of sites within the project area being impacted is rated as low. There wili not be any ground disturbance from this prescribed burn. Effects ot Aiternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- This alternative would be designed to avoid any known heritage resource sites. Any sites discovered during implementation would be protected (avoided). The risk of sites within the project area being impacted is low. Cumulative Effects- Alternative 1 wauld continue cumulative effects (if any) in the analysis area at the current rate. Alternative 2 and 3 wouid, in combination with otherforest activities such as recreation, may have a cumulative effect on culturai resources in the form of increased soil erosion. increased visitor traffic and alteration of the historic landscape. Cumulative impacts of these types are difficult to quantify, but may be avoided or minimized through the implementation oi appropriate, site specific treatments when deemed necessary through the consuitation process with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Councii on Historic Preservation. Effects on Recreation/Wilderness Effects of Alternative 1(No Action)- Under this aiternative, no (proposed project) would occur. Dispersed recreation would continue in the form of hiking, hunting and snowshoeing. Effects ot Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- There wiil be some temporary displacement of the recreationai public in the project area during the implemen- tation phase of the burn for public safety, though the area is not heavily usecl. There could be some haze from smoke in the late afternoon that could be bothersome for hikers in the area and in the Wilderness. The Kosh visibility range will be.9 miles with an average wind speed and good smoke dispersai. Post burn, there will no direct or indirect affects. IV-7 Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- There will be some temporary noise and haze associated with the chainsaw work and pile burning. Some areas will be slash littered and hard to travel through. The Kosh visibility range in the wilderness will be 21.4 miles with an average wind speed and good smoke dispersal. Cumulative Effects- Atternative 1, will eventually cause a decrease in Bighorn Sheep herd size. There will be less opportunity to , view or harvest a sheep in the future. Alternative 2 and 3 would cause an increase in recreation opportunities in the long term with more animals to observe and hunt. Effects an Risk ofi Escape Fire and Wildfire Effects of Alternative 1. (No Action)- Under this alternative, there would be no risk of an escaped fire due to the project. There is a slight risk of uncontrolied wiidfire from human and natural cause ignitions. Effects of Alternative 2(Proposed Action)- There wiil be less risk short term (5-7 years) of an uncontrolled wiidfire. Fuei loadings will be reduced, There will be a short term risk of an escape fire from the prescribed burn. Mitigations (weather window, fire prescriptions, equipment and personnel) wiil be implemented to reduce this risk. Effects of Alternative 3(Mechanical Treatment)- There will be a risk of uncontrolled wildfire from natural and human causes due to the smai{ number of acres being treated per year. The implementation is crew size dependent. The risk of an escape fire wili be higher than alternative 2 due to less personnel firing the piles, length of the project and higher number of days that will be required #o burn the piles. Cumulative Effects- There are not any cumulative effects associated with wiidfire or escaped fire. OTHER MANDATORY DISCLOSURES This Section is a disclosure of impacts that are required by law or executive order. Compliance with the National Forest Managemen# Act The proposed project (Alternative 2 and 3) complies with the National Forest Management Act. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources- There are no irretrievable or irreversible commit- ment of resources associated with any of the alternatives. IV - 8 Effects on Prime Farm Lands, Range and Farest Lands- Due to the high elevation and short growing season, there are no prime farm lands located within the project area. Impacts to range and forest lands discussed in Chapter 4. Effects on Minority Groups, Women, Consumers, Civil Rights- Alternative 2 and 3 will have no affect. Compliance with the Clean Water Act- All aiternatives are in compliance with the Clean Water Act. There wili be minimal effects. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act- All alternatives are in compiiance with the Endangered Species Act. The effects to TES are discussed in Chapter 4. Compliance with the Nationai Historic Preservation Act- All alternatives are in compliance with the National Preservation Act. The effects on Heritage Resources are discussed in Chapter 4. B. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 1. Past Actions Human or natural activities which have had an effect in the area over the past have included, increased recreational use of the area, Town oi Vail development adjacent to Forest Service lands, and two smail wildfires in the Valley during the 1990's. The analysis area is defined as the Eagle's Nest Wilderness boundary, Red and White Mountain on the north, Interstate 70 on the south; East Gore Creek to the east and Dowd Junction to the west. There has been two major mudslides and numerous rock slides in or near the project area during the past twenty years. Major changes in vegetation successional stages and fragmenta- tion have not occurred. 2. Concurrent Actions Developmental activities are taking place at the present time which may compound the effects of the alternatives. Business and residential building is occurring on adjacent private lands at the present time. These activities wili probably occur for the next haif century. These actions inciude a hiking trail being constructed from Spraddle Creek to West Vail. This trail is outside the project area but within the analysis area. 3. Anticipated Actions "Anticipated Actions" are future developmental projects or actions which are reasonably foreseeable and are likely to add to the environmentai impacts which would result from the aiternatives. In order to avoid speculation about both kinds of developments which might take place in the future and their potentiai environmentai impacts, an effort was made to ensure that the future actions included in this analysis are probable. The current Five-Year Prescribed fire Action Plan was used as a guide. Based on the current plan, the probable environmental effects ofthe anticipated projects are roughly estimated and some determination made of whether or not these effects will add, in the future, to the effects likely to be created by these alternatives. Then, the environmental significance of these additions is determined. Based on current knowledge, there are no foreseeable future burns planned within the project area or other lands in the vicinity. There is building anticipated on some private lands adjacent to the project area. IV-9 CHAPTER V LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGAfVIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSUL'TED CHAPTER V LlST OF AGENCiES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTFD The following agencies, organizations, and persons were consuited and/or notified of tne proposed project. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Tom Johnston - IDT Leader • David Van Norman - Silvicuiture Wayne Nelson - Range Bill Kight - Heritage Resources Bill Woad - District Ranger Alice Gustafson - Heritage Resources Phii Bowden - Fire and Fuels Beth Boyst- Wilderness Greg Kuyumjian- Hydrotogy Tony Svatos- Soils Kathy Hardy- Recreation Colorado Division of Wildlife Biil Andree Bill Heicher Larry Green Gene Byrne CDOW State Office Groups/O rganizations Bureau Of Land Management, Grand Junction Colorado Heritage Program Colorado Environmental Coalition Colorado Mountain Club CU Wilderness Study Group Colorado High Guide Service Colorado Wildlife Federation Don Clark Eagie County Board of Commissioners Eagie County Environmental Coalition Eagle County - Board of Commissioners and Board of Health Elk Mountain Outfitters V-1 Interested Publics L & L Outfitters Louisiana Pacific Gorporation Meet the Wilderness Dan McNulty, Ancient Forest Rescue National Wildiife Federation - Nova Guides Paragon Guides The Sierra Club - Mt. Sopris Group The Sierra Club - Blue River Chapter The Sierra Club - Rocky Mountain Chapter Triple G Outfitters Trout Uniimited U.S.D.I., Bureau of Land Management United States Environmental Protection Agency Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Southern Ute Tribe (Alden Naranjo) Northern Ute Tribe (Betsy Chapoose) Vail Tornorrow Built and Natural Environment Group Vail, Town of Vail Fire Department Vaii Rec District Individuals: Steve Dahmer Allen Best Ken Nuebecker John Sheehan Tom Bachus Randy Campbell Elroy Sandoval Eve Nott Dean Canada Gena Whitten Sue Rychel Dari Blodgett Don Clark George Gates Gary Uliman Hassig, Brad Dennis and Sheila Linn Breck Johnson Cheryl Anne Rondeau Linda and Fred Kuerston V - 2 Jean Naumann Harold Williamson Steve Maore Eric Porttorff Mike McGuire Steve Moore V - 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX ,4 ISSUES CONS4DERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAiLED ANALYSIS APPENDIX A ISSUES CQNSlDERED BUT EL111niiVATED FROM DETAILED AN,4LYSIS INTRODUCTION The primary function of Appendix A is to present Forest Service's responses to comments received during the review period for the Environmental Assessment PUBLIC COMMENTORS Comments were received from the following individuals, agencies, and organizations. Eve Nott Dean Canada Gena Whitten - Sue Rychei Dari Blodgett Rocky Smith, Colorado Environmental Coatition Vail Tomorrow Built and Natural Environment Group Eag1e County Department of Health, County Commissioner--Eagle County Bill Andree, Colorado Division of Wildlife The Vail Trail Newspaper Dennis and Sheila Linn Cheryl Anne Rondeau Richard Conn PUBLIC COMMENTS RECE(VED The following comments were received during the initial scoping period. Each comment or question listed below is designated by Comment/Question and Answer. In some instances the comment or question had several parts. In such cases each part is addressed separately. Many of the responses to comments refer the reader to Chapters or Appendices of the Environmental Assessment. Comment/Question Name/Agency, Address Q. Concern/Question/Issue A. Expianation/Mitigation 1. E. NOTT; Vail, Colorado 1. Q. East portion of the planned burn is a high hazard zone/debris fiow zone. Destruction, burning of forest ground cover is not good. A - 1 1. A. As a result of scoping, Alternatives 2 and 3 have been designed to minimize the risk to structures. The debris and erosion flow zones areas are not going to be burned. The exposure to mineral soii will be less than 10% and only in those area proposed for the burn. 2. Q. The fire is dangerously close to buildings. Two residences have sod roofs. Will the Forest Service pay for damages? 2. A. As a resuit of scoping, Alternatives 2 and 3 have been designed to minimize the risk to structures. The proposed burn is from 1/8 to 1/4 mile from any residences and is uphill from almost all the , structiares. There will be structural engines near residences to extinguish any spark, flasnes etc. that come c{ose to any homes. The Forest Service will pay for damages to private property if Forest Service actions are the proven cause. 3. Q. The aspen are cycling and appear healthy. In regards to succession, aspen seems to be the final forest on these south slopes. 3. A. The aspen that are proposed for treatment are old, unhealthy and declining in vigor. Aspen in most cases on the White River National Forest are an early successional species that is pre-conifer. Aspen within the the project area are ciimax (Slope, efevation, aspect, precipitation dependent). 4. Q. The Bighorn do not appear stressed but heaithy. They are thriving without prescribed burning. 4. A. There is additional habitat to the west of where the majority of the sheep are now wintering. One of the objectives is to create corridors so the sheep can go to these areas. The Bighorn Sheep population will probably increase during the future and winter habitat is one of the critical limiting factors. If the habitat is not improved, the sheep population might crash/decline from disease, preda- tion and starvation (CDOW comments). S. Q. The risks appear to outweigh the need for a prescribed burn. a) Alternatives like, fertiliZation, cutting down diseased trees and seeding of native species should be explored. b) postpone the proposed burns so that alternatives can be thoroughly explored and extensive studies can be accom- plished concerning burn impacts on hazardous area soils, erosion potential and hiliside instability. 5. A. There are risks associated with any prescribed fire. As a result of scoping, Alternatives 2 and 3 have been designed to minimize the risk to structures.This particular proposai has minimal hazards and risks. Alternatives, like the ones proposed wouid cost between $250-$400 per acre, where the burn will cost approximately $100 an acre. The suggested Alternatives would aiso not meet all of the objectives that are in the Burn Plan (ie. Regenerate shrub species, reduce fuel loadings near struc- tures, create corridors for sheep movements...for 1998). Note that in the time that's transpired since last year, we've undertaken more study on soiis/slope stability. 2. DEAN CANADA; Vail Colorado 1. Q. What gives anyone the right to start a fire, especially when many people directiy affected by the prescribed burning are diabolically opposed to it? 1. A. The Forest Service Manages the land for multipie use. Prescribed fire is one of the tools used for habitat enhancement. There were over 250 scoping information brochures and letters sent out and there has been three radio programs and four newspaper articies written on the proposal in the Eagle and Vail valley areas. The Forest Service is required to consider public input. We will have ne that through this EA process. The number opposed/in favor is not especially relevant to the a lysis or decision. We've attempted to address ali issues raised and specrfically have refined our oposed A - 2 action as a r sult of scoping to minimize risk to area residents. Specific agency level direction can be found in the .S. Civil Codes (16 USC) and Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR). 2. Q. But the fire will kill snowshoe rabbits, marmots, squirrels, birds, chipmunks and all of their young born this spring. What makes a Bighorn Sheep any more important than a smailer animal struggling to survive.? 2. A. The prescribed burn is proposed prior to any young being born (other than owis). Most of the big game (elk, deer, elk) will foilow the snowfine into their birthing areas.... They do not normally have ' their young on their winter ranges. The prescribed burn will help Neo-tropical birds, small animals, and big game animals. Most of the animals will seek sh_elter in/under the ground during the burn or move around the fire. The area will not all be blackened, but rather be burned in a mosiac pattern with lots of ugreen" unburned patches in the units. A few small mammals might be killed that could get confused and caught in the fire. 3. Q. Also, the fire would kill or harm our state tree and our state bird. 3. A. The State Tree is the Biue Spruce and the State bird is the Lark Bunting.... neither of these species are found in the area: 4. Q. Main concerns are: 1. The stability of soiis after a fire such as the proposed one, the enhancement of greater and more frequent mud slides, rock fali, snow siides and debris slides. 2. The threat to the homes in this area if the wind cnanges while a large fire such such as this burns. 3. The poliution of our area for days which will harm humans and animals (wild and domestic). 4. A. The designated debris/erosion areas are not going to be burned (see response to Question 1.). The homes should not be at risk due to the mitigation of personnel and engines that will be in the area. The air quality will not be affected in the Vail Vailey since the burn will be impiemented on an day of instability, the burn will be completed before 4:00 PM and in one day. The air in the valley will clear (if it becomes hazy) within the next 24 hour period. Ali of these Questions are discussed in Chapter 5. 5. Q. FS personnel work for the people, and by the peopie...Why are you not listening? S. A. The Forest Service is listening, to everyone. We have made an attempt to notify ail the publics in the area by newspaper/radio releases and scoping letters/brochures to get input to this proposal. We truly appreciate the interest and letter/cails that we have received. We have also received a number of supporting letters and comments. This EA attempts to address the issues and concerns raised. Alternatives 2 and 3 were specificaily designed as a result of public input for scoping. 6. Q. Please put the money in the background; please give importance to smalf animals as well as to large animals. 6. A. The Forest can put the money in other areas and resources, however we do have an obligation to spend taxpayerfunds wisely. This area has been identified by State and Forest Biologists as an area that needs treatment for a variety of reasons that are detailed in the Environmentaf Assessment. The Forest manages habitat for a w+de range of species and all are considered important. 7. Q. Please have another meeting and INFORM people. Have Art Miers orthe Corps of Engineers there too. 7. A. We have provided severai field trip opportunities to explain the proposal in detail and to answer questions. The Burn Plan, an article and additional information will be released in the local newspapers A - 3 and on radio. The sfope stability issues have been addressed by FS Specialists in this EA. Future public meetings, rf any, will be based on public input on this draft EA. 8. Q. I am on oxygen. Is this going to bother me? 8. A. The burn is proposed on a day that tias good to excel{ent smoke dispersal. Most of the smoke will go up and out of the vailey. Haziness or minimal smake in the Vail Valley should not bother a person who is on oxygen and isn't near the burn area in the smoke column. 3. GENA WHITTEN; Vail, Colorado 1. Q. The input is only until March 1, 1997. 1. A. The scoping tirneline was extended until March 14, 1997. 2. Q. The original map for the proposed burn includes TOV property. Does the Forest Service have to get permission to burn Town of Vail property. 2. A. The Forest Service will have to get TOV approval to burn city property. TOV lands will be in the Burn Plan but will probably not be burned the first year, 3. Q. Surely, the burning of vegetation above the designated slide areas will make these areas more prone to slides? 3. A. This is an important issue in deciding whether or not to burn. A Forest Service Hydrologist has evaluated the proposal and site. Mitigation, inciuding avoidance has been considered in the Draft EA. 4. Q. The Forest Service says we may have to leave our homes for several days due to smoke. 4. A. The burn is proposed for one-two days. Conditions under which we will burn must be in compiiance with the Clean Air Act. These conditions will provide for good to excellent smoke dispersal. The smoke will not cause residents to have to leave their homes. S. Q. Smoke. 1-70 will have to be closed. What will happen to our homes and belongings being enveloped in that much smoke? How long will we live with lingering odors? 5. A. I-70 will not be ciosed, the traffic however will have to be managed to keep folks from stopping to look and from speeding through the Valley if haziness develops. Homes are down slope and should not be in the smoke. See 4 A. Above. Smoke odors in the area will subside afterthe first rainfail/snowfall. 6. Q. Do we want a de-nuded and blackened hillside stretching for 2-3 miles? Do we want our alpine environment turned into a high mountain desert for the next severai years? 6. A. The area will not be denuded, but rather be burned in a mosiac pattern...with numerous green unburned areas within the burn units. The burn objectives include getting a quick and vigorous regrowth of vegetation. Cool season grasses will green up the area within 30-45 days and the summer grass/forbs will increase the greenery by mid to late summer. The area will green up earlier and be noticeably greener than the adjacent area for the next 3-5 years. The area will not be a high desert due to the amount of precipitation the area gets annually, the vegetation type and elevation of the area. No a{pine areas will be burned. 7. Q. Why do we want to interfere with the natural progression from Aspen Forest to Conifer Forest? Why focus on this parcel So ciose to our homes and so visible from Vail Mountain? A - 4 7. A. The area has specific goals and objectives for the wildlife and ve etative resources of the area. The main focus is on Bighorn Sheep habitat enhancement...and this is here they are located during the winter. A second objective is to regenerate some aspen stands that are declining because of disease and over maturity. The area was/is selected because of the existing sheep population located there in the winter and the potential habitat west of where they are now... 8. Q. The Bighorn Sheep are a concern. Are there not alternative methods? 8. A. The best tool that we have based on timeliness, cost, safety and specific objectives for the area • is prescribed fire, however Alternative 1(No Action) and Alternative 3 are alternatives to broadcast burning. 9. Q. As I look out my windows. It appears that most of the aspens on the hiliside are young aspens. This hiliside has been denuded by slides not to long ago. The aspens are just returning. Why burn? 9. A. The area is proposed for burning to: 1. Create a corridor for Bighorn Sheep, so they many travel to habitat in the west. 2. To regenerate the shrub component on the hiliside. 3. To regenerate over-mature, diseased aspen stands. 4. To reduce naturai fuels, to decrease the chance of a wildfire... 4. SUE RYCHEL; Vaii, Colorado Same letter as Dean Canada 5. DARI BLODGETT; Vail, Colorado 1. Q. Why is the replacement of aspens by conifers a bad thing? 1. A. Aspen will be replaced by shrubs and grass/forbs. People tend to view aspen as visuafly appealing. it's important to regenerate because of that. Aspen in the Vail Valfey are used by many cavity nesting species, wintering eik and for rearing areas for many species of wildlife. They provide for vegetative diversity and are an intergal component of the beauty in the Vail Valley, especially in the spring and fall. There +s very little understory in con'rfer stands and a lush understory is preferred on that south facing slope that Big Game use as critical winter range. From an ecosystem standpoint, healthy ecosystems must be diverse both in sprouts and age classes. The aspen in the Valley are generally in an old and overmature condition due to 100 years of wildlfire suppression. Without regeneration of aspen by treatments such as prescribed fire, we are in danger of losing the aspen component and the wiidlife species dependent on it. 2. Q. Burning the vegetation on the hillside wifl most likely cause another slide (ie. 1984). 2. A. Debris, erosion slide(s) issue is covered in the Draft EA. 3. Q. The last day for input is March 1, 1997. This isn't enough time to comment. 3. A. The comment period was extended until March 14, 1996. 4. Q. I trust that the Bighorn sheep and the Elk will do just fine without our medd{ing. Can't we just live and let live? 4. A. We (humans) have meddled, by building and pushing wiidlife species onto smaii winter ranges, and by suppressing wildfires. One of the most limiting factors in the area is winter range.... We cannot create any more, but have to strive for improving the quality of what is left. Reintroducing fire into the landscape is one means of doing this. A - 5 6. COLO ADO ENVlRONMENTAL COALITION, Rocky Smith; Denver, CO We are in favor of prescribed burning as a means of reducing fuel loadings. We do have the foilowing questions. 1. Q. Why is the BLM Cooperating in this burn? 1. A. The BLM and Forest Service share projects. Forest Service personnei work on BLM prescribed burns at no cost to them and they do likewise... . 2. Q. Why is the Division of Wildlife not involved? Or are they? 2. A. Division of Wiidlife personnel were the ones that originally brought the proposal forward to the Forest Service. They are participating in the scoping and pubiic relations portions of the burn. They also assisted in obtaining the funds that were requested to do the burn. 3. Q. Where would the pregnant sheep and elk go when this area is burned? Is it possible that these animals are already stressed and burning the area would only exacebate their stress? 3. A. Bighorn Sheep are normally not in the area during that time of year, they have foilowed the receding snowline and are moving into birthing areas. The elk also foliow the snow. Even if they are in the area, the entire area will not be blackened and they will be able to move out of harms way. Large portions of the area are no longer planned to be burned as a result of scoping. 4. Q. The balance between sheep and elk needs needs to be discussed prior to the burn (Cover and forage). 4. A. Bighorn sheep are primarily grazers (eating grass and forbs) and use rock outcrops as escape cover. Sheep prefer open meadows with rock ledges. Elk browse on serviceberry and shrubs, eating little grass during the winter. Eik also like and use timber stands for thermai and hiding cover. 5. Q. We would like to know how the Forest Service and cooperating agencies are going to control the fire? Are you going to create/buiid fire breaks? Given that this burn is proposed for the spring, is it possible that it will be too wet to burn? S. A. There wiil be minimal fireline building. Personnel will use portable bladder bags (5 galion water bag, carried on the back that has a mechanical hand spray pump attached) to create a wetline that the fire will not cross. If it should, they will be there with hand tools to snuff the flames out. There will also be structurai engines strategicaily placed near homes to aid personnel in putting out unwanted flames as a contingency, though we don't anticipate fire getting within 1/8-1/4 mile from homes. We wili plan the burn both for optimum resuits and to minimize the chance of the fire escaping. We cannot burn if the area is too wet and the fine fuels won't burn. 6. Q. How is the prescribed burn likely to impact air quality in the Vail Val{ey? 6. A. Minimally, and for a 24 hour period. Note previous narratives in air in the body of the Enviroonmen- tal Assessment. A - 6 7. VAIL TOMORROW BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT GROUP Letter of support for the project. 8. EAGLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Letter of Support. They also had comments about risk to homes and the need for an Air Permit. 9. COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE ' Letter of Support 10. THE VAiL TRAIL Letter of Support. 11. DENNiS AND SHEILA LINN; Vail, Colorado 1. Q. We're going to adopt a baby, how will the smoke affect him/her? 1. A. The could be some residuai haze in the valley after the 6:00 PM or so inversion. The effects will be minimal unless you take the child into the burn area. 2. Q. Concerned about air quality, we have sensitive eyes? 2. A. We recommend that non-fire personnel stay away from the burn units and do not go down wind from them (within 1/4 mile+). Prescribed conditions wilf provide for good to exceilent smoke dispersal. Eye and respiratory 2. A. (Cont.) problems are not anticipated for people outside of the burn itself. 3. Q. Prefer to have natural processes take piace. 3. A. The Forest Service would like to put fire (a Natural Process) BACK into the environment where humans have been suppressing it for over a hundred years. By suppressing fire, we have created a very unnaturai situation. 4. Q. How are you going to manage the fire away from our homes? 4. A. As a result of scoping, Alternatives 2 and 3 have been designed to minimize risk to homes. In addition, structural engines, line personnel with bladder bags wili prevent unwanted flames from areas not targeted for burning. Ground personnel wili also create wetlines to keep flames from backing down the slopes into the residential areas. 5. Q. Need more time to comment. What are you going to use to ignite the fire? S. A. The comment period was extended from March 1 to March 14. We will continue to take comments until the burn plan is written and the decision is made concerning the burn (if new issues or concerns that have not been addressed are identified). The fire will be ignited by personnel using fusees and a mix of diesel/gasoline from drip torches (a 3 gallon can with an attached drip tube). A - 7 12. CHERYL AN E RONDEAU, Vail Colorado 1. Q. Shouid all the hillside be burned? What about the potential for mudslides and saving pockets of habitat? Those masses of downed timber in the area do have a function. 1. A. The hillside has been divided into three burn units and all of the area within them will not be entirely blackened (see answer to Question 1). The area will have green islands scattered throughout them. The areas that are identifiied as mudslide and debris flow zones will not be burned. All of the downed timber will not be consumed...only that area (corridor) running from east to west to allow Bighorn Sheep , the opportunity to cross over to escape rock cover. 2. Q. Middle and Spraddle creeks are °automatic" exit routes. What are the peopie going to do about the fleeing animals in their paths? A burn will also cause life threatening delays. 2. A. The Forest Service is not planning to burn into Middle and Spraddle Creeks. Animals do not run wildly away from fire and will not be hazardous to peopie or fire personnel that are in the same area. There will be a helicopter (on cali if needed) and personnel near the area with cell phones and radio communication. If there is a problem up a drainage during the burn...they will facilitate a"faster" response call than if tiiey were not there. In addition, preb.urn human aetivities will cause animais to move away from the activities. 3. Q. What change in wildlife behavior is going to be precipitated now? Smoke must be traumatic to any animal that smells it. 3. A. There will be temporary displacement during the day of the burn. Most animais will be seen immediately after the area coois down on the burned areas. Smoke isn't traumatic, animals smell it from pile burning, chimneys and vehicies all year long in the Vail Valiey. Smoke from wildfire is a very natural component of the ecosystem. 4. Q. Is such a burn sensible when these game animais may be driven away from areas where snow coverage disappears first, and driven into unusually deep snow fieids-where they may struggle to the point of death to gain distance from burn areas? Remember the Forest Service in its first communica- tion described using the lingering snow fields in their plan for extinguishing the fire! 4. A. Animals will move around the fire and will move into wet areas. They are not driven into heavy snow areas by fire, but mostly by people who get to close to them on their winter range. It is uniikely that from where personnei can burn to a snowfieid..tnat it goes from no snow to deep snow. A fire under pianned conditions would be less disruptive and chaotic to animals than a wildfire which would move rapidly from severe and erratic conditions. 5. Q. The pollution created-has the proper study been done? What will valley residents be subjected to now? You do realize that anyone with respiratory probiems may be forced to leave the valley for the duration of the event. 5. A. "fhe Forest Service will obtain an Air Permit from the State of Colorado before the burn and will be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. The Air Permit has numerous mitigations listed in case there is a wind change, etc. The haziness, if any in the Vail Vailey should only last 24 hours from the time the last burn unit is ignited. A - 8 13. RICHARD CONN, New York, New York Concerned about mud slides, not in favor of burn. A. These concerns have been addressed by adjustments made in the units by the Forest Hydrologist. A - 9 APPENDIX B ISSIJES C4NSIDERED BllT ELiMINATED FROM DETA,ILEQ ANALVSIS 1 APPENDIX B ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINAI"ED FFdOIVI DETAILED ANAL1fSIS INTRUDUCTION The primary purpose of Appendix B is to present Forest Service's responses to comments received during the review period for the Draft Environmental Assessment PUBLIC COMMENTORS Comments were received from the foliowing individuals, agencies, and organizations. Michael K. Arnett Eagle County, Keith Montag Richard A. Conn- Jeff and Molly Gorsuch PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The following comments were received during the Draft Environmental Assessment scoping period. Each comment or question listed below is designated by Comment/Question and Answer. In some instances the comment or question had several parts. In such cases each part is addressed separately. Many of the responses to comments refer the reader to Chapters or Appendices of the Environmental Assessment. Comment/Question Name/Agency, Address Q. Concern/Question/Issue A. Explanation/Mitigation 1. M.K. ARNETT, Vail, Colorado 1. Comment: I am in complete agreement with your final results and conciusions for the Booth Creek Burn. 2. EAGLE COUNTY, Keith Montag, Eagfe Colorado 1. Comment: It may be appropriate for the Forest Service to post closures during the burn. It is strongiy urged to seek media representation to explain the purpose and times of the burn. 1. A. There will be an area ciosure imposed during the time of the burn for public safety. The Forest Service will cooperate with the news media prior, during and post burn to notify the public of the burn. 2. Comment: The Forest Service should make an active effort to inform CDOT personnei (those that may be affected who manage the I-70 corridor). 2. A. The Colorado Department of Transportatio , State Highway Patrol, Eagle County Sheriffi and Vail Police Department wili be cooperators during d after the burn. A - 1 r 3. Comment: It may be appropriate to extend burn area to dead/dying stands of pine so as to reduce pine beetle outbreaks. 3. A. Afternative 2 and 3 have pine identified within Unit 1. The objectives of the proposal will not allow for the Forest Service to burn pine stands that are infected with pine beetie. lt is outside the scope of this Environmental Assessment. 4. Comment: it is recommended that the Forest Service contact all relevant agencies, including Eagle County, with specific dates and times of burns when the EA is finalized. . 4. A. The Burn Plan and the Environmental Assessment identifies Agencies, Cooperators, News Media and interested publics to notify prior, during anf post burn activities. 3. RICHARD A. CONN, New York, New York 1. Comment: We-have the same concerns as before..mainiy rock and mudslides being caused by the burn. 1. A. These concerns have been previously identified and answered within Appendix A. In addition, Alternative 2 and 3 have been modified as a resutt of public scoping. 2. Comment: How are are i-ieighbors going to be protected and who is going to indemify us in the event of a mudslide? 2. A. We have specifically modified our proposed action as a result of public scoping to minimize the risk to area residents. Specific Agency level Direction can be found in the U.S. Civil Code (16 USC) and Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR). The Forest Service wifl pay for damages to private property if Forest Service Actions are the proven cause. 3. Comment: What if there is a slide, a year after this project is completed ? Wiil the Forest Service or USDA going to indemrfy us or wiil it end up in a(egal action? Do we know the position of our insurance carriers so that our coverage would not be in jeopardy? 3. A. See the answer to Question 2 A. 4. Comment: We feel that all should be investigated and publically be disclosed to the Town and residents before this project begins. 4. A. Please refer to Chapter 1, page 4 and 5 which refers to the public invoivement for this project. 4. JEFF AND MOLLY GORSUC9i, Vail, Colorado 1. Comment: The terrain is precarious, unstable and presents serious potential hazards. 1. A. Piease refer to Chapter 4 in the Environmentai Assessment about the environmental consequenc- es. 2. Comment: Wouid the Government cover any property and serious injury loss to us? Would the USDA or Forest Service or our insurance indemify us? Or we likely end up in a legai action? Do you realize the position of our insurance companies so we can be sure that our coverage would not be in jeopardy. 2. A. Please refer to Question 2 above. A - 2 ORDINANCE NO. 8 SERIES OF 1998 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND, POLICE CONFISCATION FUND, PARKING STRUCTURE FUND, HOUSING FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, AND FACILITY MAINTENANCE FUND, OF THE 1998 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH . HEREIN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1998 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1997, adopting the 1998 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: 1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1998 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $1,785,560 Facility Maintenance Fund 26,000 Heavy Equipment Fund 167,737 Police Confiscation Fund 104,000 Parking Structure Fund 280,000 Housing Fund 4,041,692 Capital Projects Fund 1,361,388 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 239.009 $8,005,386 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extend only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of May, 1998, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 2nd day of June, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 2nd day of June, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk C+:brinance98.8 ~ ~ . TOWN OF VAIL SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED 1998 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS Revised FUND ADDITIONAL REVENUES DEPARTMENT 1998 Increased EXPLANATION EXPENDITURE OR PROJECT EXPENDITURES (Decreased) GENERAL FUND Town Officials & Administrative Services Council - Back Pay 5,000 As discussed with the TC Web Page & Internet Development 6,000 As discussed with the TC Town Council Chairs 2,573 As discussed with the TC Organizational Development 50,000 To fund pathways expenses Salary & Benefit - for Intern 1200 Funded from community information de t. savings Professional Develo ment - Court 533 Funded through departmental savings Eagle County Rec. Authority 4,800 Fees were in excess of budget approved by TC 70,106 Community Development Computer Equipment 25,100 Funded through departmental savings Environmental Projects 79,722 69,000 $69k funded-VRI & rant the balance is a roll forward Furniture 4,000 Funded through departmental savings Employee Recognition 3,000 Funded through departmental savings Lionshead Master Planning Process 110,000 Net of 40% reimbursement b VRI total cost $135,000 221,822 Public Works Employee Housing - Timberidge units 53,700 Funded by lease revenue Heavy Equipment Leases 34,500 Reduced equipment lease payments, purchased equip 19,200 Fire Fire Pagers and Radios 11,896 Funded by department savings 11,896 SUPP98.XLS Page 1 5/14198 r ~ . Continued General Fund Police Equipment Purchase 1,705 Equipment was sold for this amount CEO Salary & Benefit - Full-time Convert 99,000 As discussed with the TC Dispatching Equipment - Expansion 29,831 This & following line items will be funded out of Call Checks 6,000 expansion revenue Query Training and Conference 4,000 140,536 Non Departmental Transfer to Housing fund 20,000 Funded from 1997 Vail tomorrow budget savings Transfer to Housing fund 1,326,000 To advance funds for red sandstone & arosa units Contributions - Regional Trans (29,000) Reduction in contribution per ECRTA Contribution - VV Athlete Comm 5,000 As discussed with the TC 1,322,000 Subtotal - General Fund 1,785,560 69,000 POLICE CONFISCATION FUND Revenues Grant Revenue 104,000 Expenditures Additional Drug Enforcement 104,000 Subtotal - Police Confiscation Fun 104,000 104,000 SUPP98.XLS Page 2 5/14/98 PARKING STRUCTURE FUND Revenues Parking Revenue (400,000) Anticipated loss $400k Interest Income 50,000 Did not budget in 1998 Expenditures Transfer to CPF 220,000 Funded by a roll forward of unspent 1997 appropriation of $173,800, to fund the snow melt project Capital Mtce Projects 60,000 Funded by unanticipated revenue in 1997 Subtotal - Parking Structure Fund 280,000 (350,000) HOUSING FUND Revenue Reimb from UEVWSD 1,874,000 UEVWSD will fund 67% of the housing project Transfer From GF 1,346,000 The GF will fund 33% of the Sandstone & 100% Expenditures of Arosa project Common Ground Process 100,000 As discussed with TC Red Sandstone Project 3,200,000 We are budgeting for the total cost of the project Public Works Employee Housing 741,692 Roll forward of unspent 1997 appropriation Subtotal - Housing Fund 4,041,692 3,220,000 HEAVY EGIUIPMENT FUND Additional Heavy Equipment 167,737 Funded by reduced lease payments $34,500 &$6,000 Subtotal - Heavy Equipment Fund 167,737 trade in revenue and excess 1997 revenue CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND See Attached Detail 1,361,388 Roll forward of unspent 1997 appropriation except Subtotal - Capital Projects Fund 1,361,388 for $255,010 REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND (RETT) See Attached Detail 239,009 Roll forward of unspent 1997 appropriation Subtotal - RETT 239,009 SUPP98.XLS Page 3 5/14/98 FACILITY MAINTENANCE FUND Revenues Interest Income 20,000 Did not budget in 1998 Expenditures Facility Mtce Projects 26,000 To fund all 1997 facility maintenance projects Subtotal - Facility Maintenance Fu 26,000 20,000 Total All Funds 8,005,386 3,063,000 SUPP98.XLS Page 4 5/14/98 RESOLUTION NO. 7 SERIES OF 1998 A RESOLUTION RENAMING VAIL VALLEY DRIVE, NORTH OF I-70 TO ELKHORN DRIVE. WHEREAS, the property owner on Vail Valley Drive, North of I-70, Vail, Colorado, has requested by petition to change the name of the street to Elkhorn Drive; and WHEREAS, the agency/department approvals from the Town of Vail have been received; and WHEREAS, those agencies and departments outside of the Town of Vail have indicated their approval or have been notified as required for the change of the name; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation approval is pending the approval of this Resolution. WHEREAS, all requirements of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1985, providing the procedure for requesting a different address have been fulfilled. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Vail Valley Drive, North of I-70 (see Exhibit A), which is located at the Town of Vail Public Works Facility, is hereby changed to Elkhorn Drive. 2. The Community Development Department will assign the appropriate change to the current address map on file. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19 day of May, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk CARESOLU98.7 Resolution No. 7, Series of 1998 f:\everyone\ordtres7.98 ;EST SCAL E I"= 200' 20~ o' ioo' 26d 6- "EXHIBIT A' . UNPLATTED ~ SHOP ~1SES OFFICE ~ j . • • TOWN OF VAIL ELKHORN DRIV MAINT. SHOP AJT 8 9~C `Q< ~FY Oq~~ VAIL VILLAGE 8th. FILING TRACT A ~ O I LLEY I FI I 5 6 ~ e O 1 4 3 1337 1367 1397 1427 145 ~ 1055 3 1115 1 1183 O I 1307 VAIL ER 967 1031 104 4 (5 g 9 10 1163 4 1297 ~ VALLEY D TRACT I 2 3 ~ 04 • 125 ° • 1193 c 0 1001 1045 W 5 7 1153 P11 • 2 3 2 22 21 20 O 19 1e 1007 " V 1034 11 V 1287 1328 1358 1388 1418 1446 ~ 4 9 'O13~SILVER CI C4c ' 6 1022 II6 1157 ' 2 i137 14 TRECT ~P,E.w 5 7 g7 1 • 1195 1024.108 ~ III 2 VALLEY D5 1012 6 I~ 6 4 d` 1014 1 992 VAIL 1250 1278 O 4 3 PARCEL E 99 TRACT 0 ~2 24CY1 GOLF COURSE MAINT. BLOG. \GP~ ~ 1220 U 2 P ~200 996 5 P~ ,170 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 I0I7• I 7 1 7 I ( " 7 TRACT F - W CO 975 Z ~ 3 PARCEL D J W I p ~W py Ct ' _ 04 H 990 ~ Q W (N ~ W 5 970 ~ ~ ry~ ~ row,v oF Unrc''' STREET ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT AND CHAIVGE FORM Please provide [he information requested on the upper portion of this form and return to the Department of Community Development, 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657. PItOPLRTYOWNEI2NAME: -Town of-- niaWrenAncE J~qciLIT(_j MAILINGADD[ZGSS: I';C'ci V'A'1 i 9 PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE: `'1. DATE: 5 ~ I 3~ c Fl ~ ACTION RGQUESTED: CliC~nq~ t~teef rv>rvi~ ~ C'hrtn~e. r~~ Aclc~nxuo ~ Ass~~r~.~,eKf aP c~cfc9n~.~.~ (Assigcunent of AAdress, Change of Addiess, Change of Street Name) CURRENT ADDRESS: _130q l/a1Q' \)2LRe'j- QAI-cUz (Elouse Numbcr, S[rec[ Name, Lo1, Block, Subdivision) PROPOSGD ADDRLSS: Puijhc IxJUtcOCP I-Vdoli"i c'fF~Cl_ ~j09 LIf<liOrCn I~l~~ct~.. ~~J(~2-zrlrC~ P«g/L ~:.rl~~~ic~i~er_ }~e>u5p~ ~erv~p~e'r 13„t~f ~IIC.lib2n C~r(,<t.~{ *****FOR Ot%FIC'!AL USE ONLY***** \ RtiOUIRED APPROVALS J Q POLICE DEPARTMENT: Phone 479-2200 Fax 479-2216 FIREDEPARTMENT: Phone 479-2250 Fax 479-2176 PUBLIC WORKS: (JUA11- 51I? I9 S(' Phone 479-2158 Fax 479-2166 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMGNT: Z1GR Phone 479-2138 Fax 979-2452 EAGLE COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT: Phone 476-0855 Fax 926-5235 AGENCY NOTIFICATION The following agencies will be notified after this request has been approved: US West: (?'hone 970-299-4916 Fax 970-249-9349) U. S. Post Office: (Phone 976-5217 Fax 476-1065) lagle Rivcr Water and Sanitation Uistrict: (Phone 476-7480 Fax 976-4089) Holy Cross Electric (Phone 949-5892 Fax 949-4566) Public Service Company: (I'lione 262-4056 Fax 999-3289) Public Service High Pressure Gas: (Phone 468-2528 Fax 468-1401) TCI Cablevision: (Phone 949-5530 Fax 949-9138) Eagle County Assessoes Office (Phone 328-8640 Fax 328-7370) NOTG Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 15.02 requires the appropriate address be conspicuously posted on Qie premises. The house numbers sliall be in sharp contrast with the address plaque and shall be visible from the street. Multi-Family dwellings shall be assigned a single numeric address. Apartments, Suites, Duplex Units, and other similar divisions shall have an alpha, alpha-numeric, or directional designation such that will not conflict or create confusion with the primary address. ; 11 Y 1 .r•> . r??` ~ i PROCLAMATION NO. 6 SERIES OF 1998 ~ COLORADO RECYCLING MONTH JiTNE,1998 WHEREAS, recycling saves precious energy, conserves valuable natural resources, protects the environment, reduces landfill needs and has a positive economic ` impact, creating jobs, and paying citizens for their recycling efforts; and 'WHEREAS, the State of Colorado benefits greatly from having one of the most ~ successful and extensive voluntary recycling programs in the nation; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to encourage continued interest in recycling to ~ ` . assist in the enhancement of communities, and in recognition of the principles of buying . products made from recycled materials; and ~ WHEREAS, Colorado Recycles is a statewide, non-profit, educational organization promoting the growth of recycling in Colorado; and ~q ~WHEREAS, the impact of Colorado Recycles' and all recyclers will continue to r aid the state's economy and be beneficial to the environment; and ~...n ~ WHEREAS, the Town of Vail and its citizens support recycling. ~ NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT the Town of Vail and members of the Vail Town Council join with Colorado Recycles in recognizing "June v.. " ` - ~ ' Recycling Month". ~INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, ~ .s ` p. 1998. • , , , - +f~ Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem ATT'EST: ~ Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk , rx<:: t.e ~ • , . k:. ' - , a:. y - e ~ ~ . . - Y ~ ~ ~ • ' PROCLAMATION NO. 7 SERIES OF 1998 "National Public Works Week" May 17 - 23, 1998 , .,a ~ WHEREAS, Public Works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizen's everyday lives; and WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of Public Works/Transportation systems and programs such as streets and roads, ; ~ parks and landscaping, facility maintenance, fleet maintenance, transportation and parking; ; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of this community greatly depends on these - facilities and services; and ~ WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, and construction is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of Public Works officials; and ~ WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff Public • ` Works/Transportation departments is materially influenced by the people's attitude and understanding of the importance of the work they perform. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT EROCLAIMED THAT the Town of Vail and members of the ~ ~ Vail Town Council join with the Public Works/Transportation Department in recognizin , ~ the week of May 17 - 23, 1998 as "National Public Works Week". g I, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem, call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint ~ ~themselves with the issues involved in providing our Public Works and to recognize the -z contributions which Public Works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort, • >t• L,~.. and quality of life. > INTRODUCED, READ, AppROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 1998. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Attest: . . . . _ , . , . Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk ' „ t.. . A I! A • A . r ; Y~lj?` u ~y TOWN OF VAIL ~ Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 . . . . . . 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: ' Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager ~ DATE: May 13, 1998 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report Construction Update We have initiated construction on several of the projects approved previously by the Town Council. The following is a brief update on each of these projects: Seibert Circle. The Upper Eagle Valley portion of this project has commenced. This includes installation of an upgraded water line and water service to the upper Bridge Street area. This work should be complete late this week or early next week which will allow the streetscape portion and storm sewer portions of this project to proceed. Transportation Snowmelt Project. Yampah Construction has mobilized and is beginning the demolition work for the snowmelt project. We have barricaded offportions of the steps, however access to Slifer Plaza remains open. Slifer Plaza Project. We are continuing to negotiate with Shaw Construction to bring this project in under the approved budget amount ($540,000). At this point it appears we will be able to do this by value engineering several pieces of this project out (fountain improvements, etc.). I anticipate that we will finalize these negotiations early next week and will initiate construction the third week in May. Main Vail Roundabout Flag Project. The construction stakes you see at the main Vail Roundabout indicate locations for flagpoles which will be installed as part of our preparations for the World Championships. Each of these poles will carry a flag from a nation attending the Championships. This project is being funded by the Vail Valley Foundation. tow01 RECYCLED PAPER r Budget Schedule Attached to this memorandum is a schedule for preparing, completing and adopting the fiscal years 1999 and 2000 budget. As you are aware, this will be our second biennial budget and the procedures will be similar to last time. Please review this schedule and let me know if you wish to make changes or additions. Steve Thompson and I will be prepared to discuss this with you at the work session on Tuesday. Fire Department Trai" On June 3, 4 and 5, the Vail Firefighters will be training at the South Metro Fire Training Academy. This academy provides real life simulations of fire conditions and enables firefighters to experience firsthand what happens in a fire. The Fire Department wants to extend an invitation to the Council to attend some of this training. This would provide you an opportunity to witness what a firefighter goes through during a working fire. If you are interested in attending please contact Chief Duran directly at 479-2252 and he will arrange transportation to and from the academy. CML Conference The Annual Colorado Municipal League conference is being held June 23 - 27, 1998 in Breckenridge. The CML staff has put together an excellent program which you should have received. I would encourage each of you to attend some or all of this session, given the close proximity to Vail. It will provide you an opportunity for additional training as well as the opportunity to interact with your fellow elected officials from around the state. Town Manager Vacation It appears that I will be taking a vacation the 3rd week in June. I will depart Wednesday, June 17th and return Sunday, June 28th. This schedule allows me to be in town for the remaining Lionshead meetings, the Common Ground meetings, and also works with the budge schedule. I will be available by phone and be checking e-mail and voice mail on a daily basis. Anne Wright will know how to reach me during this period if you need to contact me. Public Works Open House Next week (May 17-23) is National Public Works Week. In celebration of this event the Public Works staff will be hosting an open house on Wednesday, May 20th from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. In addition to tours of the Public Works facility, there will be tours of the new Buzzard Park employee housing project. TOV Radio System The Town of Vail radio system utilizes a UHF frequency and is approximately 10 years old. As part of our preparations for the World Championships, we have exploring the possibility of upgrading our radio system to an 800 mhz system. This new technology has replaced existing technologies (UHF/VHF) and would give us compatibility with other public safety agencies in the county. I will keep you advised on our discussions regarding this issue. RWM/aw 1999-2000 Biennial Budget Calendar Share Calendar with the Town Council May 19 • Discuss with Town Council Parking Rates & Options June 2 Department Goals, Issues and Performance Measures Due to Town Manager June 15 Complete Revenue Forecast July 3 Review Issues, Community Survey, Measures, and Revenue Forecast with . the Town Council ( Half a day) July 14 Finish Salary Spreadsheets and Departments Review July 31 Determine Spending Limits August 13 Train Departments to Input Budgets July 15-31 Budget Packets to Departments August 13 Complete Department Budgets October 2 Departmental Meetings with Town Manager and Finance Director October 5-16 Town Manager Budget is Complete and Delivered to the Town Council October 30 Budget Workshops with Town Council November 3,10,17 Public Hearing/First Reading November 17 Second Reading/Budget Adoption December 1 BUDCAL99.XLS Page 1 5/13/98 ~C ~C~G;t~wQ 5 • ( G • ~ ~ ~,~ru.~r 1 Presentation to the Vait Town Council May 19, 1998 For the past few months, a group of concerned Vail citizens has met to discuss the housing issue, especially as it relates to open space issues. We are not a lobby group with an agenda. We don't even agree with each other on all the issues related to housing and open space. Some of us started out in Vail Tomorrow, others are not comfortable with the Vail Tomorrow process. Most importantly, we are not "against affordable housing," per se. We fully realize that a shortage of affordable housing is one aspect of the complex challenges that our fast-evolving town faces. Housing is one element, not the entire problem. For this very reason, we do not automatically assume that just building affordable housing will necessarily solve the problems that challenge us. Especially if it is done at a cost to the environment and the taxpayer, we feel the ultimate result of an aggressive housing construction campaign could be more harmful than helpful, to all our interests, in the long run. Our hope is to encourage the Vail Town Council and staff to pursue solutions to housing needs that will preserve our local environment and, ultimately, our community. Since open space and the environment have repeatedly been cited as top priorities of Vail's residents and visitors, we feel the preservation of a healthy social and economic community here depends on (1) the continued protection of RETT funds and lands for open space purposes; and (2) the protection from development of other lands acquired with tax dollars for open space. We know that each of you on the council cares about how the voters feel. You have gone to great lengths and great expense to gather public input and build consensus through the community survey, Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground. We are concerned that although these processes may have given you some feedback from interested participants from in and outside of Vail, this should not be confused with a mandate from your constituency. The community survey included major givens. It was sent to Vail mailing addresses, many of which are held by nonresidents. Some residents may hold several Vail addresses: a business, a street and one or more post office boxes. The Vail Tomonow process included many nonresidents, and was not attended by the vast majority of Vail citizens. Common Crround is taking place when many citizens are or have been, out of town, and when many local workers are in transition. Because you have indicated a commitment to act aggressively, we urge you to confirm that you are on the right track by bringing any major policy change to a vote, especially: 1) any change in the use of existing or future RETT funds and 2) any change in the use of lands originally acquired to be preserved as open space, whether through the use of RETT funds or other tax dollars. If you have, indeed, built a consensus regarding the role of government in housing and open space in our town, it will stand the test of a vote, and you will be able to move forward confidently in a true sense. We believe we share the same concerns and goals as you do, and our sincere intention is to give helpful input by sharing some of the ideas that came up in our brainstorming sessions. All of us do not necessarily endorse all these ideas. Many of these thoughts need further development. We do not present them as answers, but feel they may stimulate productive discussion and broaden the range of solutions being considered. Sincerely, Ginny Culp, Diana Donovan, Susan Pollack, Maro Lorimer, Randy Vosbeck h - ~ A. Reasons why open space and environment must remain a priority, and therefore why RETT funds are needed for this. 1. For years, open space has been given as a top priority of residents in the town surveys. 2. Early in the Vail Tomorrow process, the community identified open space as its number one priority. 3. To compromise the RETT program would constitute a breaking of the public trust. If council thinks it "knows better" now, we must assume the council 20 years from now will "know even better," and that's a good reason not to move too quickly to commit any strong, irreversible acts now (such as developing open space parcels). 4. The need for employees fluctuates with the market (as is witnessed even recently by mid- - winter layoffs at Vail Associates), while the value of open lands will only increase with time, becoming more and more an asset to our community, as other places are overbuilt. 5. The largest single concern among second homeowners in meetings with Vail Tomorrow representatives across the U. S. was the natural and built environment, with the emphasis on natural. So, despite the town's commendable progress in addressing open space concerns it continues to be a serious priority for Vail residents and visitors. 6. Housing is only one of a range of factors that might contribute to the difficulty Vail employers are having attracting a sufficient number of employees. Other possible explanations for the shortage of workers in Vail include: • Perceived inaccessibility of the core areas. It's a lot easier for a busy employee, who is juggling a family and other priorities, to park in front of a downvalley establishment than to hassle with the possibility of full parking structures, charges for parking, or bus rides and walking that take a considerable amount of time out of a busy schedule, unless one is already quite close in. • Downvallev offers more conveniences for families than Vail. This does not mean Vail should bring in Walmart and auto repair companies, unless Vail wants to become like every other suburbia in the country, and give, up being a unique resort. • There is a great variet y of jobs downvalley. It's bigger than Vail. This does not mean Vail should become bigger. • A lot of locals moved downvalle, f~g,er lots and more undeveloped spaces within neighborhoods, such as exist in Eagle-Vail and Singletree. • Flatter terrain downvalle,y is more familv friendlX than Vail's hillside neighborhoods. • The allure of living in the "banana belt." ~ Downvalley offers more at~ hering places for youn , sin l~ e employees. It is a very expensive gamble to sacrifice public lands and increase congestion based on the assumption that the employee shortage will be remedied by building housing. What if it isn't? 7. Open space is often less expensive for local governments than suburban-style development. A Boulder study showed the average annual public cost of maintaining public open space lands, including debt service and administrative costs, is $328 per acre. The average annual public cost of maintaining developed and developable land is $2,534 per acre. Residential land requires $1.11 to 1.23 in services for every dollar it contributes in revenue, while open land required only $.17 to $.74 for each one dollar contribution. 8. Communities with well-thought-out land protection programs may improve their bond ratings. Bond ratings are beginning to reflect the fact that unlimited or mismanaged growth can threaten a community's fiscal health, while land conservation and sound planning can help : ~ sustain it. The cost of maintaining and servicing growth undermines a municipality's economic health. 9. Open space increases the value of nearby or adjacent property. Property value decreases by $4.20 for every foot of distance from the public open space in Boulder. 10. Outdoor recreation and tourism are big business for the Vail Valley and serve residents and guests who consider access to parks, waterways, trails and mountain scenes important elements of the quality of life that drew them to this area. 11. As Vail's visitors and residents age, it will become more important to provide close-in opportunites to enjoy the beauty of our mountain environment. Gentle paths for walking and snowshoeing will be increasingly popular. A simple sense of beauty, space and Nature within the town limits will be of growing value. These trends have been taken into account in the development of the newer ski terrain and communities, such as those at Bachelor Gulch, where guests are expected to be much less interested in hard skiing than they were in the earlier days of Vail. Unless Vail wants to put a11 its eggs into the basket of skier numbers, it must cater to nonskiers by giving them a quality mountain experience within town. 12. Protecting and preserving property on behalf of the entire public is a much simpler and more appropriate function of government than entering into extremely complicated business dealings that target specific groups as beneficiaries. 13. The limited open space in the Town of Vail can not be replaced. 14. Open space and parks are essential elements of every neighborhood and promote "community." + B. Some of the specific uses for which RETT funds and open lands are still needed: 1. Acquire additional open space parcels 2. Maintain existing parks and open spaces 3. Expand Buffehr Creek Park 4. Improve Ford Park 5. Dedicate Potato Patch open space 6. Preserve West Vail park/open space 7. Preserve Matterhorn park/open space . 8. Donovan Park: create park on lower bench 9. Preserve land south of library 10. Close-in nordic and snowshoe trails. (Accommodates aging visitors and locads with , extremely popular pursuits. Use of existing trails is up dramatically, to point of over use) 11. Year-round hiking trails: • Inter-neighborhood walking trails (improved sense of community and interaction) • Unpaved foot path needed at beaver pond area • Continuation of Vail Trail • Extension of South Trail and North Trail (study wildlife habitat issues) • Expand natural stream walk • Many more close-in easy trails for aging visitors and locals 12. Wildflower meadows. 13. Native perennial gardens in town. 14. More trees 15. I-70 conidor native vegetation plantings 16. Stocked fishing pond for kids 17. Help with restoration of Nature Center's native vegetation 18. Restoration of Gore Creek 19. Pooch parks (With the greatly increased use of our favorite hiking trails by locals and visitors, we need to provide numerous natural ftelds, with simple foot paths, as acceptable places in which to walk dogs. Popular trails are already becoming fouled.) . 20. Environmentally friendly river access points for kayakers and fishermen. 21. Breathing room, elbow room...space for our sanity. 22. View corridors to the mountains from within our neighborhoods. 23. Picnic tables/areas. 24. General need for additional bike paths and trails, improvement of existing, and widening of road shoulders. (Heavy multipurpose use of existing bike paths is dangerous.) 25. Additional game fields: softball, soccer, rugby, lacrosse, summer camps. 26. Bathrooms in larger parks. 27. Outdoor ice rink (Dobson Arena is not adequate. Women's hockey team needs ice time. Outdoor skating adds activities and ambiance to Vail as a winter resort.) 28. Permanent skateboard park (Excellent amenity for youth.) 29. Informal neighborhood parks. 30. Signs to identify points of interest and vegetation along some paths. C. Raw ideas to stimulate a more creative approach to housing shortage and funding concerns (to minimize new affodable housing construction and save RETT funds and other tax revenues). 1. Enforce rental of existing caretaker units and Employee Housing Units (EHUs). 2. Require caretaker units in all homes over 3,500 sq ft. 3. Businesses can float loan of home for employee, until enough equity is built for employee to get their own loan. 4. Reevaluate short-term versus long-term, rental policies and enforcement. 5. Take advantage of delinquent tax resales, buy properties for resale with deed restrictions. Town could do this, but better yet, private business owners with employee needs. 6. Establish private real estate investment trust to fund affordable housing. -7. Encourage old and require new condo complexes to have on-site manager unit. 8. Mix for sale and for rent units. 9. Inclusionary zoning. 10. Mix seasonal housing with summer camp use. (As CMC at Leadville offers units to Elderhostel in summer.) 11. Impact fees to businesses. 12. Down payment programs in which an outside party provides the funds for downpayments on mortgages. (Currently being worked on by board of realtors. Interest on escrow accounts could contribute $30,000 to $40,000 for this per year.) 13. Low interest buy down. (An employer or trust fund pays a certain amount per quarter point of reduction and buys the loan down.) 14. Business Improvement District to generate funds for housing. 15. Increased business license fee, graduated according to number of employees needed by each business. 16. Tax credit for businesses who hire employees living in Vail. 17. Incentivise existing residential property owners to increase the number of employee rentals in Vail. 18. Expand lift tax to generate income from all lift rides. 19. "Homestead Act" concept to preclude local housing conversion to short term. 20. Establish private board to put housing deals together for private purchase. 21. Formalize employee generation -requirements. 22. Purchase existing units to deed restrict and resell. 23. Facilitate financing for those who voluntarily deed restrict properties. 24. Move or recycle "tear downs" to Habitat for Humanity, for example. 25. Convert common areas to deed-restricted units. 26. Issue Private Activity Bonds. 27. Low-income Housing Credits (Eagle County). 28. Reimburseable Housing Allowance (Holy Cross Electric Association). 29. No RETT on deed-restricted square footage. 30. Educate and inform interested private parties on available programs and ideas. i